How can inanimate matter become self aware without a god force?
Let's presume that the big bang theory is correct and inanimate matter magically appeared one day from absolute nothingness.
This alone seems like a pretty bizarre claim, but, what's even more bizarre, is the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself into highly complex and self aware structures like human beings without a guiding principle.
Inanimate matter in the universe can be compared to grains of sand on the beach; If you do not believe in a higher intelligence, then you must also believe that the grains of sand on the beach have the ability to magically transform themselves into complex structures like human beings on their own accord.
I am not a religious person, but our current reductionist and mechanical understanding of the universe is completely false.
There is clearly something non material directing the material inside the universe; inanimate matter, without a guiding force, would act like grains of sand on the beach and do nothing.
Whatever this force is, some call it god, others call it the higher intelligence, must exist.
This alone seems like a pretty bizarre claim, but, what's even more bizarre, is the claim that inanimate matter can organise itself into highly complex and self aware structures like human beings without a guiding principle.
Inanimate matter in the universe can be compared to grains of sand on the beach; If you do not believe in a higher intelligence, then you must also believe that the grains of sand on the beach have the ability to magically transform themselves into complex structures like human beings on their own accord.
I am not a religious person, but our current reductionist and mechanical understanding of the universe is completely false.
There is clearly something non material directing the material inside the universe; inanimate matter, without a guiding force, would act like grains of sand on the beach and do nothing.
Whatever this force is, some call it god, others call it the higher intelligence, must exist.
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
"I don't understand it, so it must be mystical/supernatural."
Strong argument.
Strong argument.
Bad analogy is bad. Sand is not an organic compound, nor is there conditions on the beach whereby Abiogenesis can occur. Miller–Urey experiment, recent 'volcano experiment' (cant remember the name but in 2008), Bada's test showed that conditions in early earth were favorable for life to emerge from inorganic matter.
Original post by imtelling
Inanimate matter in the universe can be compared to grains of sand on the beach. If you do not believe in a higher intelligence, then you must also believe that the grains of sand on the beach have the ability to magically transform themselves into complex structures like human beings on their own accord.
This is not a discussion you should be prompting when you clearly haven't been acquainted with GCSE Chemistry and/or Biology.
Original post by PythianLegume
"I don't understand it, so it must be mystical/supernatural."
Strong argument.
Strong argument.
Instead if glib retorts. You could tell me how inanimate matter has the ability to organise itself into complex structures without a higher force guiding it?
Sorry OP, but the first poster is right. Your argument is very naive and simplistic.
1. You can't simply say that because we currently have no physical theory of consciousness, there never can be. Science has a long way to go, true, but the possibility of it explaining consciousness is still there. I for one suspect that consciousness is a highly unique and complex physical process. If not, it must at least arise from such processes because I can clearly affect your consciousness through physical means (e.g using some kind of sedative)
2. By positing a 'higher intelligence', are you not merely getting rid of one problem and replacing it with an even harder one? Where did this intelligence come from? Why would it create conscious beings? Your OP boils down to "a highly intelligent being with consciousness created consciousness". Doesn't seem very helpful.
3. As for non-physical 'forces', I'm willing to accept such an idea but only with very good reasoning and evidence. You have the incredibly difficult job of explaining how non-physical forces interact with our physical brain.
Read 'the Conscious Mind' by David Chalmers.
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. You can't simply say that because we currently have no physical theory of consciousness, there never can be. Science has a long way to go, true, but the possibility of it explaining consciousness is still there. I for one suspect that consciousness is a highly unique and complex physical process. If not, it must at least arise from such processes because I can clearly affect your consciousness through physical means (e.g using some kind of sedative)
2. By positing a 'higher intelligence', are you not merely getting rid of one problem and replacing it with an even harder one? Where did this intelligence come from? Why would it create conscious beings? Your OP boils down to "a highly intelligent being with consciousness created consciousness". Doesn't seem very helpful.
3. As for non-physical 'forces', I'm willing to accept such an idea but only with very good reasoning and evidence. You have the incredibly difficult job of explaining how non-physical forces interact with our physical brain.
Read 'the Conscious Mind' by David Chalmers.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by imtelling
Instead if glib retorts. You could tell me how inanimate matter has the ability to organise itself into complex structures without a higher force guiding it?
Well I don't understand it either, the science is complex. I was merely pointing out that your logic is clearly flawed.
Original post by swanderfeild
Bad analogy is bad. Sand is not an organic compound, nor is there conditions on the beach whereby Abiogenesis can occur. Miller–Urey experiment, recent 'volcano experiment' (cant remember the name but in 2008), Bada's test showed that conditions in early earth were favorable for life to emerge from inorganic matter.
The building blocks of organic matter are the same building blocks which make up rocks, stars and galaxies, Which, themselves, are also examples of highly complex structures.
Original post by imtelling
The building blocks of organic matter are the same building blocks which make up rocks, stars and galaxies, Which, themselves, are also examples of highly complex structures.
and you clearly don't understand how they interact with each other.
Original post by PythianLegume
Well I don't understand it either, the science is complex. I was merely pointing out that your logic is clearly flawed.
You don't understand it because no one understands it. Including science.
The belief that inanimate matter can magically transform itself into highly complex structures like planets, or human beings, without a guiding force is far more supernatural than the belief that it must have had a direction.
It's like saying that Lego bricks can magically transform themselves into a castle without anyone actually building the castle.
"Consciousness was created by a bigger consciousness."
...
Ok.
...
Ok.
Original post by Gwilym101
and you clearly don't understand how they interact with each other.
They don't interact with each other because, fundamentally, they are the same thing.
Did organic matter exist when the universe started 13 billion years ago? No. So why does it exist now? How did inorganic matter transform itself into organic matter all on its own, in fact, how did transform itself into anything? Organic or not.
Original post by imtelling
You don't understand it because no one understands it. Including science.
The belief that inanimate matter can magically transform itself into highly complex structures like planets, or human beings, without a guiding force is far more supernatural than the belief that it must have had a direction.
It's like saying that Lego bricks can magically transform themselves into a castle without anyone actually building the castle.
The belief that inanimate matter can magically transform itself into highly complex structures like planets, or human beings, without a guiding force is far more supernatural than the belief that it must have had a direction.
It's like saying that Lego bricks can magically transform themselves into a castle without anyone actually building the castle.
No-one fully understands it yet, but we're getting ever closer. No-one understood electricity 300 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's magical.
Original post by imtelling
Instead if glib retorts. You could tell me how inanimate matter has the ability to organise itself into complex structures without a higher force guiding it?
I reject the premise that positing a 'higher force' would solve this problem. What kind of mechanism are you proposing between this force and the physical world? And how can the veracity of this proposed mechanism be confirmed?
Original post by imtelling
They don't interact with each other because, fundamentally, they are the same thing.
Did organic matter exist when the universe started 13 billion years ago? No. So why does it exist now? How did inorganic matter transform itself into organic matter all on its own, in fact, how did transform itself into anything? Organic or not.
Did organic matter exist when the universe started 13 billion years ago? No. So why does it exist now? How did inorganic matter transform itself into organic matter all on its own, in fact, how did transform itself into anything? Organic or not.
Physical matter interacts with each other because electrostatic forces within the atomic structure allow atoms to combine via covalent, metallic and ionic bonding into molecules. The primary principle is that oppositely charged subatomic particles attract and that subatomic particles of the same charge repel each other. Everything else comes after.
Original post by imtelling
You don't understand it because no one understands it. Including science.
The belief that inanimate matter can magically transform itself into highly complex structures like planets, or human beings, without a guiding force is far more supernatural than the belief that it must have had a direction.
It's like saying that Lego bricks can magically transform themselves into a castle without anyone actually building the castle.
The belief that inanimate matter can magically transform itself into highly complex structures like planets, or human beings, without a guiding force is far more supernatural than the belief that it must have had a direction.
It's like saying that Lego bricks can magically transform themselves into a castle without anyone actually building the castle.
Well, I can answer the bit in bold for you- the guiding force for planet formation was Gravity...
As for humans, we're a product of evolution. The origin of the first self-replicating molecule is a bit more uncertain, but given the number of planets in the universe it could have been a highly improbable event and still be practically guaranteed to happen on at least one planet in the universe.
Original post by RayApparently
"Consciousness was created by a bigger consciousness."
...
Ok.
...
Ok.
Ah, yes. The 'our universe is the only thing in existence' fallacy.
We don't have to answer the question of existence. Just how our own universe got here ; it could be a school project for kids who, in the far future, decided to create a mini universe on their laptops ; Anything is more plausible than the idea that this universe came from nothing, and that the material within it magically and all by itself has the ability to transform itself into higher states of complexity.
This whole thread is a cluster****. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean God must have done it.
Honestly.
Honestly.
Original post by imtelling
Ah, yes. The 'our universe is the only thing in existence' fallacy.
We don't have to answer the question of existence. Just how our own universe got here ; it could be a school project for kids who, in the far future, decided to create a mini universe on their laptops ; Anything is more plausible than the idea that this universe came from nothing, and that the material within it magically and all by itself has the ability to transform itself into higher states of complexity.
We don't have to answer the question of existence. Just how our own universe got here ; it could be a school project for kids who, in the far future, decided to create a mini universe on their laptops ; Anything is more plausible than the idea that this universe came from nothing, and that the material within it magically and all by itself has the ability to transform itself into higher states of complexity.
I would posit that it is much less plausible that the universe was made by kids on a laptop.
The Universe is the only thing that exists because I'm using the word to mean everything that exists. There is no logical fallacy their. You've offered no solution to any problem because in the end all you've said is "Consciousness was created by a bigger consciousness". That doesn't explain where consciousness comes from - in fact it asserts that consciousness can come from 'nowhere'.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- GCSE English Lit Romeo and Juliet
- Macbeth???
- Postgraduate Grade Worries
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- my eng literature notes (grade 7/8) (gsce 2022)
- How to stay motivated for 2024 GSCE
- Looking for advice for being me
- Apprenticeship/Application help
- I hate being religious and it's making me depressed
- Police and psychology
- How do I believe my boyfriend’s compliments?
- How good is this 30 maker? illiad
- What degree do you have no respect for?
- Dog handler police qualifications
- Revising with horrific mental health
- how is macbeth presented as an ambitious character
- Of Mice And Men GCSE Essays
- I am a pagan sorceress. Ask me anything.
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- I am insecure about my nose - is a sin in Christianity to get a nosejob?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
