> > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > > > Yup, and it's perfectly natural to find something complex > > > and assume that it must have been created by something more > > > complex. This was Darwins genius as he showed it isn't the > > > case where biology is concerned. > > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > But not where human consciousness is concerned. > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > That's a belief. And a strange one. There isn't any reason to > think human consciousness hasn't evolved. Quite the opposite. > Look at the brains of other animals both living and extinct, > you can easily plot on a graph how the brain has evolved over > the millenia and from there see what animals had what skills > and what the difference in structures must mean to our awareness > and thought capability.
The forebrain (human) is very recently evolved. The midbrain (mammalian) and the hindbrain (reptailian) are much older. I am surprised that authbabe has to make a silly statement that physicists concept of God is vanity. Physicists have no opinion of God because there is no proof it it. > > > > It isn't like god is a discovery as in "Hey who's that over > > > there with the long beard?" And it isn't like god is an > > > efficient explanation for anything which is what you want > > > from a theory. You can always spot a bad idea because they > > > raise more questions than they answer. > > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Yes, but again, the question is whether the frame of > > reference is adequate. > > > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > > > The reason physicists don't believe in quantum god theories > > > is that they make the universe more complex where it should > > > be getting less complex. And it's unnecessary. > > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Our notions of "simple" and "complex" may be more > > limited than we realize. > > > > --- "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > > > God is our vanity. > > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > I'd say the concept physicists (most if not all) have of > > God is *their* vanity. > > Is zero a number? >
