[quote][ The human brain and body alone, is something
worth pondering on - if you think it was formed by
mindless matter over great stretches of time, then
that's up to you. /quote]

And our pondering should naturally lead us to an intelligent creator?! A creator, I presume, has kept refining its creations over great stretches of time. Well...

Deep Sight:

Do you believe that the less complex space ship could ever have been produced by mindless matter?

It is not the complexity of the ship that makes it to require a builder. A simple chalkboard requires a builder as well.

It requires a builder because it doesnt occur naturally. (Circular argument though)

^^^

The problem is that we do not know.....the origin of the first life remains a mystery.

Logicboy03:


It is not the complexity of the ship that makes it to require a builder. A simple chalkboard requires a builder as well.

It requires a builder because it doesnt occur naturally. (Circular argument though)

^^^

The problem is that we do not know.....the origin of the first life remains a mystery.

And, at the time when no life existed on earth, would you say that a brain would be something that could occur therein naturally, given enough time for the mindless matter to play with itself?

A chalk board requires a builder - because you can see purpose therein right?

You cannot see purpose in a human brain?

Lol... These men snuffed the life outta this thread even before it was started!
Should I blame it on paranoia?

kwangi: Lol... These men snuffed the life outta this thread even before it was started!
Should I blame it on paranoia?

I tell ya!

plaetton:

I get it.
But that house needing a builder phrase is too childish. If you find a vacant house, you can always find out the owner and the builder by going to a local land registry.

The same logic can also be used to question the ancestry of god.
Since , by that logic , everything intelligent system must have designer and builder, then god, as an intelligent system on his owns, owes his own unique characteristics to a prior designer and builder as well.

We know where that leads to.

Just to be clear - that wasn't about cause. It was about design. And like I said, the atheist argument against the the first is sound. The arguments I have read against the second elsewhere and on this thread are not.

To be clear also, there isn't necessarily evolution VERSUS design.

Why are the two of you here at this hour?

Deep Sight:

And, at the time when no life existed on earth, would you say that a brain would be something that could occur therein naturally, given enough time for the mindless matter to play with itself?

A chalk board requires a builder - because you can see purpose therein right?

You cannot see purpose in a human brain?

You just lost the argument. No where did I mention purpose.


To even try and put purpose in an atheists mouth....,

Deep Sight: ?

1st Picture -- invokes the resemblance of the Thinking Man, deep in contemplation. The strenous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks.

2nd Picture -- A stone and the human brain. I immediately tick the brain off as fundamentally different from the stone, a mechanism responsible for the sustainence of life itself. However after viewing the first picture, i perceive a demand to think deeper, as a result I try to find similarities between the Stone and the human brain.

The structure of the stone is elaborately complex, owing to our knowledge of atoms, there is a specific arrangement necessary to provide the stone its dependable rigidity. The atoms themselves have an arrangement decided by tiny individualistic sub-particles, which make the most dazzling behaviour, yet a stone is firm, solid and dependable.

3rd/4th/5th pictures -- Growth/Evolution.

6th - - Monarchy. Traditional Authority which is questioned by nature.

The Riddle of God
No man is wrong about his knowledge of God,yet no man is Right about his understanding of God.
. The Riddle of Truth
Truth causes conflict to storm in the heart of man,tearing him every which way. But until man stops his search for truth,he cannot have freedom,because truth in an imperfect creation is not whole.
. Only truth from the spiritual worlds of God is pure,but when man is given a single,raw thread of truth to occupy him for a while,he attaches so much importance to it that he won't let go of it later for the finer cloth of the weaver's loom. He wants truth,but not if it means first throwing out the old,ragged thread in hand.
. Try to understand this: Perfect truth is not given to the human state because it cannot comprehend it. The ECK travelers do reveal higher degrees of truth to us,but eventually,if we are to attain the highest states of God,we must surrender all in our hearts and minds so that selfless love can enter in.
. Truth for a pauper is different than it is for a king,because the experiences of each are so unlike in life: the totality of one's experience forms his state of consciousness. No two people are alike; therefore,neither is their perception of truth.
. Words of an ECK Master

This might seem off topic,so i apologize. But those who can contemplate on the words above will realize it answers most of the questions here. Thanks

If the atheist we have on this forum is half as opened minded as you, then the effort being expended on them would have been worth it.

*though it is most probable that it will yield any useful outcome, since there are probable extraneous reasons responsible for that*

However:

Kay 17:

1st Picture -- invokes the resemblance of the Thinking Man, deep in contemplation. The strenous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks.

2nd Picture -- A stone and the human brain. I immediately tick the brain off as fundamentally different from the stone, a mechanism responsible for the sustainence of life itself. However after viewing the first picture, i perceive a demand to think deeper, as a result I try to find similarities between the Stone and the human brain.

The structure of the stone is elaborately complex, owing to our knowledge of atoms, there is a specific arrangement necessary to provide the stone its dependable rigidity. The atoms themselves have an arrangement decided by tiny individualistic sub-particles, which make the most dazzling behaviour, yet a stone is firm, solid and dependable.

Good of you to allow reasonableness to see the light of day.

But

Kay 17:

yet a stone is firm, solid and dependable.

'You' : "The atoms themselves have an arrangement decided by tiny individualistic sub-particles, which make the most dazzling behaviour"

^
base on that your observation of the rock and its composition, what then caused it to defy its natural composition to become the other comparable object, soft and mealable with a 'mind'(since the brain is made from similar matter) ?

Does the blind rock have a mind of its own that directed it to attain such a ........ ? Smh.

How did it move from A(rock) to B(brain) ?
Please, explain.

Kay 17:

3rd/4th/5th pictures -- Growth/Evolution.

yeah! Easy to make a leap instead of contemplating certain foundamental questions, jumping is easy and convenient.

The pupies with closed eyes accessing the mothers nipples to suckle is not worth the effort, is not worth asking how and why that is inherent amongst this animals/mamals, at such a tender age though the rock cannot move itself.
That same pupy, when dead is like the rock in question, why the difference ?

Kay 17:

6th - - Monarchy. Traditional Authority which is questioned by nature.

why all those ^ and not matter lying down ? Is the rock and the dead body not the same compositions ? Why all that that you are talking about : "Monarchy. Traditional Authority" ? No need, when you see rocks, say such to it.

What directs the move from matter to living man and back to matter ? Is the rock that intelligent to undergo all those processes all by itself? I will say yes, why not ? Afteral, there was no intelligence needed to direct all that.

Dont blame me for my conclussions. The world and earth and the univers did not need any intelligence to direct affires in it, Let alone the human brain.
My own house fell from the skies, the skies are the magical places where houses are form without a builder.

SMH SMH SMH SMH SMH................

Sometimes, i just wander if certain set of people are worth the effort. SMH

truthislight: If the atheist we have on this forum is half as opened minded as you, then the effort being aspanded on them would have been worth it.

*though it is most probable the that it will yield any useful outcome, since there are probable extraneous reasons responsible for that*

However:



Good of you to allow reasonbleness to see the light of day.

But


'You' : "The atoms themselves have an arrangement decided by tiny individualistic sub-particles, which make the most dazzling behaviour"

^
base on that your observation of the rock and its composition, what then caused it to defy its natural composition to become the other comparable object, soft and mealable with a 'mind'(since the brain is made from similar matter) ?

Does the blind rock have a mind of its own that directed it to attain such a ........ ? Smh.

How did it move from A(rock) to B(brain) ?
Please, explain.



yeah! Easy to make a leap instead of contemplating certain foundamental questions, jumping is easy and convinient.

The pupies with closed eyes accessing the mothers nipples to suckle is not worth the effort, is not worth asking how and why that is inherent amongst this animals/mamals, at such a tender age though the rock cannot move itself.
That same pupy, when dead is like the rock in question, why the difference ?



why all those ^ and not matter lying down ? Is the rock and the dead body not the same compositions ? Why all that that you are talking about : "Monarchy. Traditional Authority" ? No need, when you see rocks, say such to it.

What directs the move from matter to living man and back to matter ? Is the rock that intelligent to undergo all those processes all by itself? I will say yes, why not ? Afteral, there was no intelligence needed to direct all that.

Dont blame me for my conclussions. The world and earth and the univers did not need any intelligence to direct affires in it, Let alone the human brain.
My own house fell from the skies, the skies are the magical places where houses are form without a builder.

SMH SMH SMH SMH SMH................

You can't even see the problem.

The irony here is that you are complaining that we atheists didnt engage in the exercise that the op wanted but your post shows the annoying problem that the exercise leads to.

The issue that you cant see is that the exercise with the pictures will lead to subjective and time wasting arguments such as the one you have posted. We could see through Deepsight's charade. We are more deep sighted than you or deepsight...forgive the pun NOT

Logicboy03:


You can't even see the problem.

The irony here is that you are complaining that we atheists didnt engage in the exercise that the op wanted but your post shows the annoying problem that the exercise leads to.

The issue that you cant see is that the exercise with the pictures will lead to subjective and time wasting arguments such as the one you have posted. We could see through Deepsight's charade. We are more deep sighted than you or deepsight...forgive the pun NOT

Lol. very funny though.

Yeah! "jumping" is easier, abi ? Suit yourselves.

Maybe, that is the difference between atheist and theist > "wasting time to dig deeper".

There sure are things out there to dig into on this subject, an't scratched the sufface yet.
Though it is a "waste of time" to you.

Good Good Good

truthislight:

Lol. very funny though.

Yeah! "jumping" is easier, abi ? Suit yourselves.

Maybe, that is the difference between atheist and theist > "wasting time to dig deeper".

There sure are things out there to dig into on this subject, an't scratched the sufface yet.
Thought it is a "waste of time" to you.

Good Good Good.

lol....I understand.

long time i no show

anyway, i think this thread has been derailed with unnecessary word play but then let me make my simple and probably final contribution...


while the argument for the existence of god/gods is inconclusive, it is quite naive to come such a conclusion based on intuition or logic alone as DS will like us to believe.


mankind has intuited falsely about a lot of things in the past...the cause of lightining, thunderstorms, the Sun etc. it is complex ignorance and escapism to say that just because we see a very complex entity then it is logical to conclude GOD!!!

this position poses more questions than answers and you, DS knows that. you have been asked severally on this forum to explain your concept of God and every month we see new explanations. there are some things the atheist do not know about the universe but it is cowardice and escapist to make fantastic assumptions about them without any proof or evidence whatsoever. saying GOD!!! kills of every avenue for enquiry. it merely states the position we were already assuming. God created the universe? for what? pray tell....

i do not state that there is no god. i simply say that i do not believe in god because i see no evidence for any, and that includes your deist god DeepSight. i could intuit all i want but it all boils down to conclusive evidence. if i cant get that then all i eventually did was wishful thinking....

where is your conclusive irrefutable evidence for GOD!!!? show us and let us examine it. until then, save us your fantastic theories and intuition.

Mr Troll: long time i no show

anyway, i think this thread has been derailed with unnecessary word play but then let me make my simple and probably final contribution...


while the argument for the existence of god/gods is inconclusive, it is quite naive to come such a conclusion based on intuition or logic alone as DS will like us to believe.


mankind has intuited falsely about a lot of things in the past...the cause of lightining, thunderstorms, the Sun etc. it is complex ignorance and escapism to say that just because we see a very complex entity then it is logical to conclude GOD!!!

this position poses more questions than answers and you, DS knows that. you have been asked severally on this forum to explain your concept of God and every month we see new explanations. there are some things the atheist do not know about the universe but it is cowardice and escapist to make fantastic assumptions about them without any proof or scientific evidence whatsoever. saying GOD!!! kills of every avenue for enquiry. it merely states the position we were already assuming. God created the universe? for what? pray tell....

i do not state that there is no god. i simply say that i do not believe in god because i see no scientific evidence for any, and that includes your deist god DeepSight. i could intuit all i want but it all boils down to conclusive scientific evidence. if i cant get that then all i eventually did was wishful thinking....

where is your conclusive irrefutable scientific evidence for GOD!!!? show us and let us examine it. until then, save us your fantastic theories and intuition.

post modified. Thank me later. God cannot be measured scientifically. Science is concerned with natural and physical phenomena. He cannot be measured or tested by physical means

Joshthefirst: post modified. Thank me later. God cannot be measured scientifically. Science is concerned with natural and physical phenomena. He cannot be measured or tested by physical means

Then he cant be said to exist. Think of anything else that exists that cant be measured or tested by such means

Kay 17:

1st Picture -- invokes the resemblance of the Thinking Man, deep in contemplation. The strenous effort of reasoning -- gift from the Greeks.

2nd Picture -- A stone and the human brain. I immediately tick the brain off as fundamentally different from the stone, a mechanism responsible for the sustainence of life itself. However after viewing the first picture, i perceive a demand to think deeper, as a result I try to find similarities between the Stone and the human brain.

The structure of the stone is elaborately complex, owing to our knowledge of atoms, there is a specific arrangement necessary to provide the stone its dependable rigidity. The atoms themselves have an arrangement decided by tiny individualistic sub-particles, which make the most dazzling behaviour, yet a stone is firm, solid and dependable.

3rd/4th/5th pictures -- Growth/Evolution.

6th - - Monarchy. Traditional Authority which is questioned by nature.

Wow! Thank you!

At last, an atheist who has addressed the simple request made in the OP without any rigmarole, pretensions and diversions!

Much appreciated Kay17.

I will discuss your thoughts in a separate post.

Logicboy03:


You just lost the argument. No where did I mention purpose.


To even try and put purpose in an atheists mouth....,

Lol. This is why its boring wasting time with you. What's your reason for saying that a simple chalkboard requires a designer?

Obi 901: The Riddle of God
No man is wrong about his knowledge of God,yet no man is Right about his understanding of God.
. The Riddle of Truth
Truth causes conflict to storm in the heart of man,tearing him every which way. But until man stops his search for truth,he cannot have freedom,because truth in an imperfect creation is not whole.
. Only truth from the spiritual worlds of God is pure,but when man is given a single,raw thread of truth to occupy him for a while,he attaches so much importance to it that he won't let go of it later for the finer cloth of the weaver's loom. He wants truth,but not if it means first throwing out the old,ragged thread in hand.
. Try to understand this: Perfect truth is not given to the human state because it cannot comprehend it. The ECK travelers do reveal higher degrees of truth to us,but eventually,if we are to attain the highest states of God,we must surrender all in our hearts and minds so that selfless love can enter in.
. Truth for a pauper is different than it is for a king,because the experiences of each are so unlike in life: the totality of one's experience forms his state of consciousness. No two people are alike; therefore,neither is their perception of truth.
. Words of an ECK Master

This might seem off topic,so i apologize. But those who can contemplate on the words above will realize it answers most of the questions here. Thanks

Thank you for your thoughts - and in all fairness they tend towards Plaetton's, although with a difference - the recognition of God and the Spiritual involved.

Let me say that, just as I said with Plaetton's this being true still does not in any way stop a simple discussion on what we may glean about truth from that which we see in our environment.

The post with the running young boy and the corpse, for example, if reflected upon deals with exactly that vital truth that is central to rising within "the spiritual worlds of God", as you have termed it. . . . . .

ALL those images were actually carefully selected and arranged to reveal a simple and graduated truth about the meaning of our lives . . . . .

Unfortunately only 2 or 3 so far have bothered with the images, not to speak of reflecting on them. . . .

They throw up their hands and cry - "Nothing can be known!"

Even when with their eyes, they say they know objectively the shape of a leaf. . . . .

Mr Troll: long time i no show

anyway, i think this thread has been derailed with unnecessary word play but then let me make my simple and probably final contribution...


while the argument for the existence of god/gods is inconclusive, it is quite naive to come such a conclusion based on intuition or logic alone as DS will like us to believe.


mankind has intuited falsely about a lot of things in the past...the cause of lightining, thunderstorms, the Sun etc. it is complex ignorance and escapism to say that just because we see a very complex entity then it is logical to conclude GOD!!!

this position poses more questions than answers and you, DS knows that. you have been asked severally on this forum to explain your concept of God and every month we see new explanations. there are some things the atheist do not know about the universe but it is cowardice and escapist to make fantastic assumptions about them without any proof or evidence whatsoever. saying GOD!!! kills of every avenue for enquiry. it merely states the position we were already assuming. God created the universe? for what? pray tell....

i do not state that there is no god. i simply say that i do not believe in god because i see no evidence for any, and that includes your deist god DeepSight. i could intuit all i want but it all boils down to conclusive evidence. if i cant get that then all i eventually did was wishful thinking....

where is your conclusive irrefutable evidence for GOD!!!? show us and let us examine it. until then, save us your fantastic theories and intuition.

I really don't know what you think I mean by intuition. However you must know very well that I base my discussions not on intuition alone, but cardinally on Logic.

Deep Sight:

Lol. This is why its boring wasting time with you. What's your reason for saying that a simple chalkboard requires a designer?

It would do you well to stop shifting the goal posts.

Logicboy03:

It would do you well to stop shifting the goal posts.

Lol. What staggering dishonesty!

You guys are really charming, you know that? Simple question, and now we are talking goal posts!

How sweet!

Deep Sight:

Lol. What staggering dishonesty!

You guys are really charming, you know that? Simple question, and now we are talking goal posts!

How sweet!

troll on, sir

goodbye

Deep Sight:

I really don't know what you think I mean by intuition. However you must know very well that I base my discussions not on intuition alone, but cardinally on Logic.

I assume it is the dictionary meaning?

Be that as it may,we already know what those pictures you posted were meant to represent. Like I said before, I only decided to address them just as some sort of mental exercise.

Let me give you an example...assuming we are in say, 1600BC and we know nothing about how lightning is formed, intuitively we can say that the gods are responsible for lightning and on occasions where it kills some persons, we can come to a logical conclusion that maybe the gods were angry at the person for some reason or the other. Until we know better, it will seem foolish for some people to assert that lightning is in fact a natural phenomena and that the dead persons were just unfortunate without presenting an alternate explanation. I hope you get the point... The fact that we cannot explain some things eg consciousness is no reason to invoke GOD!!!

To be perfectly honest, the arrangement of those pictures were meant to suggest the presence of something other than what is evident, eg the thinking man and the boy and corpse. But all I see is wishful thinking. Give me a dead man DS and tell me the cause of death and I can explain it medically to you...nothing spiritual or supernatural will be involved. Nothing fantastic like say, Breath of life

The theist position is simply a God Of The Gaps and it will continue for a long time because there will always be things unknown in this universe. The theist position is in fact the position of the lazy mind.

For you to involve design, then you have to state purpose. All we see in the theists explanation for design are merely 'human-centric' explanations...because of we we we humans. The special special homo sapien. Created for blah blah blah with --- version of the anthropomorphic god. E don tire me...

^^^

The thinking man image is particularly funny.

In that image I could either see a thinking atheist or a wishing theist. lol

Thinking man or wishing man? Take your pick lol

It seems that atheists do the thinking and theists do the wishing. lol

plaetton: ^^^

The thinking man image is particularly funny.

In that image I could either see a thinking atheist or a wishing theist. lol

Thinking man or wishing man? Take your pick lol

It seems that atheists do the thinking and theists do the wishing. lol

Same difference.
Is it not by think that you wish? No?

Mr Troll: For you to involve design, then you have to state purpose. All we see in the theists explanation for design are merely 'human-centric' explanations...because of we we we humans. The special special homo sapien. Created for blah blah blah with --- version of the anthropomorphic god. E don tire me...

you don't believe you're special? You're no different from the animal? Its a wonder your life is in direct difference to your thoughts.

Joshthefirst: you don't believe you're special? You're no different from the animal? Its a wonder your life is in direct difference to your thoughts.

Newsflash for Joshthefirst; Humans are animals....

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

Yes, I completely agree. Nothing is this world is absolute, never ending and complete. The truth remains unknown not because of the lack of ability to find truth but because humans interpret truth through their broken and incomplete shads of lens which is called human perception.
Therefore dear op and everyone else who fails to see the relevance of the above quote to the post, it would be futile to ask everyone their interpretation of these pictures, because like the multi-faced diamond, the truth has different sides,angles which is neither wrong nor right.... I am fairly certain that you are very much aware of the young lady/old woman photo.