Are humans special

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
If an argument from

If an argument from incredulity means something did not happen, because someone cannot personally understand how it happened, then such an argument has not been made. I've always presented my arguments as obstacles needing explanation.

I agree that everything in nature comports to the laws of nature. But in previous threads I've argued that if nature encompasses all that exists, then God would by definition be part of nature. People use supernatural as a synonym for non-existent, so I've always disagreed with that terminology. So I agree with your statement, just know that my view of nature encompasses more than yours.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Then you would have to

Then you would have to demonstrate that your god exists and that should be scientifically provable if it is part of nature.

Furthermore, If god is part of nature, it is then subject to the laws of nature and therefore not above nor beyond them.
This would be further evidence of a naturalistic world view would you not agree?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Yes and no, demonstrating God

Yes and no, demonstrating God exists is important and essential for many things, just not for what I'm saying. For example, I don't have to demonstrate that an undiscovered species of mammal exists, to know that if it does it would be part of nature. That's all I'm saying.

Do you believe the supernatural exists? Because if not, then that's why I'm against that distinction. It's a rigged dichotomy.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Perhaps more accurate in sea

Perhaps more accurate in sea life, In fact I would happily concede that over 90% of the worlds oceans are unknown, so the number of undiscovered species is large and yet will still be a part of nature.

However, The undiscovered species would in that case though have a traceable lineage to another species, And they would also conform to nature.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Well, I wouldn't say they

Well, I wouldn't say they conform to nature, so much as nature would conform or extend to include them. I say that because we only know what nature entails as far as we've been able to observe it. So if a new species is discovered, it would add to our concept of nature, extending it's borders.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
There is no evidence to

There is no evidence to support that hypothesis in regards to deistic entity, furthermore it does not answer the question of natural lineage.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Im not sure I understand.

Im not sure I understand.

Sheldon's picture
"I agree that everything in

"I agree that everything in nature comports to the laws of nature. But in previous threads I've argued that if nature encompasses all that exists, then God would by definition be part of nature."

Begging the question fallacy.

"People use supernatural as a synonym for non-existent, "

That's easily remedied, demonstrate some objective evidence for something supernatural.

"just know that my view of nature encompasses more than yours."

Occam's razor applies, and again your view can encompass mermaids for all I care, but like the supernatural and your deity they remain fictitious until someone can demonstrate proper evidence.

LogicForTW's picture
@Breezy

@Breezy
I said:

"What do you think is most likely how the eye came to be? Evolution or intelligent design or something else like: intelligent ET's? (Please be descriptive of your something else.)"

You said:
"... yes, evolution is definitely the best scientific explanation."

.

Are you not capable of answering a basic question? Why did you need to add the word "scientific"? It feels like you are being very evasive with your answer. Are you afraid we are going to examine your answer and hold you accountable to a direct strait answer? (Which we will.)

Here is an example answer to the question I asked:
I think evolution is the most likely answer to how the eye came to be.

Another example:
I think rainbow farting unicorns all got together and had an orgy, magic happened, and that is how the eye came to be.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
My comment wasn't addressed

My comment wasn't addressed to you.

LogicForTW's picture
@Breezy

@Breezy

Perhaps an @(who you are talking to) in front of your post would help clear up confusion. Like what I did above.

Sure seems like your response was to something I wrote. Oh well guess my question will go unanswered.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
It's for aparez. He asked if

It's for aparez. He asked if I agreed with his quote.

Sheldon's picture
"Yes, evolutionists tend to

"Yes, evolutionists tend to justify the most improbable of changes, by throwing time and trials to the equation. "

They're not improbable,, they've actually happened.

"and no, I don't care what obstacles intelligent design faces, "

Quelle surprise, but it only faces one I can see, it has not one shred of evidence as it;s a complete fiction.

Randomhero1982's picture
Ok having taken on the

Ok having taken on the editorial, no I don't think humans are intelligently designed by any stretch of the imagination.

We have simply evolved more efficiently then other species.

Sheldon's picture
The first is axiomatic, I'm

The first is axiomatic, I'm not sure I agree with second, what do you mean by 'more efficiently'?

David Killens's picture
The human body has evolved

The human body has evolved into being the jack of all trades. There is little we do well, but little we can't do. We can fashion tools, climb the highest mountain, swim, slither, crawl, and run. What separates us from other animals is our brain. But other animals are capable of what humans can do, only limited. Some can fashion tools, anticipate and plan, posses a sense of fair play and empathy.

But much more than any animal we have our egos to blow everything out of proportion, believing we are the center of the universe, god's special snowflake.

Cognostic's picture
Calling humans special is

Calling humans special is like calling a "Royal Flush" special. The royal flush is special because we have assigned a special value to it. Shuffle a deck of cards, pull out five random cards, assign them as being special, and you will have the exact same statistical probability of redrawing those same five cards from a shuffled deck as you would of drawing a Royal Flush. (649,740 to 1).

The royal flush is only valuable because we call it valuable and give it a special order in a game. We are only special by virtue of the fact that we give ourselves special order in life. We think we are at the top of the food chain. A myth. Viruses, Cockroaches, Worms, Bacteria and a whole lot of other things, feed on us. Life always feeds on life. There is no escaping this fact. Nothing is on top of the chain. There is no top. This is why the Ouroboros signifies the cyclic Nature of the Universe.

DawkinsDesciple's picture
Humans are "special" if you

Humans are "special" if you mean we are unique.

We are unique in the development of the pre-frontal cortex with significantly more synaptic connections than our primate cousins. Also, if you factor for the fact that brain size vs. body mass is not a linear trend, the human brain is 7x larger than body mass would predict. This is a larger multiple than any other animal.

We are also "special" if you mean that we have the ability to question our existence and reflect on our internal model of the world. A significant number of animals could be said to simulate into the future like we do, but the question becomes whether this is purely an instinct or if they possess the ability to grasp the concepts they are using. I would fall on the side that they do not truly grasp the concepts.

We are "special" in that we have developed massive societies and technology that far surpasses what any other animal in history has done. We have developed languages that are able to address infinite conceptual situations.

In conclusion, I think it is pretty clear we are "special", but the better question would be - Does being special really have any significance other than to bolster our collective ego? We have the power to use our abilities to accomplish great things. We have been lucky enough to have fallen into an evolutionary niche in which intelligence was beneficial to survival. Let's focus on using this intelligence to do these things and not on comparing ourselves to animals who cannot.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Firstly, Thank you for the

Firstly, Thank you for the lovely response!

I would like to ask, would we find common ground in asserting that all species could be considered 'special' in regards to being unique?

The question I proposed in the original post was, taking into account all of the points I made regarding various species strengths, could we find any path that leads to an intelligent design, in the theistic sense?

I personally do not see anything other then evolution of species, nothing of a human suggests to me (just my opinion by the way) that there is anything 'special' about us (again, in the theistic sense).

I certainly do not accept that all species came about at the same time in our planets existence.

David Killens's picture
I had two dogs. One of them

I had two dogs. One of them would get jealous of the other playing with me, go to the toy box, select a squeaky, and make noise with it. The other on my lap would hear the squeaky, respond by going after it, thus allowing the jealous one to drop the squeaky and jump up on my lap.

Let us break this down. One felt emotions, and planned on that. The dog was able to plan for the future, and used what it knew of the other dog to it's advantage.

That is a pretty sophisticated though process, usually more than we allow to anything but a human. Then when you figure in that many animals such as wolves have a collective survival strategy, that other animals (ants, termites) have immense social communities, then out human boasting gets put in it's place.

Sheldon's picture
"Does being special really

"Does being special really have any significance other than to bolster our collective ego?"

You read my mind. There are other species that are more successful in evolutionary terms than humans, and others that have remarkable abilities that aid survival that make us look like we're made of glass. Our ego shouldn't blind us to the fact we are just one species in a process, with many millions of other species. This ego is undoubtedly what has prompted some of our ancestors to delude themselves that the universe was "created" and created with us in mind. This idea is as absurd as it is egotistical.

ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Cognostic said:

Cognostic said:

The royal flush is only valuable because we call it valuable and give it a special order in a game. We are only special by virtue of the fact that we give ourselves special order in life. We think we are at the top of the food chain. A myth. Viruses, Cockroaches, Worms, Bacteria and a whole lot of other things, feed on us. Life always feeds on life. There is no escaping this fact. Nothing is on top of the chain. There is no top. This is why the Ouroboros signifies the cyclic Nature of the Universe.

1.) AGI/ASI shall probably convert bacteria, humans, etc into "computronium" :)

(Where said AGI/ASI shall convert bacteria, humans etc into whatever material they deem suitable for their tasks.)

1.b) Thereafter the food chains you refer to become void/irrelevant! :)

2.) Beyond subjectively "giving ourselves special order in life" there may be an objective way to look at goals wrt humans. I begin to think about this science oriented purpose in a hypothesis here.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Cognostic's picture
Wpw... Right after you post

Wpw... Right after you post the very first post that made you look, human, empathetic and intelligent, you just could not get away from the artificial intelligence BS./ I imagine you at home masturbating to this stuff.
A "food chain" is perceptive and not prescriptive. It is a fact; observable, verifiable, objective, measurable. Life feeds on life.

"In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, by Douglas Adams, the entire Earth is portrayed as programmable matter; a computer designed to find the question to the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything." It does not alter the fact that life - the computronium Earth - still feeds on life - the computronium universe.

I get that you are into AI. Yes it will be a strange new world. But do you realize all you do is talk in "ABSTRACTION." "CONJECTURE" and "WILD ASSERTION."

Sheldon's picture
I detect no relevance in your

I detect no relevance in your post.

Sheldon's picture
"Science reasonably indicates

"Science reasonably indicates that the purpose of human life is likely to engineer the creation of Artificial General Intelligence! "

No science does not indicate this at all.

purpose
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

Your claim implies human existence was created, and or exists for a reason, I don't believe either of those claims, and you have yet to demonstrate a shred of evidence for the claims. Humans have choices, a reasonable amount of autonomy governed by circumstance, we may choose to create AI because we find it useful, but this in no way indicates it is the reason for our existence, or even that there is a reason at all for our existence. These are just things you endlessly assert as if they are true. Ironically much as theists tend to do.

mykcob4's picture
No animal is special all are

No animal is special all are specialized.
Take that back, my dog is special!

Sapporo's picture
My mother says I am.

My mother says I am.

Tin-Man's picture
I've been told before I am

I've been told before I am special. But - oddly - the way the person said it did not sound very flattering. *scratching my head*

LogicForTW's picture
@ orignal post

@ orignal post

Humans are special, dolphins are special, dung beetles are special and so on.

In terms of "intelligent design" that put humans on top, I argue: not so much.

Assuming god is real and he created earth for humans (makes sense, since humans are the reflection of god in most religions)
I start with my avatar, god creates the world for humans, then... 70 percent toxic salt water that we can not drink, and we can drown in, in seconds. There was zero need for such a large amount of toxic salt water, (to us humans) if the world is made for humans and we did not arise from evolution.

Even for those that think the world is only 6-8k years old, and believe there is no evolution, think back to accepted knowledge of how humans lived back then. We were not unequivocally on top of the food chain back then. We would lose young and elderly to predators all the time back then, if we left the immediate safety of the group, of fire, of our tools, and our homes, we were easy pickings. Only as humans continued to develop tools, (with no help from any one particular god!) did we rise to be unequivocally the top of the food chain. And now we have multiplied, depleted, and damaged resources at such an astounding level we are wiping out the very place that sustains us. We could easily wipe ourselves out now, more scientific understanding and inventions may be the only way we save our butts from a major starvation event at current trends.

In short it was not intelligent design that puts humans on top, it was our own tools, (and don't you think for a second those tools discoveries were divine in nature!) And those very tools and our very success may well wipe us out.)

I more or less see the opposite of intelligent design. Or at the very least it stopped at: larger brains and an opposable thumb along with a standing posture that free's our hands to use and interact with tools.

Edited: Fixed a few small typo/grammatical errors.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.