Things that make you believe in a God

[tooblue]

Agreed. Some are bound to view natural processes like tides as the sign of a creator, while some are simply curious to find out what's behind them. Some see the vast expanse of space and marvel at the pride that makes us think we insignificant organisms on a speck in an incomprehensible void mean anything, while others see the work of a creator. There probably isn't much agency at work here. Either you are programmed in one way or the other.

Are species programmed to adapt; and why do some have this so called adaptive programming while others do not? Furthermore, what or who is the programmer?

Agency cannot be removed from the equation. Agency is an essential component.

[Jackrabbit]

Is there a scientific, natural explanation for love? Is love biological, chemical, instinct; will the formula for love ever be discovered so that we may bottle it? Are you talking about magic as illusion or rather as unexplainable phenomena?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585428485/ref=oss_product"]Amazon.com: Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find—and Keep—Love (9781585428489): Amir Levine, Rachel Heller: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419HV8lxLYL.@@AMEPARAM@@419HV8lxLYL[/ame]

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes. Although no one (not even atheists) claim evolution is random.

[creekster]

Yes. Although no one (not even atheists) claim evolution is random. That we're here randomly is mathematically impossible. This goes beyond that, claiming that the evolution of the mind is inevitable.

WHy is it inevitable and how do your plethora of exmaples support that conclusion?

[Jackrabbit]

...

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection states that offspring mutate randomly, while the pressure of natural selection acts in a non-random fashion.

[creekster]

...

IOW mutation is random, natural selection is, by defintion not random. but in the context of this thread that is not a meaningful distinction.

[Jackrabbit]

WHy is it inevitable and how do your plethora of exmaples support that conclusion?

the examples were just a response to Woot's claim that convergence doesn't occur very often, when it fact, it happens everywhere. Just follow our dialogue.

[creekster]

the examples were just a response to Woot's claim that convergence doesn't occur very often, when it fact, it happens everywhere. Just follow our dialogue.

I am trying my best. Please be patient.

So you have loads of convergence. Natural selection isnt random. AND. . . .???

[Jackrabbit]

I am trying my best. Please be patient.

So you have loads of convergence. Natural selection isnt random. AND. . . .???

I think this review of Conway's book sums it up nicely:

Are human beings the insignificant products of countless quirky biological accidents, or the expected result of evolutionary patterns deeply embedded in the structure of natural selection?

[creekster]

I think this review of Conway's book sums it up nicely:

This was why I was curious about the Burgess shale creatures. As I recall, the Burgess shale includes a host of phyla that exist there and which do not exist today. IOW, many of these creatures included structures and organizational patterns that do not exist now. SO what deeply ingrained mechanism in evolution caused them to arise? If it is a matter of inevitability, what were those creatures doing there? These types of creatures suggest that evolution is very random, that while the pressures of natural selection aren't random, the mutations present when those pressures arise are and the response is neither inevitable nor expected.

But like physics, I am no biologist.

(caveat; I first read of the Burgess shale in a book by Stephen Gould; Gould's views on the shale were, I believe, tempered by subsequent interpretations suggesting some of his phyla may not have been phyla but mis analyzed fossils; I am not sure what the current status is)

[Jackrabbit]

This was why I was curious about the Burgess shale creatures. As I recall, the Burgess shale includes a host of phyla that exist there and which do not exist today. IOW, many of these creatures included structures and organizational patterns that do not exist now. SO what deeply ingrained mechanism in evolution caused them to arise? If it is a matter of inevitability, what were those creatures doing there? These types of creatures suggest that evolution is very random, that while the pressures of natural selection aren't random, the mutations present when those pressures arise are and the response is neither inevitable nor expected.

But like physics, I am no biologist.

(caveat; I first read of the Burgess shale in a book by Stephen Gould; Gould's views on the shale were, I believe, tempered by subsequent interpretations suggesting some of his phyla may not have been phyla but mis analyzed fossils; I am not sure what the current status is)

I am an applied mathematician, so although I am qualified to deduce patterns, I can't comment on the Burgess shale. But Conway has written a book taking Gould to task.

[creekster]

I am an applied mathematician, so although I am qualified to deduce patterns, I can't comment on the Burgess shale. But Conway has written a book taking Gould to task.

Well if we only talked about things we are qualified to talk about this place would be very quiet.

[LA Ute]

Well if we only talked about things we are qualified to talk about this place would be very quiet.

Either quiet or deadly boring.

[Levin]

Do people who weren't raised to believe in a god or gods grapple with whether he or they exist? There is no Buddhist god, yet some believe in one (or more?) but do those who don't grapple with the idea?

There's not a person who has ever existed who never grappled with the question of a higher power. Atheists grapple with the question most of all.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Jackrabbit, I am glad we flushed you out of the brush somehow. I hope you post more.