Brains VS Computers

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sorrentino's picture
Brains VS Computers

The computer is just a machine but doesn't seem to have self awareness or a kind of understanding and consciousness. lt just processes things from CPU and performs instructions or data given to it.

The human brain is exactly like the computer, but humans do not only have brains as it seems, they also have a kind of self awareness not present in computers, animals come close in that aspect, but humans are so distinct in this, that I do not think evolution all by itself can account for that.

There must be something still mysterious about the human mind, that makes it function like a computer but also beyond that.

What do you think?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Sheldon's picture
Sorrentino "The computer is

Sorrentino "The computer is just a machine

Sorrentino "The human brain is exactly like the computer"

Oh dear, whilst your assertion about the human brain is entirely unevidenced, it's pretty idiotic to contradict your own assertion, in the same post you made it.

"I do not think evolution all by itself can account for that."

Who cares what you think, are you remotely qualified to make sweeping assertions about a scientific theory? Have you publish any research to support your assertion in a worthy peer reviewed journal? You don't need to answer, as the answer is self evidently no.

"There must be something still mysterious about the human mind, that makes it function like a computer but also beyond that. What do you think?"

I think you are trying to use a god of the gaps polemic.Species evolution through natural selection is an observed scientific fact, that is supported by ALL the objective evidence. You don't get to just add unevidenced assertions to a scientific theory based on gaps in our knowledge, and claiming unexplained magic is involved. Occam's razor applies. What's more you have done this before on here, and this has been explained to you before.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

That is your starting point, not this straw man non sequitur you're using to try and evade the burden of proof your belief in a deity incurs.

Sorrentino's picture
Sheldon,

Sheldon,

The human brain is an advanced computer software.

As to your second point, if I publish a research paper on it, or get a theist who has published a research paper on it, would you believe it then?

I never used any God of the gaps polemical, I didn't even mention God in my post, so why make unnecessary fallacies?

I only made an assertion, which is self evident, humans are more complex than working machines like computers. Humans do not have only the brain( which is an advanced computer software) but it also seems there is something extraordinary about humans.

Sheldon's picture
Sorrentino "The human brain

Sorrentino "The human brain is an advanced computer software."

Repeating your unevidenced claim doesn't make it any less meaningless, and of course this disingenuous red herring is not what you originally claimed. You claimed that "The human brain is exactly like the computer,". This is demonstrably false, even with the equally unevidenced assertions you qualified it with.

Sorrentino "As to your second point, if I publish a research paper on it, or get a theist who has published a research paper on it, would you believe it then?"

What a particularly stupid and pointless question, why would I bother answering hypothetical questions about non existent evidence? And what has thiis to do with your penchant (like many theists) for making unevidenced assertion ad nauseam?

Sorrentino "I never used any God of the gaps polemical, I didn't even mention God in my post, so why make unnecessary fallacies?"

You absolutely used a text book god of the gaps polemic, and no deity need be mentioned for the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to be just that, and here is your fallacy from your OP, quoted verbatim then:

"There must be something still mysterious about the human mind,"

Given you are a theist, it was also perfectly reasonable to infer where you were taking this.

Sorrentino "I only made an assertion, which is self evident, humans are more complex than working machines like computers."

Well that's simply a lie, you made several other assertions which you offered zero evidence, or even rational argument to support, and which I challenged. So it's doubly dishonest to now rehash the one assertion I did not challenge, this is clearly a straw man fallacy, since I never mentioned that claim in my response.

Sorrentino "Humans do not have only the brain( which is an advanced computer software) but it also seems there is something extraordinary about humans."

So you keep claiming, but as I already said you don't offer a shred of objective evidence for your claim. Computer software is a human creation, the human brain is a natural physical organ, and all there is no evidence its functions are anything but natural. There is something extraordinary about many species, so what? What exactly are you loading the dice here in order to claim humans have, other than a natural physical brain, whose functions require natural processes? The more you do this without being specific the more disingenuous your unevidenced assertions appear.

Sorrentino's picture
Mr. Sheldon,

Mr. Sheldon,

Humans are extraordinary, the fact that we are even having this arguement is a testament to the fact. We have a kind of self consciousness, and spark of mind. Im sure you know all these already, so why the denial?

Sheldon's picture
You seem to be ignoring this?

You seem to be ignoring this?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

That is your starting point, not this straw man non sequitur you're using to try and evade the burden of proof your belief in a deity incurs.

Sorrentino "Humans are extraordinary, the fact that we are even having this arguement is a testament to the fact."

Another straw man, unless you can quote me stating otherwise. Your dishonesty does not bode well, here then is a repetition of my response to your claim, since you are determined to ignore it, and simply repeat your claim:

Sheldon There is something extraordinary about many species, so what? What exactly are you loading the dice here in order to claim humans have, other than a natural physical brain, whose functions require natural processes? The more you do this without being specific the more disingenuous your unevidenced assertions appear."

Sorrentino " We have a kind of self consciousness, and spark of mind. Im sure you know all these already, so why the denial?"

I see the lies are coming thick and fast now, where did I deny this? I think you mean humans are self aware, not self conscious, which means something else entirely, though we are conscious beings, as are other species of course. I have no idea what "spark of mind" means, so I cannot comment, nor have I, so do please stop lying.

Now...

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

This question is not going away, in fact I will bet that you go before it does. In my experience theists always run away when they finally realise that having no answer cannot be waved away with vapid unevidenced rhetoric. Will you finally be different from all the theists who have come here with naught else? The early signs are not good, as I always point out, when a theist comes here to an atheist forum, and yet does not open with the most compelling objective reason they have for their belief a deity exists.

Sorrentino's picture
Hello Sheldon,

Hello Sheldon,

Well the evidence for a higher intelligence is that creation seem to be more orderly than it is disorderly. I mean it just cannot be a coincidence that your mouth is where it is to aid talking and your hands are where they are. Think about this more deeply before you give me a reply. There must be an higher intelligence somewhere.

Self consciousness and self awareness are often used interchangeably, though you are right that they are different, and yes in this context however I mean self awareness.

Spark of mind means, at some point in our evolution we began to have minds different from mere animals, our big brains alone cannot account for this. We think, We create, probably we have been chosen by nature or the gods to rule the world and this is the reason why. Isn't that a logical presupposition? no?

CyberLN's picture
Sorrentino, you asserted, “I

Sorrentino, you asserted, “I mean it just cannot be a coincidence that your mouth is where it is to aid talking and your hands are where they are.” Yet later in your post you say, “at some point in our evolution...”

Which is it then? Body parts tend to be where they are because some independent ‘designer’ made a conscious decision to place them there or they are in those places because they evolved to be?

Sorrentino's picture
CyberLN, "Independent

CyberLN, "Independent designer" and "evolved to be", are not mutually exclusive. Are they?

Sheldon's picture
Sorrentino "Independent

Sorrentino "Independent designer" and "evolved to be", are not mutually exclusive. Are they?

Nor are they synonymous either, as one is objective fact, and the other unevidenced superstitious myth. What's more the god claim fails independently of evolution, or any other scientific fact, it fails on it's adherents inability to offer a shred of objective evidence to support the claim. As your posts are confirming in a startlingly clear fashion, with unevidenced assertion and ubiquitous logical fallacies trotted out in tandem, in post after post.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I think the most compelling

I think the most compelling quote, to emphasis how this argument is nothing more than some person's opinion is:

Sorrentino - ...creation seem[s] to be more orderly than it is disorderly.

-------------------------------------------
What this argument would require for it to more than just some person's opinion:

  1. An algorithm to calculate how orderly creation is.
  2. An algorithm to calculate how disorderly creation is, who's output has the same dimensions as the previous algorithm (for example: if the output of algorithm #1 is a volume, then the output of algorithm #2 had better be a volume as well, otherwise you are going to run into a big problem on step #3).
  3. The results from the 2 algorithms mentioned, showing that #1 is in fact greater than #2.
  4. An argument to explain why #1 being greater than #2 would require a "higher intelligence".
Sheldon's picture
Sorrentino " the evidence

Sorrentino " the evidence for a higher intelligence is that creation seem to be more orderly than it is disorderly. "

What creation? How you theists love to assume your beliefs. Why does your subjective perception that things are orderly evidence anything at all, least of all a deity? What evidence have you reality can be otherwise? You don't get to simply assume this, or simply call everything "creation" and think you won't be called on such dishonesty. And I asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for any deity, not for your unevidenced subjective opinion.

"I mean it just cannot be a coincidence that your mouth is where it is to aid talking and your hands are where they are. "

Yet another straw man fallacy from you, where did I ever claim to think this was a coincidence? We already know for an objective fact that they evolved that way. You don't get to assume otherwise, or make up lies about what I think. Please stop presuming, as unlike your religion, my atheism has no doctrine or dogma, so beyond my lack of belief in any deity, you know nothing about what I believe until I tell you. Evolution is not based on mere coincidences, though of course random chance must necessarily play some part. One has only to randomly roll some dice to know that random events are capable of producing complexity.

"Think about this more deeply before you give me a reply. There must be an higher intelligence somewhere."

What an arrogant assumption, the global scientific thought that has amassed the overwhelming objective evidence that establishes species evolution as a scientific fact, refutes this arrogant assumption as well. You don't get to just assume "there must be" anything at all, that is not debate. And I can assure you from your few posts thus far that I have given this far deeper thought than you have based on your posts and responses to the most basic tenets of reason and evidence.

"Self consciousness and self awareness are often used interchangeably, though you are right that they are different,"

Here then is the fundamental difference:

"Self-consciousness is a heightened sense of self-awareness. It is a preoccupation with oneself, as opposed to the philosophical state of self-awareness, which is the awareness that one exists as an individual being, though the two terms are commonly used interchangeably or synonymously."

If they are different then you need to explain which you mean and why, when you are using them.

"Spark of mind means, at some point in our evolution we began to have minds different from mere animals, our big brains alone cannot account for this. "

Since we are demonstrably animals this statement makes no sense, and again you are simply asserting without even the pretence of evidence. As I already pointed out, other species have attributes unique to them, so it is absurd to assume our evolved intelligence denotes us being special among evolved living things. Why do you keep claiming evolution can't evidence things, are you an expert in evolution? I am growing tired of your endless unevidenced assertions now.

"We think, We create,"

As do other evolved species. This is well researched and well evidenced.

"we have been chosen by nature or the gods to rule the world. "

What deity, and what objective evidence have you for one, let alone that it chose us over other species? Another string of assumptions you don't even try to demonstrate any objective evidence for. We have existed for a mere 200k years, there are species alive right now that have existed for many millions, dinosaurs ruled the earth for many hundreds of millions, and their ancestors exist now, so this assumptions is risible, sheer numbers then, well there are a mere 7+ billion of us, how many bacteria exist in one human being?

"Isn't that a logical presupposition? no?"

No, for the reasons stated, and because no presupposition is logical, that is a rational contradiction.

You keep making unevidenced assertions, you have even made up lies about what I have claimed or think, used known logical fallacies, then when these have been pointed out, you just roll past them and repeat your unevidenced and irrational claims? I don't have limitless patience, for this dishonest approach to debate.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

In your profile you claim to be a christian, so the honest thing would be for you to focus on evidence that deity, by demonstrating objective evidence for it. Instead all you keep doing is making unevidenced assertions, and implying something vague about things you claim we do not fully understand, again this is a textbook god of the gaps polemic. It's a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, and nothing that contains or is based on a known logical fact can be asserted as rational.

Edited for clarity, spelling and grammar...

Sorrentino's picture
Sheldon,

Sheldon,

1. "What creation? How you theists love to assume your beliefs. Why does your subjective perception that things are orderly evidence anything at all, least of all a deity? What evidence have you reality can be otherwise? You don't get to simply assume this, or simply call everything "creation" and think you won't be called on such dishonesty. And I asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for any deity, not for your unevidenced subjective opinion."

REPLY:
What would you accept as objective evidence?

2. "We already know for an objective fact that they evolved that way ..... Evolution is not based on mere coincidences, though of course random chance must necessarily play some part.. ..... the global scientific thought that has amassed the overwhelming objective evidence that establishes species evolution as a scientific fact, refutes this arrogant assumption as well..... blah blah blah .... yada yada yada...."

REPLY: So why did they evolve to be that way?
Why did evolution take the path it took?
Why was there something rather than nothing?

You are not asking the deep questions( or probably you chose to ignore them), you are rather just blabbing away.

3. "Since we are demonstrably animals this statement makes no sense, and again you are simply asserting without even the pretence of evidence. As I already pointed out, other species have attributes unique to them, so it is absurd to assume our evolved intelligence denotes us being special among evolved living things. Why do you keep claiming evolution can't evidence things, are you an expert in evolution? I am growing tired of your endless unevidenced assertions now."

REPLY:
I never said we are not animals, you accuse me of straw man fallacies, but your posts are always full of them. You simply replied without understanding there, read again.
Also our unique attribute makes us world leaders, we are even here contemplating about our existence on a forum like this that enables us communicate thousands of miles away, we have conquered the world with a mind different from other animals. Do you need objective evidence for all these too? so why other animals are special, humans have distinguished themselves. No?

4. "What deity, and what objective evidence have you for one, let alone that it chose us over other species? Another string of assumptions you don't even try to demonstrate any objective evidence for. We have existed for a mere 200k years, there are species alive right now that have existed for many millions, dinosaurs ruled the earth for many hundreds of millions, and their ancestors exist now, so this assumptions is risible, sheer numbers then, well there are a mere 7+ billion of us, how many bacteria exist in one human being?"

REPLY:
Read my reply above, and this time read it slowly. Comprehend first.
As for dinosaurs, they ruled the earth but they never had that great intellect or did they? Don't you get it? if you do, then why waste my time with this myopic reply?

5. "No, for the reasons stated, and because no presupposition is logical, that is a rational contradiction."

REPLY:
Lol, no presupposition is logical? are you fucking kidding me? then in that case there would be no need for philosophy or we can say there are no logical philosophical arguments. Mind you, philosophy gave birth to science.
Many philosophers in ancient times by mere presuppositions gave arguments confirmed by science today, they made premises from their observations and drew conclusions they termed logical. At the time many of them had no objective evidence or proof for them.
sheldon, for fuck sake, what the hell are you talking about?

Whitefire13's picture
“Also our unique attribute

“Also our unique attribute makes us world leaders,” .... to other “humans” and we can effect ecosystems (so can other animals). Try telling a virus that “we’re world leaders” hahahahaha

“... we are even here contemplating about our existence on a forum like this that enables us communicate thousands of miles away, we have conquered the world with a mind different from other animals.”

Yes, our species’ advantage ...and science. Tell the Sentenialese about modern day progress. (See pic)

Oh, and how to “eat” using your ass... evolution favours those that adapt to their environment (we weren’t “created” for it).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23124-zoologger-how-to-eat-withou...

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
dogalmighty's picture
@fictionalangelfigure

@fictionalangelfigure

"Many philosophers in ancient times by mere presuppositions gave arguments confirmed by science today, they made premises from their observations and drew conclusions they termed logical. At the time many of them had no objective evidence or proof for them.
sheldon, for fuck sake, what the hell are you talking about?"

reply:

Many philosophers in ancient times by mere presuppositions gave arguments shown incorrect by science today, they made premises from their observations and drew conclusions they termed logical. At the time many of them had no objective evidence or proof for them.
Mythical angel guy, for fucks sake, what the hell are you talking about?

ROTFLMAO.

Hence why the need for objective evidence.

Do you have any, showing your gods existence?

Sheldon's picture
Sorrentino "What would you

Sorrentino "What would you accept as objective evidence?"

If you don't know what the words objective and evidence mean, then might I suggest you learn this most basic concept. You offered subjective opinion, and you labelled everything creation, these are bare subjective assertions, and thus are meaningless. You might as well insist blue is a magical colour.

Sorrentino "So why did they evolve to be that way?
Why did evolution take the path it took?"

Why do you ask? If you want to study evolution go do it, this is an atheist forum, and if you use ad hominem again with your yada yada yada nonsense you'll start to get it back champ. I'm taking the time to wade through your asinine apologetics for your sake not mine, as I already know why it is subjective irrational superstitious guff.

Sorrentino "Why was there something rather than nothing"

I have no idea, why do you assume there is a reason, why do you assume nothing existing is even possible??

Sorrentino "I never said we are not animals, "

I never claimed you had, I so that is another straw man fallacy. I merely pointed out the fact we are animals, to illustrate how it made your constant assertion that humans are different to other animals meaningless, as many species of animal have evolved characteristics that are unique to them, not just humans.

Sorrentino "you accuse me of straw man fallacies, but your posts are always full of them."

I have quoted verbatim where you have used known logical fallacies, and you have never once addressed this, but now offer a bare claim without any evidence. So your response is pretty childish.

Sorrentino "You simply replied without understanding there, read again."

Au contraire, it is you who clearly hasn't understood, sadly expanding on my previous explanation does seem rather pointless as I can't really dumb it down, but I will give it a shot with bullet points.

1 You repeatedly claimed humans are "different" to animals, then claim this makes them special.

2. I pointed out that many species have evolved unique characteristic, not just humans. Ipso facto it is absurdly irrational to claim humans are special because they have evolved unique characteristics.

3 I also pointed out that species of dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and some still exist, yet humans only evolved a couple of hundred thousand years ago. So again how does this evidence suggest humans are special and those species not? A clue for you here, it doesn't.

4. I also pointed out that there are more evolved bacteria alive in a single human that there are humans alive on this planet, so again how does this evidence support your claim that humans rule the world? The corona virus seems to be doing what it wants despite us, and not what we want, so are diseases like malaria and cancer, and the AIDS virus to name but a few. So no, the evidence does not suggest we rule the world, and since we didn't even exist just a few hundred thousand years ago your unevidenced subjective claim is rendered demonstrably absurd by the objective evidence

Sorrentino "Read my reply above, and this time read it slowly. Comprehend first.

I am more than happy for others to decide who lacks comprehension here, and this is your very last warning about ad hominem. My reply cited objective evidence, yours was merely bare subjective assumption citing unevidenced superstition.

Sorrentino As for dinosaurs, they ruled the earth but they never had that great intellect or did they? Don't you get it? if you do, then why waste my time with this myopic reply?"

Given you re the one insisting one type of uniquely evolved characteristic suggest that one species is "special" and all the other species who have evolved unique characteristics are not, then your claim I am being myopic is as hilarious as it is stupid. The significance of my examples are manifest to any reader with the wit to fathom it, sadly based on your ever increasingly stupid replies that use ad hominem fallacy in place of substantive content, I fear this may rule you out. No more warnings about your trolling ad hominem, Bullwinkle, from now on I am taking the gloves off.

Sorrentino Lol, are you fucking kidding me? Yada yada yada yada

If I was, I suspect it would fail to penetrate your mahogany pate, which is a shame, as I have a wicked sense of irony.

Now one more time, since you clearly have none, but are too dishonest to admit it.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

When you're done with that you can start to offer objective evidence for the particular version of the particular superstition you adhere to. Though I suspect you will fall at the first hurdle anyway, as you'd have offered objective evidence by now if you had any, so another theist holding an empty bag.

For your edification - "A presupposition must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context."

toto974's picture
@Sorrentino

@Sorrentino

Hello; you assume your questions are deep? In what ways? I feel a faux-philosophing tone in all your posts. You clearly don't understand natural selection.
A new trait appear, it permits the individual to better survive and enhance its chance to passing down this trait by reproducing.

Another tip for you: don't use a term in a colloquial sense if you're trying to sound scientific.

boomer47's picture
@Sorrentino

@Sorrentino

"The human brain is an advanced computer software."

Right now that's an unfounded claim

"if I publish a research paper on it, or get a theist who has published a research paper on it, would you believe it then?"

Just one paper? Probably not. Here's an idea for you;go to your keyboard and look up 'scientific method'. Right now you don't seem to have grasped the concept."

"I only made an assertion, which is self evident"

Saying a thing is self evident is a claim, not an argument. ---and I couldn't care less what it says in The Declaration of Independence.

" Humans do not have only the brain( which is an advanced computer software) but it also seems there is something extraordinary about humans."

The brain is an organ. Using your line of thinking, the brain would be hardware. You seem to be talking about the mind.Oh, computers work on binary logic. I've seen no proof of the brain working the same way.

Are we extraordinary? Well, we like to think so. Compared with the millions of other even undiscovered species on the planet, perhaps not so much. I'll agree that we are extraordinary in how we are pretty close to making the planet uninhabitable for ourselves and many other species. But I'm not entirely convinced we should be boasting about that accomplishment.

I think you have been called a theist, oh dear. Possibly because you have been making the same kind of unfounded claims theists tend to make here on their journey into unmitigated drivel. So far you have managed to demonstrate an unfortunate ignorance, but mixed with a lively imagination. So there is some hope for you..

OF COURSE I'm interested in what you have to say. As long as your claims are based on reasoned argument and/or falsifiable evidence (look it up) when appropriate. EG a series of peer reviewed articles based on scientific method. Until that time, I won't be bothering with you further

Cognostic's picture
@Sorrentino: "The human brain

@Sorrentino: "The human brain is exactly like the computer, " WTF!!!

Except there is something mysterious about them.

So........... they are not exactly like a computer?

Something is wrong with this bullshit but I'm just not able to figure it out. It's a bit like asking "When is a banana not a banana." And then answering. "When it is exactly like a banana but with some differences."

Whitefire13's picture
Similar to a computer ....

Similar to a computer ....(input/output, memory storage) BUT not “exactly”.

Computers run on electricity- the brain “chemicals”... These neurons secrete neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/trouble-in-m...

There are “mysteries” regarding the human brain, however “god” isn’t the answer to the mysteries.

....do you think/believe demons are the cause of mental illness?

...were you raised Christian?

algebe's picture
@Sorrentino: The human brain

@Sorrentino: The human brain is exactly like the computer

I don't think so. My brain is far more complex and at the same time far less reliable than my computer. My brain has maybe a petabyte of storage, while my computer has 16GB of memory and about 20 terabytes of storage. My computer can bring back with total accuracy any file stored over the past 30-plus years. It can play back thousands of music tracks and videos. My brain can bring back memories, both verbal and visual, but every time I remember them it's a new and slightly different experience. Some have gone forever.

My brain has self-awareness. I think that property emerged through the evolution of brains with ever more connections linking ever more neurons. Computers will one day reach that threshold. It won't take magic. Just connections and programming. I think we'll soon be able to integrate our minds with computers and achieve exponential growth in our mental powers. Gods will seem childish then.

The question you should be asking is how an entity that has no brain can have intelligence, omniscience, and omnipresence across billions of light years of space, and why entities that have brains would believe in such a thing.

jay-h's picture
Sometimes there are

Sometimes there are discussions on Jerry Coyne's site about free will. His position is that free will is an illusion, and he views a computer as a suitable deterministic model. That people have no real control over choices they make. I have disagreed with this. There is absolutely nothing in computer science that could explain consciouslness, and concepts of 'free will' are deeply intertwined. Until (if ever) we can understand what consciousness is and how it works, we really can't make a true determination.

And even 'artificial intelligence really says nothing about human intelligence. AI superficially mimics (often very badly) intelligent thinking but is not using the same processes.

Just because we cannot understand consciousness in no way says anything about existence of god(s).

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sorrentino - The human brain

Sorrentino - The human brain is exactly like the computer...The human brain is an advanced computer software.

As others have pointed out: those two statements seem to contradict each other very badly: if it is software, then it ain't a computer.

CyberLN's picture
Sorrentino, you wrote, “I

Sorrentino, you wrote, “I only made an assertion, which is self evident, humans are more complex than working machines like computers.“

Please provide specifics about your usage of the word ‘complex’. For instance, what techniques are you employing to measure this complexity?

dogalmighty's picture
Ok, so we are fantastic

@ficticiousangelfigure

Ok, so we are fantastic living creatures.

What objective evidence can you present that our fantastic-ness is a result of your version of a gods creation, as opposed to natural abiogenesis?

...of course to even get to the above question...we need to answer another question, because we can't just assume your version of a god, exists...seeing he seems non-existent.

So...

Do you have any objective evidence of your version of a gods existence?

Answer that question honestly yes or no, and you can redeem yourself as someone who is not deluded or bound by unsubstantiated belief, or visiting this site in some perverted ideal of saving people from themselves, or in some cognitive bias based validation attempt for your deluded belief system.

CyberLN's picture
Sorrentino, in your OP, yo7

Sorrentino, in your OP, you wrote, “... but humans are so distinct in this, that I do not think evolution all by itself can account for that.”

You may benefit by reading up on this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Sheldon's picture
CyberLN "Sorrentino, in your

CyberLN "Sorrentino, in your OP, you wrote, “... but humans are so distinct in this, that I do not think evolution all by itself can account for that.”

You may benefit by reading up on this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity"

Wow wow wow, are you pointing to a known logical fallacy, that Sorrentino used in his opening post? Gerraway....

I'm guessing he will never honestly address this fact. Though to be fair, there isn't much guessing involved, I have stacked the deck in my favour by reading his tortuous posts thus far, and logical fallacies seem to be his raison d'etre, though of course this is standard fare for religious apologetics.

CyberLN's picture
I couldn’t agree more,

I couldn’t agree more, Sheldon.

Sheldon's picture
Thank you, but we can all see

Thank you, but we can all see I'm shooting fish in a barrel yet again, and Sorrentino is the only one who seems unaware of this.

algebe's picture
@Sorrentino: I mean it just

@Sorrentino: I mean it just cannot be a coincidence that your mouth is where it is to aid talking and your hands are where they are.

If a higher intelligence had designed the human mouth, do you think it would have placed the channels for food/liquids and air so dangerously close together? Perhaps this higher intelligence gave us hands as an afterthought so we could perform the Heimlich maneuver.

Our bodies are collections of compromises, uncorrected flaws, design defects, and downright absurdities. Only evolution working through random changes and natural selection (or maybe Detroit on a Monday morning in 1970) could have produced something as ridiculously unfit for purpose as the human body.

Grinseed's picture
@ Sorrentino

@ Sorrentino

Just a very small offering of "evidence" for the "higher intelligence" in the "superior design" of the human body with which we are meant to be the "ultimate creation".

Polydactylism where people born with 6 or more fingers, sometimes with fingers growing out of fingers. Fantastic design for increased grip. I understand most ancestral quadraped started off with six toes. Wonder why the sixth toe went? Design fault, you think? And when aren't five fingers enough?

Ostosclerosis, one of my favourites; the softening of the middle ear bones leading to moderate or profound hearing loss for no good reason. Probably an unfair example because I assume like the blind, the deaf serve a purpose providing devout christians an opportunity to display their miraculous healing powers. Wonder when thats going to start happening?

Co-joined twins
And if that ain't enough perfect designing for you,
Co-joined triplets

Benign prostatic hyperplasia, basic plumbing design problem leading to painful inability to piss and disease because the urinary tract passes through the prostrate gland for no good reason rather than passing around it.

And just for laughs, and to keep on topic, an article on no less than 12 neurological reflex cognitive biases that hinder rationality. I am sure there are plenty others.

All these unfortunate glitches suggest the 'random' haphazard outcomes you'd expect of unguided evolutionary development, and not the ineffable genius of a benign intelligent creator/designer.

Prove the existence of your god by restoring sight to the blind, limbs to the amputee, and wholeness to the cancer victim, or just get rid of C19. Doing all of this would be more effective, and you would certainly get more of my attention, if you just did what Jesus promised his true followers would achieve in his name, rather than babbling meaningless philosophic nonsense to argue your god into existence.
I sincerely wish you good luck. See if you can work on that otosclerosis first, I'd really appreciate it.

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.