Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How did the Universe come in to existence? Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeyTr)
    What's a spirit? You mean consciousness in neuroscience? Computers will soon be conscious and they're pure mathematical logic. Mathematical logic dictates all things, including life. Life arises from the steady operation of evolution through the four fundamental forces of physics, nothing mystic or spiritual involved. Hence your word "spirit" and mathematical logic are actually one and the same.
    Spirit or soul is not the same thing as consciousness, and no one believes it is. And no, computers will never be conscious in the way humans are. There's a difference between a machine giving the impression of understanding, and it having genuine understanding.

    Look at this analogy formed by John Searle. Imagine if you were locked in a room and did not speak Chinese, and through the letterbox of the room were posted various Chinese characters printed on bits of paper. On the floor of the room is a book, and a pile of lots of other bits of paper with Chinese characters on them. You have to match the Chinese character which came through the letterbox with a Chinese character in the book. The book will then indicate another, different Chinese character from the pile which it is paired with. You have to take this character from the pile of bits of paper and push it back out of the letterbox. From outside the rooms it appears you are accurately answering Chinese questions in Chinese. Even though you don't understand Chinese it appears from outside the room as if you do and that you are giving intelligent answers. Yet you have no understanding of Chinese; you are simply manipulating meaningless symbols. This is the level of understanding of a computer.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    So now you're saying scientists know more about history than historians... RIGHT.
    No, I am saying that in history speaking of "truths" is pretty naive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Demonstrably, not all atheists agree:

    "Am I the only one gets extremely worried about death when I think about it? It's probably the most scary concept out there. The thought of losing all your knowledge, relationships, memories and conscience was enough to give me a heart palpitation. Kinda makes me wish I could believe in religion, just for the comfort aspect." - GradeA*UnderA

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4299834
    So you admit religion is nothing but a dummy? For comfort, and people believe because it makes them feel safe, secure.

    Yea, I would agree.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I dont get how something can come from nothing, so God created the universe, and eternal God outside of time and space.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So you admit religion is nothing but a dummy? For comfort, and people believe because it makes them feel safe, secure.

    Yea, I would agree.
    I admit nothing, but I acknowledge that religion has many beneficial effects. Simple as.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Spirit or soul is not the same thing as consciousness, and no one believes it is. And no, computers will never be conscious in the way humans are. There's a difference between a machine giving the impression of understanding, and it having genuine understanding.

    Look at this analogy formed by John Searle. Imagine if you were locked in a room and did not speak Chinese, and through the letterbox of the room were posted various Chinese characters printed on bits of paper. On the floor of the room is a book, and a pile of lots of other bits of paper with Chinese characters on them. You have to match the Chinese character which came through the letterbox with a Chinese character in the book. The book will then indicate another, different Chinese character from the pile which it is paired with. You have to take this character from the pile of bits of paper and push it back out of the leterbox. From outside the rooms it appears you are accurately answering Chinese questions in Chinese. Even though you don't understand Chinese it appears from outside the room as if you do and that you are giving intelligent answers. Yet you have no understanding of Chinese; you are simply manipulating meaningless symbols. This is the level of understanding of a computer.
    You are correct, right now. But the word "never" is the most dangerous word you can use in a debate or an argument. Mechanical minds are evolving exponentially faster than biological brains. What will the response be when a computer can map and simulate every neuron of a brain in 60-100 years, and be literally a brain and conscious? I am not a computer scientist or a neuroscientist (fun fact I'm a mechanical engineer student), but I know enough of both to say with my absolute confidence that computers will be, at the very least, as conscious as us in the future. I have yet to come across a computer scientist or neuroscientists who thinks otherwise.

    Also, ones and zeros on a processor are no different to neurone cells remaining static and firing. Our consciousness is just as much an illusion as you see computers having it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RomeoSantos)
    Nah there's quite a lot of scientifical evidence. Google it if you want. More evidence for evolution than there is of there being a God anyway. But I respect your opinion, we're all just going to die and be food for the worms any way.
    Just one example, look at the bombardier beetle, if you believe in the process of evolution, over millions of years to achieve the development required for each stage how could this insect have come about?

    "But I respect your opinion, we're all just going to die and be food for the worms any way"

    Actually there is truth in that anyway because our bodies if buried (and not cremated) will rot and become food for worms or whatever is crawling around. Very true. But we are not just skin and bone we have a soul, spirit.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Just one example, look at the bombardier beetle, if you believe in the process of evolution, over millions of years to achieve the development required for each stage how could this insect have come about?
    Well, despite what your YEC friends might say, without the need for a deity. To quote Wikipedia:

    biologists have shown that the system could have theoretically evolved from defenses found in other beetles in incremental steps by natural selection. Specifically, quinone chemicals are a precursor to sclerotin, a brownish substance produced by beetles and other insects to harden their exoskeleton. Some beetles additionally store excess foul-smelling quinones, including hydroquinone, in small sacs below their skin as a natural deterrent against predators—all carabid beetles have this sort of arrangement.

    Some beetles additionally mix hydrogen peroxide, a common by-product of the metabolism of cells, in with the hydroquinone; some of the catalases that exist in most cells make the process more efficient. The chemical reaction produces heat and pressure, and some beetles exploit the latter to push out the chemicals onto the skin; this is the case in the beetle Metrius contractus, which produces a foamy discharge when attacked.

    In the bombardier beetle, the muscles that prevent leakage from the reservoir additionally developed a valve permitting more controlled discharge of the poison and an elongated abdomen to permit better control over the direction of discharge
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I admit nothing, but I acknowledge that religion has many beneficial effects. Simple as.
    Perhaps it does. It also has many, many drawbacks. That far outweigh the positives. Positives that could be achieved otherwise.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeyTr)
    You are correct, right now. But the word "never" is the most dangerous word you can use in a debate or an argument. Mechanical minds are evolving exponentially faster than biological brains. What will the response be when a computer can map and simulate every neuron of a brain in 60-100 years, and be literally a brain and conscious? I am not a computer scientist or a neuroscientist (fun fact I'm a mechanical engineer student), but I know enough of both to say with my absolute confidence that computers will be, at the very least, as conscious as us in the future. I have yet to come across a computer scientist or neuroscientists who thinks otherwise.

    Also, ones and zeros on a processor are no different to neurone cells remaining static and firing. Our consciousness is just as much an illusion as you see computers having it.
    Simulating something is not the same as actually being something.A computer could simulate photosynthesis perfectly but unless it has chlorophyll then it wont be able to do it.Its possible that conciousness is purely a property of brains like ours.Maybe you have to have carbon atoms and the complex biochemistry that comes with that and neurons.Maybe it simply wont work with silicon.I dont think we'll be able to make computers that are concious for this reason.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingYusHalo)
    "Evolution is scientifically proven"
    -In the same way in the the atom was proven as indivisible before 20th century. Now we know that an atom can be divided

    -In the same way it was proven in 16th century that Newtons Laws of Motion could be applied to the whole Universe. Einstein came along and proved that these laws are only applicable to this world.

    -In the same way, currently evolution is proven, however, after some time, it will be proven that we didn't come from chimps.

    A noted and unbiased scientist will never accept anything as the final truth.
    We didn't come from chimps. And evolution is a proved fact, in the same way the atom is a proved fact. But the explanations of these facts and the detail of our knowledge about them may change. And Newtons laws of motion still apply in most cases. They were not wrong. I don't think you understand how science works.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I just don't see how God is relevant here when discussing oxygen levels on Earth being 'favourable' when it is clear species adapt to conditions.

    But there is. You and the OP seem to be trying to go down the route of arguing that conditions are favourable to humans, therefore God. We have adapted to the conditions. Hence my taking thermophilic microbes to belabor this point of adaptation being the explanation of 'favourability'. So I don't see why the 'favourable' oxygen levels of Earth are being used to argue for Gods existence.
    OP may have been using this line of argument. Just because I am on the other side of the fence to you, it does not necessarily mean that I am making the same assertions with the same reasoning. It is taking far too long to repeat simple stances in this discussion.

    1. OP makes the assertion that the earth's habitable environment cannot be merely a coincidence, ergo God must exist as the Creator of all of this.
    2. You respond pretty much by saying that conditions are not made favourable to us, rather we exist in conditions favorable to us because this allows for us to survive and develop (if you don't know what I'm on about here, simply refer to the fundamental principles of the evolutionary theory).

    3. I respond. saying that your stance is not necessarily mutually exclusive to OP's. The two can indeed occur simultaneously - both 'survival of the fittest' and 'God made the earth habitable'.

    Well, maybe it would help to be less vague. What you wrote sounded as if you were talking about some wishy-washy new-age spirituality.
    ...and with that, I have no reluctance in expressing my boredom with this discussion. I'm sure you will also have other things to be getting on with in life. Good day.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    OP may have been using this line of argument. Just because I am on the other side of the fence to you, it does not necessarily mean that I am making the same assertions with the same reasoning. It is taking far too long to repeat simple stances in this discussion.

    1. OP makes the assertion that the earth's habitable environment cannot be merely a coincidence, ergo God must exist as the Creator of all of this.
    2. You respond pretty much by saying that conditions are not made favourable to us, rather we exist in conditions favorable to us because this allows for us to survive and develop (if you don't know what I'm on about here, simply refer to the fundamental principles of the evolutionary theory).

    3. I respond. saying that your stance is not necessarily mutually exclusive to OP's. The two can indeed occur simultaneously - both 'survival of the fittest' and 'God made the earth habitable'.



    ...and with that, I have no reluctance in expressing my boredom with this discussion. I'm sure you will also have other things to be getting on with in life. Good day.
    Yes the two are not mutually exclusive. However, so what? The "God" argument can be used in almost any scenario and will always work, because "God".
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 12, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.