How do we see ? Is it God's gift ?

Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
How do we see ? Is it God's gift ?

How do we see or observe other things really ? Is it god's gift in some manner ? Lets see if this discussion helps to start this off.

Q1 - How do you see things ?

A1 - I use the eye.

 

Q2 - Is the eye matter ?

A2  - Yes it is 

 

Q3 - Does only your eye help you see ?

A3 - No , not on its own?

 

Q4 - Then how do you see things ?

A4 - My eye receives light rays which is reflected by a thing, it gets converted into impulses and travels to my brain to primary and secondary visual cortex. This gets processed by the brain thus.

 

Q5 - Does your brain see then ?

A5 - Yes sort of , the images are formed in the brain

 

Q6 - When you say , "I see", who sees ?

A6 - It is me.

 

Q7 - By "me" what do you mean , who or what sees ? Is it your hand ? Is it your leg ? Is it your brain , is it your eye or what ?

A7 - I know for sure my hand and leg doesnt see , However my eye sees, but seems to play an intermediate role. The eye helps along with the brain and we see things. So we can say both together see.

 

Q8 - Is brain matter ?

A8 - Yes it is.

 

Q9 - Are you saying a combination of matter sees other matter ? It seems incredible. How can matter see other matter ?

A9 - What are you trying to say ?

 

Q10 - I say it seems like god's gift, unless you have good explanation.

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
That's a pretty crappy

That's a pretty crappy conversation.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote:

Venkatrajan wrote:

How do we see or observe other things really ? Is it god's gift in some manner ? Lets see if this discussion helps to start this off.

Q1 - How do you see things ?

A1 - I use the eye.

 

Q2 - Is the eye matter ?

A2 - Yes it is

 

Q3 - Does only your eye help you see ?

A3 - No , not on its own?

 

Q4 - Then how do you see things ?

A4 - My eye receives light rays which is reflected by a thing, it gets converted into impulses and travels to my brain to primary and secondary visual cortex. This gets processed by the brain thus.

 

Q5 - Does your brain see then ?

A5 - Yes sort of , the images are formed in the brain

 

Q6 - When you say , "I see", who sees ?

A6 - It is me.

 

Q7 - By "me" what do you mean , who or what sees ? Is it your hand ? Is it your leg ? Is it your brain , is it your eye or what ?

A7 - I know for sure my hand and leg doesnt see , However my eye sees, but seems to play an intermediate role. The eye helps along with the brain and we see things. So we can say both together see.

 

Q8 - Is brain matter ?

A8 - Yes it is.

 

Q9 - Are you saying a combination of matter sees other matter ? It seems incredible. How can matter see other matter ?

A9 - What are you trying to say ?

 

Q10 - I say it seems like god's gift, unless you have good explanation.

 

 

Yea, I have a much better explination. Evolution, which doesnt require ancient Superman vs Kriptonite stories written by tribalistic goat herders.

You are mistaking a sense of awe for magic. Being "wow"ed by something doesnt mean we need to incert a deity in the gap.

"We dont know everything about how sight works so theirfor my deity exists".

Or, "How sight works, is complex so therefore my deity did it".

This line of argumentation has been beat like a dead horse.

Which diety? Allah, Thor, Vishnu?

You are making an assumption that a deity is required. Evolution doesnt require a deity. Eagles have much better eyesight than humans, care to explain that?

You also fail to recognize the amount of waste in nature. Take pollen or sperm. Trees produce tons of pollen where as the acorns are overwhelmed by millions of pollen to one acorn. Sperm is the same.  Millions of sperm to one egg and all but one sperm will fail.

99% of the biological life that has lived on this planet is extinct. What you see today is a mere 1%. 

We have evolved to have the most developed brains as a species. BUT, we will be out servived as a species, barring a cosmic disaster such as a meteor or commet hitting us, we will be outlived by the cockroach.

Complexity can arise out of the undisigned and evolution explains this quite well without a superstitious sky daddy fictional being.

Your filling the gaps with an egotistical anthropromorphic projection of human qualities on nature, not understanding that only humans are humans and the rest of nature, especially the universe is completely dissimalure to the human species.

Not only is "god/GOD/diety/supernatural" unessarry, it is a bad explination that retards the expansion of human knowlege. It is a projection of ourselves and is a side effect of our evolution and genes telling us to "continue".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
I think he's arguing less

I think he's arguing less against evolution and more for mind-body dualism.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote: I

JeremiahSmith wrote:
I think he's arguing less against evolution and more for mind-body dualism.

So? It looks just as pathetic no matter what kind of wrapping you put around a steamy pile. This is just another person saying, "look, the color is different" failing to realize that the argument is the same and just as falacious.

This person claims a "god". Fine, I am going to ask the same question I ask anyone of any label, "Define your god and provide evidence for your claim". Or am I being to picky? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
You guys are beating around

You guys are beating around the bush and not addressing the post . How is possible ? Who sees ? How can matter see matter ?

 If matter can see matter , you guys should be able to design an arrangement of matter in a lab which at least sees other matter. (Dont give a standard BS argument that wait for 10 years , we shall do it)

1. "Eagle having better eyesight " - Irrelevant to discussion.

2. Acorns, sperm, chancs of cockroach etc outliving us , all irrelevant to the discussion.

3. I said "it seems" like a god's gift, not so sure , then why refer to Thor, Vishnu etc.

4. You think, I think "Mind/body" dualism, why assume . Why dont you try to explain rationally ?. You guys are very rational, right !

 

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote:

Venkatrajan wrote:
You guys are beating around the bush and not addressing the post . How is possible ? Who sees ? How can matter see matter ?

By detecting incoming photons, processing the images received into a model of the external world, and making the findings known to the rest of the brain. It seems pretty straightforward to me but I suppose sight just works differently in Venkatrajan world!

Quote:
If matter can see matter , you guys should be able to design an arrangement of matter in a lab which at least sees other matter. (Dont give a standard BS argument that wait for 10 years , we shall do it)

"If nuclear fusion can create stars, you should be able to make a star in a lab!"

There are certain people who believe that understanding how something works necessarily means you can recreate that thing in a lab right then and there, and that if you can't recreate something in a lab you can't really understand it.

These people are known as "idiots".

Quote:
4. You think, I think "Mind/body" dualism, why assume . Why dont you try to explain rationally ?. You guys are very rational, right !

I assume you're supporting mind-body dualism because you're supporting mind-body dualism. Dualism is the position that the mind exists separately from the body and is therefore not matter. Ssomeone who believed the mind was made of matter wouldn't argue that matter couldn't see matter.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: You

Venkatrajan wrote:

You guys are beating around the bush and not addressing the post . How is possible ? Who sees ? How can matter see matter ?

 

 

Here, maybe this will help you.

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/argumentfromignorance.html

because lack of knowledge of something (how an animal 'sees&#39Eye-wink should not lead you to a conclusion that an outside force is causing it.  This is what lead to ancient man believing lightning was Zeus throwing lightning bolts...a basic logical fallacy.

or this

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/beggingthequestion.html

 

because you are including "god exists" in your premises in order to arrive at the conclusion that sight is 'god's gift'. 

 

Due to just these two basic errors, your entire premise is silly.  Hope this helps, and have a nice day.

 

 

 

 


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote:You

double post...sorry

 


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You guys are beating

Quote:
You guys are beating around the bush and not addressing the post . How is possible ? Who sees ? How can matter see matter ?

The better question is whether or not there is a reason why matter shouldn't be able to see matter.  I don't understand how what you are going on about is an argument at all. 

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: You

Venkatrajan wrote:

You guys are beating around the bush and not addressing the post . How is possible ? Who sees ? How can matter see matter ?

 If matter can see matter , you guys should be able to design an arrangement of matter in a lab which at least sees other matter. (Dont give a standard BS argument that wait for 10 years , we shall do it)

1. "Eagle having better eyesight " - Irrelevant to discussion.

2. Acorns, sperm, chancs of cockroach etc outliving us , all irrelevant to the discussion.

3. I said "it seems" like a god's gift, not so sure , then why refer to Thor, Vishnu etc.

4. You think, I think "Mind/body" dualism, why assume . Why dont you try to explain rationally ?. You guys are very rational, right !

Where are you going with this?  Why stop at sight?  If I put a donut in my mouth...well a donut is matter, my tongue is matter, my brain processes the taste.  Matter tastes matter?  Matter smells matter?  Matter hears matter?  Matter feels matter?

Where is your line of reasoning going?  I assume that you are trying to make the point that it seems like magic to you.

Ok, fine if you feel like that.  But where does that line of reasoning go?

Where is the mental leap?  The bible is true?

What????

How in any line of reasoning can you say that seeing is so confoundingly amazing to you that god exists?  And not only that, but where do you go from there?  How do you pick a religion?  What religion do you pick?

Where does the bible/koran/torah tell you how sight works?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: How do

Venkatrajan wrote:

How do we see or observe other things really ? Is it god's gift in some manner ?
Whats a 'god'?

Quote:
Venkatrajan1 - How do you see things ?
Venkatrajan1 - I use the eye.
Venkatrajan2 - Is the eye matter ?
Venkatrajan2 - Yes it is
Venkatrajan3 - Does only your eye help you see ?
Venkatrajan3 - No , not on its own?
Venkatrajan4 - Then how do you see things ?
Venkatrajan4 - My eye receives light rays which is reflected by a thing, it gets converted into impulses and travels to my brain to primary and secondary visual cortex. This gets processed by the brain thus.
Venkatrajan5 - Does your brain see then ?
Venkatrajan5 - Yes sort of , the images are formed in the brain
Venkatrajan6 - When you say , "I see", who sees ?
Venkatrajan6 - It is me.
Venkatrajan7 - By "me" what do you mean , who or what sees ? Is it your hand ? Is it your leg ? Is it your brain , is it your eye or what ?
Venkatrajan7 - I know for sure my hand and leg doesnt see , However my eye sees, but seems to play an intermediate role. The eye helps along with the brain and we see things. So we can say both together see.
Venkatrajan8 - Is brain matter ?
Venkatrajan8 - Yes it is.
Venkatrajan9 - Are you saying a combination of matter sees other matter ? It seems incredible. How can matter see other matter ?
Venkatrajan9 - What are you trying to say ?
Venkatrajan10 - I say it seems like god's gift, unless you have good explanation.
You shouldn't engage in conversations with yourself, Venkatrajan.
If you discussed this with someone with more knowledge than yourself, the conversation wouldn't have lead to the meaningless conclusion that it did.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
It isn't an argument it is

Quote:
The better question is whether or not there is a reason why matter shouldn't be able to see matter.  I don't understand how what you are going on about is an argument at all. 

 

 

 

 

It isn't an argument it is a declaration of ignorance followed by an erroneous conclusion.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The process of what happens

Question 9 has an answer that you're ignoring in the original post. 

The process of what happens with eyes and brains in various different organisms is pretty well understood. But in order to really address the question "how does matter see matter," you need to stop equivocating on the meaning of the word "see."

In the original post, you define seeing as what happens in the (mammal) eye--which is very well understood--then switch to a definition that includes processing of the neural impulses in the brain--which is still pretty well understood, but less completely than what happens in a mammal's eye.

Then you do a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy by insisting that if somebody can't demonstrate in a laboratory that matter sees matter (whatever "see" means here) then that means God exists.

What exactly do you want to know about vision and perception? I can probably answer or point you to the answer if you can ask the question more clearly.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:    you

Textom wrote:

 

 you need to stop equivocating on the meaning of the word "see."

 

 

The only thing interesting about his post is his ability to include so many different logical fallacies in his premises and conclusion.


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Jeremiah - "If nuclear

Jeremiah - "If nuclear fusion can create stars, you should be able to make a star in a lab!"

There are certain people who believe that understanding how something works necessarily means you can recreate that thing in a lab right then and there, and that if you can't recreate something in a lab you can't really understand it.

These people are known as "idiots".

 

 

I didnt say this at all. You are sidestepping. You are diverting the issue by bringing in nuclear fusion (which by the way doesnt involve a human faculty)  Human eyesight is what leads all of us to observe and know about the world. So it is very important to know how it works. If we could replicate this in a lab or machine , we could use is for lot many utilities.

It is something we have take for granted completely.  So far what you have come up is photons in the brain ____ making findings known to rest of the brain. All matter which can see other matter.

Gregfl - Sidestepping the question completely .

 

Humanistic Jones -  The better question is whether or not there is a reason why matter shouldn't be able to see matter.  I don't understand how what you are going on about is an argument at all

If you cant offer any explanations, why step into the debate at all dear.  

Watcher - Where are you going with this?  Why stop at sight?  If I put a donut in my mouth...well a donut is matter, my tongue is matter, my brain processes the taste.  Matter tastes matter?  Matter smells matter?  Matter hears matter?  Matter feels matter?

 Stupid analogy. I believe in god , so do hundreds of thousands in God, By analogy it is true. You guys dont accept this. 

Watcher - How do you pick a religion?  What religion do you pick? Where does the bible/koran/torah tell you how sight works?

Sidestepping the issue. Not addressing anything related to eyesight. 

 

AIIa - You shouldn't engage in conversations with yourself, Venkatrajan.
If you discussed this with someone with more knowledge than yourself, the conversation wouldn't have lead to the meaningless conclusion that it did.

 So looks like you all just believe this, that is all.  Can a rock see another rock ? Can this computer see you typing on it ?   Your  belief is that matter can see matter. If it was so simple, why cant you replicate this ?

 

Coming back to Watcher's post on comparisons 

1. Eg A bird can fly using wings . Humans have designed aeroplanes which can fly.

2. We humans can lift with hands and walk on the road, but we also built robots which can do this.

3. We can  hear with our  hear. Humans have built computers which can listen to a person lecturing and convert it into meaningful words on the screen. Fairly exact reproduction.

4. We have made computers that can play chess.

 But when it comes to eyesight, absolutely no such development at all.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: Watcher

Venkatrajan wrote:

Watcher - Where are you going with this?  Why stop at sight?  If I put a donut in my mouth...well a donut is matter, my tongue is matter, my brain processes the taste.  Matter tastes matter?  Matter smells matter?  Matter hears matter?  Matter feels matter?

 Stupid analogy. I believe in god , so do hundreds of thousands in God, By analogy it is true. You guys dont accept this. 

Stupid analogy?  You're saying "matter sees matter" and call me stupid by saying "matter tastes matter"?

WTF?

Venkatrajan wrote:
Watcher - How do you pick a religion?  What religion do you pick? Where does the bible/koran/torah tell you how sight works?

Sidestepping the issue. Not addressing anything related to eyesight. 

Sidestepping?  What the hell are you doing?  Quit sidestepping and get to the point.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Steven
Bronze Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Coming back to

Quote:

Coming back to Watcher's post on comparisons 

1. Eg A bird can fly using wings . Humans have designed aeroplanes which can fly.

2. We humans can lift with hands and walk on the road, but we also built robots which can do this.

3. We can  hear with our  hear. Humans have built computers which can listen to a person lecturing and convert it into meaningful words on the screen. Fairly exact reproduction.

4. We have made computers that can play chess.

 But when it comes to eyesight, absolutely no such development at all.

 

A camcorder?  Not only can it see, it records what it see's.  Two for one! 

I do not think anyone, including yourself, has any idea what your point is.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: Coming

Venkatrajan wrote:

Coming back to Watcher's post on comparisons 

1. Eg A bird can fly using wings . Humans have designed aeroplanes which can fly.

2. We humans can lift with hands and walk on the road, but we also built robots which can do this.

3. We can  hear with our  hear. Humans have built computers which can listen to a person lecturing and convert it into meaningful words on the screen. Fairly exact reproduction.

4. We have made computers that can play chess.

 But when it comes to eyesight, absolutely no such development at all.  

 

 

Good Point!.  

 

I will now  smash all of my  camera lenses and  throwout my digital camera, light sensitive burglar alarm, camcorder and all other technology based on "seeing".  Then, I will quit my job and full time lobby against any more government funding for project's like these...

 http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2002/023788.pdf

 

Tell me, or you serious or are you a parody of ignorant theists?  Because if you are the latter...brilliant!

 

 


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan, what do you

Venkatrajan, what do you believe?

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness exist distinct from the body, meaning the mind is not matter?

or

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness are part of the body, meaning that the mind is matter (or, more precisely, the interaction of bits of matter)?

or

Do you believe something else?

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I poked my camera in the

I poked my camera in the lense once.

 It cried.

 

lol


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Here's a more interesting

Here's a more interesting question.

How can non-material see.

In fact, what is non-material? 


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan

Venkatrajan wrote:

Humanistic Jones - The better question is whether or not there is a reason why matter shouldn't be able to see matter. I don't understand how what you are going on about is an argument at all

If you cant offer any explanations, why step into the debate at all dear.

I might have more to contribute if the problem was actually defined.  You've introduced a problem (How can matter see matter) without defining why there is a problem there.  Photons reflect from matter, are focused by the eye-lens, stimulate receptors on the retina, send signals up the optic nerve, recieved by the visual cortex, brain then generates a simulation of the recieved data.  Matter seeing matter.  I don't see the problem in this and thus I ask the question, "Why shouldn't matter be able to see matter?" 

Venkatrajan wrote:

Coming back to Watcher's post on comparisons

1. Eg A bird can fly using wings . Humans have designed aeroplanes which can fly.

2. We humans can lift with hands and walk on the road, but we also built robots which can do this.

3. We can hear with our hear. Humans have built computers which can listen to a person lecturing and convert it into meaningful words on the screen. Fairly exact reproduction.

4. We have made computers that can play chess.

But when it comes to eyesight, absolutely no such development at all.

 

Yeah, I guess my camera's auto focuser, a range finder, and motion detector aren't able to see.  Hell, there have been strides in creating artificial eyes for people who are blind due to eye and optic nerve damage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_prosthetic).

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
venka wrote: But when it

venka wrote:

But when it comes to eyesight, absolutely no such development at all. 

Factually incorrect.

It's relatively simple to make robots that use cameras to distinguish between different objects and use that information to move around, manipulate objects or make decisions.  There are many robots that recognize human faces and can follow the movement of your face with their own faces, reacting to human expressions that they see.

Asimo recognizes human faces, sees and responds to hand gestures, can watch people and follow them around, and can recognize where it is.

  Human vision is just a more complicated form of what robot vision does.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    This is a matter of

    This is a matter of lack of research again, just a simple type of technology and helping th blind see, there have come up with a few hits of how we humans are helping other humans see again, using various technologies, one i remember from the late 80's early 90's was a tiny camera that would be connected to the brain to allow the blind limited sight (again early days of technology), there are also using microchips in cats that they hope to use in humans one day. Man seriously, this is another case of I hope to prove god without doing any bit of research, we have so many MATTER that can SEE MATTER (cameras of all sorts, web cams, digital photo cams, security cam, handheld recording cameras, etc etc etc etc). Then there are the robots that are being designed all over the place, just check out stuff in Korea and Japan some pretty amazing stuff, again do some research before making a bold dumb statement.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: Jeremiah

Venkatrajan wrote:
Jeremiah - "If nuclear fusion can create stars, you should be able to make a star in a lab!"

There are certain people who believe that understanding how something works necessarily means you can recreate that thing in a lab right then and there, and that if you can't recreate something in a lab you can't really understand it.

These people are known as "idiots".

  

 

 

 

I didnt say this at all. You are sidestepping. You are diverting the issue by bringing in nuclear fusion (which by the way doesnt involve a human faculty) Human eyesight is what leads all of us to observe and know about the world. So it is very important to know how it works. If we could replicate this in a lab or machine , we could use is for lot many utilities.

It is something we have take for granted completely. So far what you have come up is photons in the brain ____ making findings known to rest of the brain. All matter which can see other matter.

Gregfl - Sidestepping the question completely .

 

Humanistic Jones - The better question is whether or not there is a reason why matter shouldn't be able to see matter. I don't understand how what you are going on about is an argument at all

If you cant offer any explanations, why step into the debate at all dear.

Watcher - Where are you going with this? Why stop at sight? If I put a donut in my mouth...well a donut is matter, my tongue is matter, my brain processes the taste. Matter tastes matter? Matter smells matter? Matter hears matter? Matter feels matter?

Stupid analogy. I believe in god , so do hundreds of thousands in God, By analogy it is true. You guys dont accept this.

Watcher - How do you pick a religion? What religion do you pick? Where does the bible/koran/torah tell you how sight works?

Sidestepping the issue. Not addressing anything related to eyesight.

 

AIIa - You shouldn't engage in conversations with yourself, Venkatrajan.
If you discussed this with someone with more knowledge than yourself, the conversation wouldn't have lead to the meaningless conclusion that it did.

So looks like you all just believe this, that is all. Can a rock see another rock ? Can this computer see you typing on it ? Your belief is that matter can see matter. If it was so simple, why cant you replicate this ?

 

Coming back to Watcher's post on comparisons

1. Eg A bird can fly using wings . Humans have designed aeroplanes which can fly.

2. We humans can lift with hands and walk on the road, but we also built robots which can do this.

3. We can hear with our hear. Humans have built computers which can listen to a person lecturing and convert it into meaningful words on the screen. Fairly exact reproduction.

4. We have made computers that can play chess.

But when it comes to eyesight, absolutely no such development at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does any of this have to do with your deity you claim exists?

It is YOU that is side stepping. If you have a deity you say is real, cut to the chase, skip YOUR sidesteping, define your god and provide evidence for it.

"You dont know everything therefore my deity exists" is a debunked bullshit argument and strictly 101 amature hour. Please tell me you have something better than "The eye is complex so my god exists" bullshit.

If this is all you have, dont waste our time or yours, we'd rather kiss the dead corps of Jerry Falwell than rehash this bullshit again.

Now, your next post should go something like this if you have any real intrest in proving that your god exists.

"My god is(incert name here). This is the evidence that I have for the god I claim is real.....evidence to follow".

 BTW , there are deep sea species of jellyfish who have light sensors and are considered one of the earlyist forms of evolution considering the atribute of sight.

Why are you so desperate to stick a puppiteer in the mix, and why do you refuse to define your fictional puppiteer or give it a name or provide evidence for it? Or is it that you know your deity claim is stupid and indefencable so you pretend to attack atheists to divert attention away from the fact that YOU HAVENT PRESENTED JACK SHIT as far as evidence for the god you say is real.

Stop being a dodger and make the case for your deity, you havent been doing it at all in this thread and you are not impresssing anyone, except maybe yourself in order to stroke your delusion.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Here's another example of a

Here's another example of a robot that can "see" matter and also carry on conversations and pick up guys.  http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=dOaaQnC9qi8

 

 


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Good, Finally you guys did

Good, Finally you guys did some research. Thought moving in right direction.

 

Watcher - Stupid analogy?  You're saying "matter sees matter" and call me stupid by saying "matter tastes matter"

 

Do you know matter sees matter or is it a belief ? Prove it. The only way you can prove this is by making / creating something which can see and know that it is seeing.

 

Steven - A camcorder?  Not only can it see, it records what it see's.  Two for one! 

Gregfl - Good Point!.  I will now  smash all of my  camera lenses and  throwout my digital camera, light sensitive burglar alarm, camcorder and all other technology based on "seeing". 

AIIA - I poked my camera in the lense once.

LOL, BS

You guys are way off track.

A camera or a videocamera etc is only capabale of recording the visual image on another medium. You forgot that to see that image requires another human being. So we are back to square one of this problem. 

1.  The camera has the lens ,read human eye

2. The camera creates an image which gets copied onto another medium, read the part of the brain where it gets copies or projected.

Thus you guys conclude that brain is able to record the visual in an image like the photographic film in a still camera or a Digital disc in a digital camera. But to see that requires another human.

 

Humanistic Jones -  Matter seeing matter.  I don't see the problem in this and thus I ask the question, "Why shouldn't matter be able to see matter?" 

Answer to your question - You are not philosophic enough. You also need to contemplate yourself in what all states of your existence do you see things and you dont see things ?

 

Humanistic Jones - Yeah, I guess my camera's auto focuser, a range finder, and motion detector aren't able to see.  Hell, there have been strides in creating artificial eyes for people who are blind due to eye and optic nerve damage

Can this visual prosthetic itself see without being attached to  a human ? No We go back to square one.

 

Textom - Asimo

Very good try , knew you guys will be forced to research and come up with this one

ASIMO can recognize 10 faces which are preprogrammed in it. All human movements are preprogrammed into it. If you make it to focus on a cow, can it say that it is seeing the cow. Then also the vital question , does it know that it is seeing. It doesnt.

Seeing is a conscious act, where the person knows that he is seeing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear Idiot: You didn't

Dear Idiot:

You didn't answer earlier so I'll ask again. 

Venkatrajan, what do you believe?

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness exist distinct from the body, meaning the mind is not matter?

or

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness are part of the body, meaning that the mind is matter (or, more precisely, the interaction of bits of matter)?

or

Do you believe something else?

Thanks again for helping to clear things up! 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Three fallacies in the

Three fallacies in the OP:

Begging the question: 'How do weee seeee? could be gaawwwddd did it? ?? .' 

Argument from personal incredulity: 'What, matter can do stuff? How can that . beeeee?? sounds totatly wierd !!'

Argument from ignorance: 'I doni't know, so that it must be that gaaaawwwwwdddd did it  !! . ' 

There's not an argument in it that isn't fallacious.

I'll take your latter question about matter 'seeing' matter, which is equivocation as Textom pointed out, to mean technology being able to parse visual data. How do you think the cashier rings up your Jeera Sip so fast? Barcodes. From there we're really only talking degrees of resolution and processing to get to an animal eye analog.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
venk wrote: Textom -

venk wrote:

Textom - Asimo

Very good try , knew you guys will be forced to research and come up with this one

ASIMO can recognize 10 faces which are preprogrammed in it. All human movements are preprogrammed into it. If you make it to focus on a cow, can it say that it is seeing the cow. Then also the vital question , does it know that it is seeing. It doesnt.

Seeing is a conscious act, where the person knows that he is seeing.

Yep, I also was expecting this one.  This is why I asked you to define "see" up front, because it's clear you haven't thought about what qualifies as seeing.

A flatworm barely has any nervous system at all, but it has eyes and it responds to light according to those perceptions.  A flatworm doesn't really know anything in the sense that higher life forms know things.  Is a flatworm seeing?

A fly has a nervous system, but it has some behaviors that are directly wired into its peripheral nerves.  When it sees something coming toward it, an impulse goes directly from its eyes to its legs causing it to take off, bypassing its brain. The fly isn't aware of what it sees.  Is the fly seeing?

Asimo does more processing on what it sees than either a fly or a flatworm (or the jellyfish example cited above).  Are you arguing that these forms of vision are not vision?

If not, then you're making an arbitrary, meaningless distinction between biological and electronic vision.  So justify the distinction.

 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: Coming

Venkatrajan wrote:

Coming back to Watcher's post on comparisons

1. Eg A bird can fly using wings . Humans have designed aeroplanes which can fly.

2. We humans can lift with hands and walk on the road, but we also built robots which can do this.

3. We can hear with our hear. Humans have built computers which can listen to a person lecturing and convert it into meaningful words on the screen. Fairly exact reproduction.

4. We have made computers that can play chess.

But when it comes to eyesight, absolutely no such development at all.

If you were to have raised this question in, say, 1834, none of the aforementioned scientific developments would have existed. If you cannot see the fallacy in then stating that because science hasn't replicated it yet, it must be proof of a deity, then you are, as others have noted, an idiot.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
You have to define by

You have to define by what you mean as seeing? a CAMERA does SEE MATTER as how you said, does matter SEE matter. Then the answer is yes, cameras do that. Can we create something that does it by conscious? define consciousness then please (something theists, philosophers and scientists are struggling to do and stuggled for the past few thousands of years.) Your basically saying can matter see matter, we showed you it can, you say nope, and change the definition. So please define what the hell you mean by SEE. Because there are robots, asimo aside, that can SEE that interpret their surrounding to avoid walking into them an be able to walk around them, as well as being able to walk up and down stairs and over objects the robot is the SDR-4X, again, this is us creating it, using what we understand of nature. However many creatures have different degrees being able to see, from mere light, to short sightedness to eagles that can see extremely far. So please stop beating around the bush, and admit that you have neither the proper defintion of seeing, and the scientific explanations far exceed your dumb analogy, WE can see, the brain is us, our personalitys and our thoughts are in the brain, the eyes allow us to see, the brain interprets the signals of the eyes, they work TOGETHER. As such I can only say this one way, we see visually by our eyes, without them....we are blind, if the eyes don't workor any part of the eyes that don't function correctlly, (i mean all the parts required for seeing) then we are blinded in some way or form or completely.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote:Do you

Venkatrajan wrote:

Do you know matter sees matter or is it a belief ? Prove it. The only way you can prove this is by making / creating something which can see and know that it is seeing.

Do you know matter tastes matter or is it a belief ? Prove it.  The only way you can prove this is by making / creating something which can taste and know what it is tasting.

I'm matter.  A rock is matter.  I can see a rock, walk over to it, and pick it up.  I can show it to other people.  Ask them what color it is.  If they say it is the same color that I see we have mutually independent verification of matter seeing matter.

You are either a fucking TROLL or you have the lowest intelligence of any theist I have ever argued with.  R-e-t-a-r-d. 

This one is too fucked in the head to save, guys.  Let this one waste it's life praying to thor. 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just in case no-one has

Just in case no-one has already made this point, equipment has been constructed which can recognise various objects, including human faces, from purely visual input, and produce a physical indication of what it is 'seeing'.

So the technical aspects of this 'argument' are empty.

We are only left with the old 'problem' of how does 'matter' have 'thoughts', which is quite independent of any sense organ. The software running on the computer doing the recognition is not itself matter, but a process occurring on a complex organisation of matter, ie the electronic hardware.

Similarly, our recognition of something we see is also a process occuring in a pattern of neuron firing in our brains, which is observable by fMRI scanners.

There is not 'merely' matter, there is matter plus pattern, structure and process in the organiisation and interaction of that matter.

 EDIT: There is evidence that eyes have evolved independently several times, and ours are not the best 'design'.

NOTE: no supernatural entities required to make sense of what is happening.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Your tit for tat tactic is

Your tit for tat tactic is not new and all you are doing is trying to mimic our legitiamate skepticism by trying to mirror our position.

Atheist, "Ok replicate 3 day old dead flesh surviving rigor mortis"

You, "Replicate a super nova"

What you fail to realize is that your claim is not even in the same league or catigory. Your claim is fiction. 3 day old dead bodies dont reconstitute themselves. Scientists have documented and mesured super novas.

Bottom line, Super noves=provable, zombie gods=fiction,


"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually scientists have

Actually scientists have made huge advances on the creation of bionic eyes. Just google "bionic eye" and you will come up with a ton of information on the subject. The first bionic eyes were created several years ago. The technology hasn't been perfected but it has certainly demonstrated that a relatively decent bionic eye that can help blind people see is a viable possibility and may even be available commercially within a few years. Once again man creates in God's place and given another few decades probably will do a better job.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4411591.stm

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/07/59634

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/16/neye116.xml

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If we could only count as

If we could only count as good science stuff we could closely replicate or study in a laboratory, most of science would be out the window, like astronomy, cosmology, archaeology, oceanography, etc, etc.

Science is not just about test tubes and lab equipment, it's about careful observation and measurement, including independent replication of those observations, whether inside or outside the lab, among other things.

We devise new things to test for, or look for in the sky, or whatever, based on proposed explanations (AKA hypotheses) which will potentially disprove the explanation. Again, going on about 'replication' as if that was the only criterion to 'prove' a scientific hypothesis is just demonstrating ignorance of the subject.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Jeremiah - Do you believe

Jeremiah - Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness exist distinct from the body, meaning the mind is not matter?

or Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness are part of the body, meaning that the mind is matter (or, more precisely, the interaction of bits of matter)? 

My dear ass  -  Neither am I in a courtstand, nor are you a hotshot lawyer.  Did you usually ask impertinent questions to your teacher , trying to doubt her line of reasoning ? You know what this called. It is called ‘Jumping the gun’. Maybe you can address the points like others.  We will get into your desired territory , when we come to it ‘rationally’. 

Magilum - I'll take your latter question about matter 'seeing' matter, which is equivocation as Textom pointed out, to mean technology being able to parse visual data. How do you think the cashier rings up your Jeera Sip so fast? Barcodes. From there we're really only talking degrees of resolution and processing to get to an animal eye analog. 

HaHa A cashier operates a barcode, so there is human intervention. The barcode reader reads the barcode and validates against a database populated by humans eventually. Whichever way you see it , it  goes back to a controller in the form of a human. A human types or loads data into a barcode supermarket goods database against which the barcode reader validates and prints a bill. 

Maybe you have seen a standalone barcode reader which wakes up when the store opens, positions itself when the first guy walks on the counter, greets him and quickly scans all the purchases without validating or interacting with anything a human designed database and hands a bill to him, “thank you very much, please shop again here, ”,  

Do you Magilum use an external intelligence to see and percieve while seeing ? Infact that is what you don’t believe for yourself , but want us very well to accept for another ‘matter’ called barcode reader. In the end your conclusion is that the barcode reader ‘sees’ with the help of a human who designed it.  Very quickly this line of reasoning will lead you into a familiar contemptuous territory. Take care.            

Textom - A flatworm barely has any nervous system at all, but it has eyes and it responds to light according to those perceptions.  A flatworm doesn't really know anything in the sense that higher life forms know things.  Is a flatworm seeing?

A fly has a nervous system, but it has some behaviors that are directly wired into its peripheral nerves.  When it sees something coming toward it, an impulse goes directly from its eyes to its legs causing it to take off, bypassing its brain. The fly isn't aware of what it sees.  Is the fly seeing?

Asimo does more processing on what it sees than either a fly or a flatworm (or the jellyfish example cited above).  Are you arguing that these forms of vision are not vision? If not, then you're making an arbitrary, meaningless distinction between biological and electronic vision.  So justify the distinction.

  My post concerns eyesight of humans and whether it is a god’s gift ?. We realize when we are seeing that we are seeing.  Your posts on Asimo was in response to a booby trap set up by me which you guys fell for hook , line and sinker.

Go back to my post on what I replied to Watcher’s post on comparisons. I mentioned man designed aeroplane flying , and a machine which hears and types out on the screen what it hears.  I left something unsaid here , because I knew what line you guys will take. 

LOL- You guys fell for it completely. The aeroplane and the machine which converts lectured texts , all these are operated, switched on , powered on by humans , a higher external intelligence. So the more you keep googling and adding to the pile of visual technology you mention , the more I love it and the more you only reinforce the theory that to even see barely and then to see much more clearly and so intelligently, one needs higher external intelligence in the form of a controller.  Evidence analogically without doubt of something (as far as humans eyesight is  concerned) which you guys viciously campaign against hypocritically. Do I need to elaborate what that is for some of the less intelligent ones here ?  

Dubh - If you were to have raised this question in, say, 1834, none of the aforementioned scientific developments would have existed. If you cannot see the fallacy in then stating that because science hasn't replicated it yet, it must be proof of a deity, then you are, as others have noted, an idiot. 

Ha, Ha , thanks , you also fell into the trap .

The more you add  the Technology sound bite , the more I love it , and the louder does it screams Intelligent design from our perspective also. My dear Hypocrite – You guys must have a pretty big ego to assume that while you can design things which can only see other things with the help of a human as a designer, controller in the background , but when it comes to you , no , you are able to see all on your own in a much more complex manner without any external intelligence helping in some manner. 

Well well , we have some pretty big hypocrites and egotists around here. 

Otherwise , plain and simple , you can choose to come out of your cornered and egotistic position by even attempting to make something (it is just all in a 6 inch cubed box called your head) akin to our head which can see on its own  , be aware that it sees and describes what it is, without being ‘controlled or powered on’ as you would have us believe. 

Latincanuck - You have to define by what you mean as seeing? a CAMERA does SEE MATTER as how you said, does matter SEE matter. Then the answer is yes, cameras do that. Can we create something that does it by conscious? define consciousness then please (something theists, philosophers and scientists are struggling to do and stuggled for the past few thousands of years.) Your basically saying can matter see matter, we showed you it can, you say nope, and change the definition. So please define what the hell you mean by SEE. Because there are robots, asimo aside, that can SEE that interpret their surrounding to avoid walking into them an be able to walk around them, as well as being able to walk up and down stairs and over objects the robot is the SDR-4X, again, this is us creating it, using what we understand of nature. However many creatures have different degrees being able to see, from mere light, to short sightedness to eagles that can see extremely far. So please stop beating around the bush, and admit that you have neither the proper defintion of seeing, and the scientific explanations far exceed your dumb analogy, WE can see, the brain is us, our personalitys and our thoughts are in the brain, the eyes allow us to see, the brain interprets the signals of the eyes, they work. TOGETHER. As such I can only say this one way, we see visually by our eyes, without them....we are blind, if the eyes don't workor any part of the eyes that don't function correctlly, (i mean all the parts required for seeing) then we are blinded in some way or form or completely .

 Are we seeing desperate attempts to wriggle out of the corner here ? So a camera SEES ?

Maybe just like an aeroplane (matter) flies on its own (Don’t even think of bringing in high tech defence and military planes/drones etc , which are eventually controlled by external intelligence , so for all machines – Humans are ______. You got it ,  GOD in capital letters.).

Or  a Robot does all what you say on its own without it being powered on or designed, Thanks that it does what all you said and I wish it could do much much more , and that will be a bigger indictment to you egotists.

 Discovery Institute should publicise all the latest developments in Robotics to take its cause forward.   So if a pint sized brain full of grey matter with a lens called eye allows you to see and be aware that you see  , why cant you get anywhere near replicating it. All you have is a robot which can avoid obstacles and say hi to 10 atheists.    

Watcher -  Watch your own words. Your profanity , I give back to you and you may move it up you know what.

  “Matter sees matter”  is looking like belief at your end. By proof you bring another human in between, when the question is on one human. This is like , I say God exists. You ask me , prove it. I say God sees another God, both greet each other ,so God exists.  Objection overruled. Incompetent stance. 

Wake up guys and take a reality check 

Either show real examples of ‘matter sees matter’ without human/external intelligence , or admit to Intelligent Design of humans and admit that our powers of seeing do depend on external intelligence . I call it God’s gift

Or simply admit that all the science that we have rests on one unproven belief ‘matter sees matter’ .  Height of ‘rationality’ this.

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: Magilum

Venkatrajan wrote:
Magilum - I'll take your latter question about matter 'seeing' matter, which is equivocation as Textom pointed out, to mean technology being able to parse visual data. How do you think the cashier rings up your Jeera Sip so fast? Barcodes. From there we're really only talking degrees of resolution and processing to get to an animal eye analog. 

HaHa A cashier operates a barcode, so there is human intervention. The barcode reader reads the barcode and validates against a database populated by humans eventually. Whichever way you see it , it  goes back to a controller in the form of a human. A human types or loads data into a barcode supermarket goods database against which the barcode reader validates and prints a bill. 

Maybe you have seen a standalone barcode reader which wakes up when the store opens, positions itself when the first guy walks on the counter, greets him and quickly scans all the purchases without validating or interacting with anything a human designed database and hands a bill to him, “thank you very much, please shop again here, ”,

Pity I can't actually hear you say the last line. Anyway, your original post dealt with seeing, so now you're moving the goal posts around.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Do you Magilum use an external intelligence to see and percieve while seeing ? Infact that is what you don’t believe for yourself , but want us very well to accept for another ‘matter’ called barcode reader.

The barcode reader is autonomous in working within set parameters; that is, no human intervention is involved in parsing visual data into the code used by the computer. Our perception also works within a limited conceptual framework, gathering data our brains perceive to be relevant. By extension, it's not hard to imagine more sophisticated machines with pattern recognition able to learn relevant patterns on their own, and perceive them in an adaptive way. Something like consciousness and self-awareness is another story, but just many more degrees of sophistication. I digress... since this isn't what you're after. As always, you're merely begging the question for dualistic poppycock.

Venkatrajan wrote:
In the end your conclusion is that the barcode reader ‘sees’ with the help of a human who designed it.

I answered the question of sight and pattern recognition, and now you're sneaking in new parameters.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Very quickly this line of reasoning will lead you into a familiar contemptuous territory.

Besides shooting out a big blank from your buttock, you can feel as if your root chakra leaked sweet hot mucus.

Venkatrajan wrote:
Take care.

Thank you, come again.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear Idiot: You didn't

Dear Idiot:

You didn't answer earlier, you just danced around the question. It's quite relevant, I assure you. So I'll ask it again.

Venkatrajan, what do you believe?

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness exist distinct from the body, meaning the mind is not matter?

or

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness are part of the body, meaning that the mind is matter (or, more precisely, the interaction of bits of matter)?

or

Do you believe something else?

Thanks again for helping to clear things up!

 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok, this has to be the

Ok, this has to be the biggest flip-flop in the history of mankind. You go from telling us that humans can't create anything similar to the eye so therefore it was "God's gift" but when we point out everything we can make that is similar to the eye you say we fell into your "booby trap" because we proved God existed. Must have been one hell of a trap because I still do not see it. Let me restate your argument to make sure I understand your convoluted thinking.

You say humans can create technology. (I agree)

That technology cannot work without being operated, powered or switched on by humans. (Debateable but for the sake of argument I will accept the premise.)

Therefore, humans had to be created by an intelligent higher power.

What? That conclusion makes no sense. Using the same argument, the higher power had to be created by an even higher power which had to be created by a higher power and so on. Which power came along first? Since it is much easier to explain where humans came from than to explain where God came from, I am inclined to believe we were first. If you have some evidence of God or at least a plausible theory of how a god might have been created I would be willing to consider it. So far, very few theists have had the guts to even attempt such an endeavor. Will you? Or will you sit and crow about how we fell into your "booby trap" that doesn't work. 

I would like to point out to you that humans are not technology and are fundamentally different in many ways. To assume we were created simply because we can create is absurd. Basically you are falling back to the watchmakers argument which has been debunked here so many times I don't particularly care to get into it although I am quite flattered that you compare us to God. And better than God too because we are smart enough to think about including options with our eyes like infrared vision, zoom and saving images for later. Heck, someday I might get a pair of eyes that will let me surf the net so I can see what dumbass theists are claiming. If God was so smart why didn't he think of that?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Guys this individual is a

Guys this individual is a fucking troll.  Stop talking to it.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Aha, the argument from

Aha, the argument from "haha I fooled you guys, therefore I was right all along."

Yep, I'm cashing out while I still have some brain cells left. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan

Venkatrajan wrote:

 God’s gift

Experiment #534598374985698364965

Does increasing font size give a meaningless statement meaning?

Here is a meaningless statement in normal size font: "God's gift"

Now here is the same statement in a larger font:

 "God’s gift"

"God's gift" is still a meaningless statement in a larger font size

Conclusion: making meaningless statements in a larger font does not give meaningless statements meaning.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Guys this

Watcher wrote:
Guys this individual is a fucking troll. Stop talking to it.

 

I think I'll start taking posts by theists, changing the words around to fit with atheism, and using those as my replies. He won't be able to tell the difference. I know this as empirical fact.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Steven
Bronze Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The more you add 

Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, eh?

 

Explains your ridiculous thought process.

 

Edit - for the stupid font


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
So "seeing is a conscious

So "seeing is a conscious act" is now the  new goal post and we must explain consciousness or default to 'god did it'.  Apparently in this alter reality, 'hearing' can be replicated by technology because it isn't conscious, but 'seeing' is in a class all its own.

Unbelievable.  The problem is that the OP hasn't a clue on how to construct an argument or how to defend one. Therefore you get a hodge podge, mish mash conversation that floats around the subject.  The real subject is OP presented somewhat of an argument that isn't valid and refuses to even engage why his point fails miserably.   This is why I stopped early when I pointed out to him that he had committed at least two serious logical fallacies in his premises and conclusion and he dismissed this as 'off topic'. 

 If a logical fallacy in an argument is off topic then the conversation is meaningless and it is time to talk to somebody who actually has the capacity for give- and-take serious discussion.  As my father used to say "don't confuse him with the facts, his mind is already made up".

 Someone accused the OP as being a troll. He may be or may not be, but it really doesn't matter as this conversation is ridiculous and absurd.


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Watcher - I see you are

Watcher - I see you are outpouring your grief on FTA. Not able to face some assertions, looks like subconsciously your cupboard of knowledge got toppled somewhere.

Further if you take the trouble of looking up Troll in Wikipedia, You would look like a troll youself. Boss, If you are here to contribute few four letter words only, no one can save atheism.

 

Magilum - Pity I can't actually hear you say the last line. Anyway, your original post dealt with seeing, so now you're moving the goal posts around.

 You have not understood clearly.

I talked of human sight  , how we see , Eyes/Brain etc which is matter we know. But how can matter see matter, the way we see, the question was put to you since you guys believe that the human being as a being with only matter start to end.

If you believed that I am talking only about forming good for nothing images in the brain as 'seeing', you are off your rocker.  Seeing is not formation of images. Seeing is being aware of seeing images , recognition, interpretation.

 If by saying "changing goalpost" , you feel I had initially talked about only image formation and then now I am including seeing as we normally see, you are moronic. Hell everyone knows that the images form in brain.

The crux being we humans seem to have replicated uptil a certain point and stopped. That is till formation of images on medium- period.

 However when it comes to being aware , recognition and interpretation , it is looking bad.

And all examples that you offer for interpretation/ recognition is all based on preprogrammed machine ,humans have programmed machines or chips. So the machine is limited by :

1. It can work only when we power it on.

2. It can 'see' limited stuff what we want it to see.

What this is indicating is diminishing returns to the effort,  and this keeps coming back to human consciousness.  

 

Jeremiah Smith - Dear Idiot:

You didn't answer earlier, you just danced around the question. It's quite relevant, I assure you. So I'll ask it again.

Venkatrajan, what do you believe?

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness exist distinct from the body, meaning the mind is not matter?

or

Do you believe that the human mind and consciousness are part of the body, meaning that the mind is matter (or, more precisely, the interaction of bits of matter)?

or

Do you believe something else?

Thanks again for helping to clear things up!

 

My reply to  Magilum seems to be finally allowing you to enter in your desired territory. Most of the others really put their foot in their mouth. However please first put your views. Lets try to understand what you know, what you feel and what you doubt.

 

Beyond Saving - I would like to point out to you that humans are not technology and are fundamentally different in many ways. To assume we were created simply because we can create is absurd. Basically you are falling back to the watchmakers argument which has been debunked here so many times I don't particularly care to get into it although I am quite flattered that you compare us to God. And better than God too because we are smart enough to think about including options with our eyes like infrared vision, zoom and saving images for later. Heck, someday I might get a pair of eyes that will let me surf the net so I can see what dumbass theists are claiming. If God was so smart why didn't he think of that?

Sorry - But you seem to be underestimating human abilities here. Firstly you assume that because I said ID, I degrade humans. No

Infact we will have access to such technologies in future to even make ourselves invisible. The machine created by us could be very much like us , maybe slightly lower in abilities.

You may ask Magus who I believe does work in AI. Magus should have idea where we could be heading  in say a 100 years at least on AI front.

But the point , is you assume that you are the one and only privileged one to be first to have so much intellect/ability . Why such a belief ? 

Or I guess you believe that Starwars  shall remain a dream that is all.  

Aiia - Does increasing font size give a meaningless statement meaning?

It was unintentional. Nothing to bring focus. I copied from an editor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: But how

Venkatrajan wrote:
But how can matter see matter, the way we see, the question was put to you since you guys believe that the human being as a being with only matter start to end.

My reply to Magilum seems to be finally allowing you to enter in your desired territory. Most of the others really put their foot in their mouth. However please first put your views. Lets try to understand what you know, what you feel and what you doubt.

So you ARE a dualist! Excellent! That means you're a total idiot and I don't have to take you seriously anymore. Laughing out loud

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: Watcher

Venkatrajan wrote:

Watcher - I see you are outpouring your grief on FTA. Not able to face some assertions, looks like subconsciously your cupboard of knowledge got toppled somewhere.

Further if you take the trouble of looking up Troll in Wikipedia, You would look like a troll youself. Boss, If you are here to contribute few four letter words only, no one can save atheism.

Save atheism?  I've seen your arguments defeated repeatedly by a lot of people in this thread.  You either A) ignore when they defeat your pitiful logic, B) you are just arguing ridiculous statements to irritate people (ie troll), C) You have very low intelligence.

Crap, I'm talking to it again.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci