Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution or .... what?

Yeah, those little creatures with the big eyes and the friendly faces :). It's almost as if they trigger some sort of social nurturing neurochemistry. But no, sorry. I must be thinking about something else. Yeah, oxytocin and endorphins are just a myth. Love feels the way it does becuase of some unexplainable thing, not addictive chemicals your body produces. Silly me! The golden ratio is a daft piece of numerology with no real application in, for instance, choosing models or making beautiful works of art, and beauty certainly can't be reduced to a blend of good genes and mathematics.

Sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense ;)
 
I agree with the atheist that both the chicken and the egg evolved from naturally selected mud. Yes... naturally, God selected the mud.

Evolution without a soul is a great way of inventing ways to destroy. The heart of it is a pseudo-random event and destruction of the weakest... or as one prefers to say, survival of the fittest. So someone has to drink the radioactive coolaid to give evolution a fighting chance. Any volunteers?
 
Seriously,

Why do we have to know all the mysteries? Why can't we leave some things as mysteries? That leaves a little magic in life.

And why isn't "because I said so" good enough?
 
Yeah, those little creatures with the big eyes and the friendly faces :). It's almost as if they trigger some sort of social nurturing neurochemistry. But no, sorry. I must be thinking about something else. Yeah, oxytocin and endorphins are just a myth. Love feels the way it does becuase of some unexplainable thing, not addictive chemicals your body produces. Silly me! The golden ratio is a daft piece of numerology with no real application in, for instance, choosing models or making beautiful works of art, and beauty certainly can't be reduced to a blend of good genes and mathematics.

Sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense ;)
Well, any woman who has gone through labor and childbirth can tell you all about oxytocin. It has a depression-inducing side effect. (Post partum depression is a very real thing. Your body produces massive amounts of oxytocin during labor, childbirth, and post-partum.) That's why I referred to this as lust, not love. Producing oxytocin through sex is not love. The depressive rebound highlights the fact that lust and sex without love is empty. (Sometimes referred to as idolatry.) You are confusing an empty container with the spirit it should express. JMHO.
 
Kindest Regards, Blizz!

Sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense ;)
And I am sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities with my nonsense.

Yeah, oxytocin and endorphins are just a myth. Love feels the way it does becuase of some unexplainable thing, not addictive chemicals your body produces. Silly me!
I am operating under the presumption that my contribution is somehow…ummm, considered daft. That what I said about Seratonin, etc. as being "markers" was taken to mean that neurochemicals somehow do not exist, or something. It is obvious that a broader view is not to be considered (as though somehow I am closed minded?). And more, that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to serve as "hard, evidenciary proof." Seratonin and other neurochemicals exist, therefore love exists. Correct?

If I may return to your earlier comments:
no, you don't believe everything on faith. Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith, but looking with your own eyes, making notes and forming ideas around the evidence by joining the dots. Sure there's gaps, but that's only because science is learning, and if there weren't any gaps we'd have nothing to learn and science wouldn't exist. You fill them with further evidence, not unprovable-either-way ideas, or you just leave them as gaps.
OK, so…since seratonin (and other neurochemicals) are hard evidence that love, beauty, and other abstract notions exist, I would like to posit another abstract for consideration; G-d exists. Whether termed G-d, supernatural, paranormal, transcendental or simply religious experience; there are definitely registered and marked neurochemicals and receptors at play. Love exists because seratonin exists…therefore G-d exists because seratonin exists. See:

"This study demonstrated that a dozen different regions of the brain are activated during a mystical experience." - Université de Montréal - Press releases - Brain scan of nuns finds no single “god spot” in the brain, Université de Montréal study

"Professor John Bradshaw, an Australian neuropsychologist from Monash University, says the brain's medial temporal lobe is rich in *seratonin* receptors and has previously been described as the 'G-d spot' because it is active in transcendental states." -
Health & Medical News - Magic mushrooms hit the God spot - 12/07/2006

Please note, seratonin *specifically* implicated in "trancendental states."

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.

"There is the quandary of whether the mind created G-d or G-d created the mind." -
New Page 2

"In their research, Beauregard and Paquette weren't trying to prove or disprove G-d's existence." -
Brain's 'God Spot' Hard to Pin Down

"Whether G-d exists or not is something that neuroscience cannot answer." -
BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - God on the Brain

"Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin,…et al" Hmmm, I've heard of love and beauty, and I've heard of seratonin (the chocolate drug) and endorphins (pain killers), and even a few more (like the opioids in the evolutionarily incorrect grain diet). I simply do not see the *absolute* direct cause and effect. Like I said before, after feeding more than a dozen nurses chocolate for over 5 years, one of them should love me *if* love were a simple chemical process. Don't get me wrong, they care for me, in a brotherly sort of way, and this has been made known to me on more than one occasion. But the implication that "love is a chemical process" is a bit too simplistic to account for the total reality. The error, in my humble opinion, lies in the extreme reduction(ism) of the whole abstract concept. Looking at the finger, not at the moon to which it is pointed. Same for beauty, and same for G-d.

So, in conclusion, I want to be certain I am seeing things correctly. Love and beauty exist because seratonin and other neurochemicals exist. Yet, whether G-d exists or not is something that neuroscience cannot answer…even though G-d evokes the exact same neurochemicals (within even more areas of the brain!) being held out as "proof" of love and beauty. Hmmm…sounds to me like a bit of a double standard. Either that, or somebody has selectively interpreted the "facts" in complete disregard for: "Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith."

Of course, I'm just a narrow minded fool who happens to believe G-d exists *by preponderance* of circumstantial evidence, not selective interpretation or double standard. What's good for the goose, and all that jazz! :D
 
Seriously,

Why do we have to know all the mysteries? Why can't we leave some things as mysteries? That leaves a little magic in life.

And why isn't "because I said so" good enough?

"Because I said so" doesn't even work on kids! But I agree that not everything can or should be quantified, so how about "I don't know" and just leave it at that?

Chris
 
"Because I said so" doesn't even work on kids! But I agree that not everything can or should be quantified, so how about "I don't know" and just leave it at that?

Chris

You're certainly right about that!

And I like "I don't know" as well.

I'm comfortable taking things I don't know on faith and leaving it at that. But I admit that it may seem to some a lazy or uninformed way of looking at things.
 
Kindest Regards!

Truth be told, I'm content with "I don't know" as well. Sometimes that is simply not an adequate answer.
 
I'd like to post a follow on for Blizz, to maybe clarify what I tried to say. There is a logical fallacy, I forget the name, that says "the sun doesn't rise because the rooster crows." It is easy to suggest that because the rooster crows at dawn, that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise. Yet, we know well, the sun will continue to rise long after there are no more roosters to greet it. There is an association between love / G-d and seratonin...this we have both pointed to. You suggest seratonin is the cause of love / (to which I add G-d). I suggest that seratonin is not the cause, and my logic is based on this logical fallacy (of roosters causing the sun to rise) in combination with evidence from at least three studies I provided links to. Is there an association between seratonin and love / G-d? Likely, just as there is between roosters and the sun. I simply do not see direct cause and effect.

In short, no, I cannot prove love by association with seratonin. If I could, I could prove G-d by that same association. And atheism will have none of that...will it?
 
I'd like to post a follow on for Blizz, to maybe clarify what I tried to say. There is a logical fallacy, I forget the name, that says "the sun doesn't rise because the rooster crows." It is easy to suggest that because the rooster crows at dawn, that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Post hoc ergo proter hoc. After this therfore because this.
 
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]The oneness of everything in pure consciousness manifest itself into many in matter and then returns back again to the unity of pure consciousness to complete the cycle of evolution.
[/FONT]

That is a teaching of Hinduism, and that to me is the most reasonable and logical explanation.

Sorry everyone for disappearing from the discussion. I subscribed to it, but was notified of only two posts and thought the discussion was still-born.

Here is a poem I wrote on that theme, about 40 years ago. I use the word "God" in the sense of an intelligence innate in the universe.



LIKE, WOW !

The unformed essence filled the universe
And this was God, the absolute
The essence stirred
And little eddies formed
And shaped in patterns mathematical
And their vibration was very, very high

And the patterns became more complicated
And joined together
Forming objects with a purpose
And as they became more complex
The particles vibrated slower
And their form was no more recognized
As the pure primordial essence
From which they came

And on the process went
Until there formed a man
And in the man were particles
Of every vibration
From the highest to the lowest

And man started to become conscious
But at first he was conscious
Only of that part of him
That vibrated slowest

And this was his carnal nature
And its vibration was the same
As the earth in which he lived

And he was unaware
That he had come
From the pure primordial essence
But it was still a part of him
And in its different vibrations
It made up all of him

And man experimented with his carnal self
And learnt to understand it a little
And then he became aware
That there was more to him
Than food and lust
He had a mind

And he played with his mind
And got very confused
Because he only knew a part of it

And this part thought independently
Of the higher parts
And thought it knew everything
But it didn’t

Man’s destiny lies far ahead
In timeless aeons
He must become aware of all of him
Little by little
And when he knows it all
He will know that he is God
And God will know himself

For God made man a mirror of himself
And His consciousness is man’s
And man’s is His

For there is no division in creation
All is one

But man in incomplete awareness
Thinks the little that he knows is right
And all the rest unreal

But all is real
And all is God
And God is all
And man is God
And God is man
And everything is moving on with meaning
And a goal
The goal is God’s awareness of Himself
Through man and all creation
The reason?
There is none that I can see
It just happened
And we are part of it
And we are stuck with it
And we must make the most of it
And one day we’ll be glad
We persevered
And got to know ourselves
For we are sons of God
And God is all
And we are all
And all is all
And all is life
And life is love
And man, what a gas !
 
Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.

I know about endorphins and serotonin. I have suffered anxiety/depression for many years and use medication to markedly reduce the symptoms. The antidepressant gives me a positive attitude.

Before I was put on the antidepressant about 6 years ago, I was a chocaholic. Now I very rarely eat chocolate. So much for chemical matters.

But the actual feeling of being in love is quite different altogether. I should know -- I have been in love a number of times during my life. No chemical -- created by the body or otherwise -- can come remotely close to the real thing.
 
Intrepid, You probably just haven't tried the right (or rather wrong) chemicals yet.

Of course all of this is a rather moot point. Just because your subjective experience is real yet unprovable does not mean that "intelligent design" is real. It's just kind of dumb to make that kind of assumption.

I don't know what it is called but I am sure there is a word in the logical and critical thinking lexicon for that kind of faulty argument.
 
Intrepid, You probably just haven't tried the right (or rather wrong) chemicals yet.
I think you are trying to be funny. Ha, ha, ha. :)

Of course all of this is a rather moot point. Just because your subjective experience is real yet unprovable does not mean that "intelligent design" is real. It's just kind of dumb to make that kind of assumption.

I think you must be on the wrong chemical as I have not made any such statement. :eek:

I don't know what it is called but I am sure there is a word in the logical and critical thinking lexicon for that kind of faulty argument.

I doubt that there is any word in any lexicon that describes your post. :D
 
I think you are trying to be funny. Ha, ha, ha. :)



I think you must be on the wrong chemical as I have not made any such statement. :eek:



I doubt that there is any word in any lexicon that describes your post. :D

Yawn.

When you're ready to have an intelligent conversation let me know.
 
Buz,

I think you might have accidentally reframed Intrepids argument from," my subjective experience tells me love is beyond mere chemical stimulation" to "My subjective experience tells me ID/creationism is real"
If this is the case you would have inadvertantly created a strawman fallacy


Peace
Mark
 
Thanks Paladin but I think that if you go back early enough in this thread you'll find that I got the jist of it right. Why else would they be discussing those matters in this thread?

Assuming I am correct what would you call Intrepids argument?
 
Back
Top