Naturalism and human faculties...

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

Sorry kelly but I am NOT apologising, there is a reason you will not get the answers you are looking for if you start from the premise that god made humans a few thousands years ago...

You're quite wrong in inferring that I'm a young earth creationist. I claimed that God created/creates souls in human bodies, nothing more.

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

You're quite wrong in inferring that I'm a young earth creationist. I claimed that God created/creates souls in human bodies, nothing more.

REALLY? SERIOUSLY? That makes so much more sense, I am convinced you are trolling, why else would a Christian be on an atheist thread?

Samaris

I did give a potential explanation for conciousness that I think has been skipped, kelly.

MrPudding

RichieO wrote: »

REALLY? SERIOUSLY? That makes so much more sense, I am convinced you are trolling, why else would a Christian be on an atheist thread?

He is an old earth creationist, which is a least 40% less ridiculous than YEC.

And we have plenty of believers that post in this forum, and that is, in my view, one of the reasons this forum is so interesting. I don't agree with a lot of what kelly1 says, and I think a lot of what he says and what be believes is nonsense, am sure he feels the same of me, but I am fairly sure he is not a troll.

MrP

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. No supernatural events have ever been shown to happen in conditions that exclude delusion, trickery or other natural explanations.

This is the problem with the atheist's position, as I see it. You presuppose that nothing but physical matter can and does exist. So any mention of anything supernatural is immediately dismissed without any due consideration. There is evidence but you won't find it if you don't look or deny it before you even start.

King Mob wrote: »

Also, if you cannot create an experiment to detect something, that means it does not interact with reality, therefore it cannot produce physical effects. If it does interact with reality, then you can detect it and devise an experiment.

If you can't detect it at all, then how is it different than something that is fictitious?

You're thinking only in terms of physical matter. You can't force spirits to interact with you because they have a choice to respond or not.

King Mob wrote: »

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on the observed evidence.
The other option you are proposing is simply not taken seriously or accepted because 1. it is not supported by evidence. 2. It has lots of evidence against it. And 3. it lacks detail or explanatory power.

I can't come to any other conclusion but that it's an assumption.

1) There is no evidence that consciousness is a property of matter. There is not even a theory as to how that might work.
2) Scientists afaik, believe that individual atoms, molecules etc don't by themselves have the property of consciousness. They don't accept that inanimate objects are conscious.
3) The assumption is that only living beings have consciousness. This consciousness is assumed to arise from the complexity of the brain which it's neurochemical processes. But afaik, there is no working theory as to how firing snapses/neurons etc could produce consciousness.

King Mob wrote: »

First and formost, God knows the outcome of your decisions, therefore they would be predetermined.

I admit this is a tricky question but I think it can be answered by saying that just because God knows what decisions we will make, that knowledge does not cause those decisions to be made. It is only knowledge, not causitive.

King Mob wrote: »

Because as i have explained several times now: independent verification of falsifiable predictions.

Again, you're only thinking in terms of matter/energy. What about philosophical/theological thinking/reason?

e.g. can God make a square circle or a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?
Is infinity just a concept or can actual infinities exist? This is pure reason, not tied to anything physical.

Can reason in this sense be explained in material terms?

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

I am fairly sure he is not a troll.

Ah but he is more wilful that the rest of us mundane types

Blowfish

kelly1 wrote: »

1) There is no evidence that consciousness is a property of matter.

That's blatantly not true. Scientists have plenty of evidence that it's a property of matter and are getting closer to understanding exactly which parts of the brain produce it.

What they don't yet understand is why it's a property of matter.

smacl

Blowfish wrote: »

That's blatantly not true. Scientists have plenty of evidence that it's a property of matter and are getting closer to understanding exactly which parts of the brain produce it.

What they don't yet understand is why it's a property of matter.

Not so much a property as a state I'd imagine, much like a program running on a computer at a specific point in time is a state which combines matter and energy. Remove the energy and the state is lost.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

There are no scientifically verified miracles. There are no such occurrences that have happened under conditions where other natural explanations can be completely excluded.

I don't accept this argument. The laws of nature are called laws because matter behaves consistently across the entire universe. The same must apply to the human body.

Let's take an example of Louis Bouriette from Lourdes.

"...he had been afflicted with a complete loss of vision in the right eye for two years. This serious disturbance resulted from an accident in the mine, which 19 years before had irreversibly injured his eye..." and later

"When the chance came to use this water, l started to pray to Our Lady of the Grotto, and humbly begged her to be with me when I bathed my eye with the water from the fountain.

I bathed and rebathed my right eye repeatedly in the space of a short time, and after these ablutions my sight was excellent, just as it is now".

Let's assume the man was checked out by a doctor and the doc say, yes, his sight is back to normal and we have no way of explaining this.

Why assume there was a natural explanation when we all know that eyes damaged by trauma don't just start working again for no apparent reason.
Why did his cure coincide with his praying at the grotto and bathing of his eyes? Is such an external action on the eyes likely to fix inner physical damage? And the atheist/naturalist response is "we have no explanation but it must be natural". Why must it be? Were the laws of nature suspended? Have we ever seen this happen in a scientific experiment? Did gravity ever repel instead of attract?? It just doesn't happen.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, no such studies have shown any such occurrence in the absence of natural explanations. All objective tests on this phenomenon have failed to show it's a case of a soul leaving a body.

Studies have been done on people who were blind from birth and died on the operating table and when they somehow were able to see in a new hyper-real reality. They were able to describe what's was in the operating theatre. Congenitally blind people can't even see in dreams!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread483913/pg1

This is a value judgement with no baring on whether something exists or not.
I think that Spider-man is cool. But why would that make him suddenly exist?

King Mob wrote: »

Kalam is bunk and has been long shown to be.
The universe having a begining does not imply a god, and that argument seems to exclude a God in the first place.
If time can't stretch back infinitely, how can God always exist? Some things can stretch back infinitely?

Debunked, is that a fact? The universe coming into existence out of nothing most definitely requires an explanation and it can't be a natural explanation since "nothing" does not include nature.

How does the argument exclude God, considering God is not defined to be "natural" in the first place?

Lots of scientists find it very hard to accept that the universe had a beginning because of the implications that entails. So they proposed that the universe always existed eternally to the past.

But there are philosophical arguments against actual infinities (of time) because actual infinities lead to absurdities e.g Hilbert's Hotel argument.

Then there is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which says that *any* mathematical model of the universe which is expanding on average, must be past finite. Now William Lane Craig used this argument and Lawrence Krauss tried to debunk that argument rather dishonestly. See the vid below for details.

King Mob wrote: »

Ignoring how God is not moral, nor an explanation for morality nor a good basis for morality: it's irrelevant.

The argument demonstrate that objective morality cannot exist under a naturalistic worldview and that morality must be grounded in God:

King Mob wrote: »

Leaving aside how this isn't actually the case: Most other religions are completely and utterly incompatible with your beliefs to the point that you cannot believe both, both cannot be true and both cannot be talking about the same thing. For example: Religions that believe in multiple gods or religions that believe in reincarnation.....

The point is that humans have an obvious in-built need for transcendence or to find meaning through a higher power(s). This demands an explanation. I don't think evolution has anything to offer here.

kelly1

Blowfish wrote: »

That's blatantly not true. Scientists have plenty of evidence that it's a property of matter and are getting closer to understanding exactly which parts of the brain produce it.

What they don't yet understand is why it's a property of matter.

ok, so people who are conscious show activity in the brainstem. We've known for a long time that thoughts are associated with brain activity. The question is whether this brain activity produces consciousness or if it's caused by "mind" operating on the brain. I don't think science has settled this. We see the brain activity but we don't know how consciousness arises. Honestly I find it hard to even get my head around these ideas.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

Let's assume the man was checked out by a doctor and the doc say, yes, his sight is back to normal and we have no way of explaining this.

No... let's not assume this. Let's check this first.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why assume there was a natural explanation when we all know that eyes damaged by trauma don't just start working again for no apparent reason.
Why did his cure coincide with his praying at the grotto and bathing of his eyes? Is such an external action on the eyes likely to fix inner physical damage? And the atheist/naturalist response is "we have no explanation but it must be natural". Why must it be? Were the laws of nature suspended? Have we ever seen this happen in a scientific experiment? Did gravity ever repel instead of attract?? It just doesn't happen.

Why do we assume that his problem with his eye was permanent?
How do we how that his cure coincided with his visit to the grotto?
How do we know that his eye was actually damaged in the first place?
How do we know this was an actual person who actually existed and actually went to Lourdes at all?

How come the instance of "cures" are so low at Lourdes? Why does God not magic everyone better there?
How come you can't point to any examples of amputees regrowing their limbs at Lourdes? Can God not do that?

kelly1 wrote: »

Studies have been done on people who were blind from birth and died on the operating table and when they somehow were able to see in a new hyper-real reality. They were able to describe what's was in the operating theatre. Congenitally blind people can't even see in dreams!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread483913/pg1

Sorry, you're going to have to find a more reliable source that that cesspool of abject nonsense.
Please link to a study in a reliable, recognised journal.

kelly1 wrote: »

Debunked, is that a fact? The universe coming into existence out of nothing most definitely requires an explanation and it can't be a natural explanation since "nothing" does not include nature.

How does the argument exclude God, considering God is not defined to be "natural" in the first place?

The argument is self contradicting and self defeating.
Every rule you lay out is immediately broken by the idea of God.
"Everything has to have a beginnning, except God doesn't"
"Nothing can be infinite, except God can be."
"Nothing can exist without a cause, but God doesn't need a cause."
It's special pleading.

Secondly, even if you ignore that problem, the argument does not support the idea of an intelligent cause nor does it support the idea of the God you believe in. The problem can still be answered by inserting a natural, unintelligent first cause.
So yea, dumb debunked argument.

kelly1 wrote: »

Lots of scientists find it very hard to accept that the universe had a beginning because of the implications that entails. So they proposed that the universe always existed eternally to the past.

Um... Most scientists today accept the Big Bang model...
Scientists haven't accepted the idea of an infinitely existing universe since the turn of the 20th century...
You might need to update the old news feed there...

kelly1 wrote: »

The argument demonstrate that objective morality cannot exist under a naturalistic worldview and that morality must be grounded in God:

Even if this argument held (it doesn't). It's irrelevant. Whether or not objective morality exists, it has no baring on the other questions at all. If objective moral can't exist without god, then I guess that means there's no objective morality...

kelly1 wrote: »

The point is that humans have an obvious in-built need for transcendence or to find meaning through a higher power(s). This demands an explanation. I don't think evolution has anything to offer here.

But again, this is just your ignorant ethnocentrist view of other religions. They all do not attempt to answer the same questions you assume they do. Lots don't believe in "higher" powers. Lots don't make claims about life's meaning. Lots don't have an afterlife.
And again, not every single culture has a religion.

And even then, you believe every single other option is completely and utterly wrong. So how could their belief support yours? Does your belief in your religion support their beliefs?
How could they have gotten it so completely wrong while you and the small number of people who share your specific beliefs have gotten it exactly right?
Bit arrogant, no?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

ok, so people who are conscious show activity in the brainstem. We've known for a long time that thoughts are associated with brain activity. The question is whether this brain activity produces consciousness or if it's caused by "mind" operating on the brain. I don't think science has settled this. We see the brain activity but we don't know how consciousness arises. Honestly I find it hard to even get my head around these ideas.

This is called an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity.
Just because you don't know the answer or can't understand the answer, it doesn't follow that God did it.

Can you personally explain every detail of the process that causes lightning?
No?
Then I guess it's a safe conclusion that it's Thor fighting the frost giants of Jotunhiem again right?

kelly1

I'm leaving the miracles argument out, it's going nowhere. You're taking your skepticism way too far. It's a wonder you belief yourself!

King Mob wrote: »

The argument is self contradicting and self defeating.
Every rule you lay out is immediately broken by the idea of God.
"Everything has to have a beginnning, except God doesn't"
"Nothing can be infinite, except God can be."
"Nothing can exist without a cause, but God doesn't need a cause."
It's special pleading.

Not special pleading at all. It's the only thing that makes sense!

If the universe had no beginning, then we have an infinite chain of cause and effect. And I think we agree that you can't go back forever, it makes no sense and actual infinities are arguably impossible.

If that's the case, then as you go back in time, you have to stop at something which has no cause. Nothing else makes sense. Let's not do as Richard Dawkin's has done by asking, what caused God. It's nonsense. Abject nonsense even. (Atheists seems to be very fond of the abject nonsense phrase).

According to the Kalam argument, everything which begins to exist must have a cause. But the argument is that God had no beginning. If God had a beginning, then you have to keep going back along the infinite chain.

King Mob wrote: »

....The problem can still be answered by inserting a natural, unintelligent first cause.
So yea, dumb debunked argument.

No, no, no, not debunked. Not so fast! There's your bias popping up again.

If the universe had a beginning, then "before" the beginning, there was nothing and nowhere. Not even zilch. So you can't offer an natural/physical explanation where there is nothing physical there to explain it!

King Mob wrote: »

Um... Most scientists today accept the Big Bang model...
Scientists haven't accepted the idea of an infinitely existing universe since the turn of the 20th century...
You might need to update the old news feed there...

Pretty sure you're wrong on that score. e.g this article. A universe with a beginning is not a comfortable proposition for a scientist.

King Mob wrote: »

....How could they have gotten it so completely wrong while you and the small number of people who share your specific beliefs have gotten it exactly right?
Bit arrogant, no?

1) knowledge about God must be based on divine revelation.
2) 2.2 billion Christians is not a small number.
3) I don't know for certain that Christianity is true. But I think it's the most plausible religion based on the historical evidence.
4) There's no arrogance is a well-founded belief.

kelly1

So here we are at post #115 and nobody has budged an inch. No concessions whatsoever. Nothing exists but physical matter, end of discussion.

Tough crowd!

pauldla

On post #114 above, would kelly1 like to give examples of 'historical evidence'?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm leaving the miracles argument out, it's going nowhere. You're taking your skepticism way too far. It's a wonder you belief yourself!

It's the most basic level of skepticism.
If not immediately believing random unverifiable fantastic claims from anonymous sources quoting anonymous sources using century old medical records is too much skepticism...

Again, you keep dodging this question: Why can you not point to any amputees who have been cured by miracle?
Can God not cure them?

kelly1 wrote: »

Not special pleading at all. It's the only thing that makes sense!

It's exactly special pleading. You are making up and assuming rules then in the same sentence saying that God is excluded from your rules.

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had no beginning, then we have an infinite chain of cause and effect. And I think we agree that you can't go back forever, it makes no sense and actual infinities are arguably impossible.

Why is it impossible?
Why can't it be an infinite chain?

Why can God go back forever?

kelly1 wrote: »

Let's not do as Richard Dawkin's has done by asking, what caused God. It's nonsense. Abject nonsense even. (Atheists seems to be very fond of the abject nonsense phrase).

It's not nonsense, you just don't get what the question is asking.
You say that everything must have a cause. But then at the same time, claim that God has no cause.
These things are a contradiction.
So either god has a cause, or things don't always need a cause.
Which is it cause it can't be both.

kelly1 wrote: »

According to the Kalam argument, everything which begins to exist must have a cause. But the argument is that God had no beginning. If God had a beginning, then you have to keep going back along the infinite chain.

But this has two baseless assumptions.
1. Everything that begins must have a cause.
2. God has no beginning.

It also has the baseless assumption that any such prime cause is anything like a God ie, intelligent, magic, moral etc...

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then "before" the beginning, there was nothing and nowhere. Not even zilch. So you can't offer an natural/physical explanation where there is nothing physical there to explain it!

Then how does god explain it?
How does he actually make something out of nothing?
Magic?

kelly1 wrote: »

Pretty sure you're wrong on that score. e.g

No. I'm right on this. One article about fringe theories does not say anything about the beliefs of a majority of scientists.

kelly1 wrote: »

1) knowledge about God must be based on divine revelation.
2) 2.2 billion Christians is not a small number.
3) I don't know for certain that Christianity is true. But I think it's the most plausible religion based on the historical evidence.
4) There's no arrogance is a well-founded belief.

All religions claim divine revelation. You believe they are all wrong.
There are 7 billion people on the planet. That's 4.8 billion people who do not accept Christianity. So you can't really use an argument from authority...
Further of those 2.2 billion, not all of them believe in your specific flavour of christianity. And of those who do, you probably disagree a lot with them...
Also I wouldn't be so confident about the historical basis for your beliefs either. Lots of people have come here sure of the same thing until a poster called oldrnwisr blew them out of the water. You should have a read of his posts concerning the historical claims of the bible.

And yea, it's arrogance to claim that everyone who disagrees with you somehow supports your particular belief.
It's arrogance to claim that your particular belief is superior because the creator of the universe magically talks to you personally...

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

And I think we agree that you can't go back forever, it makes no sense and actual infinities are arguably impossible.

Pretty sure you're wrong on that score. e.g this article. A universe with a beginning is not a comfortable proposition for a scientist.

You do realise that the article you linked directly contradicts your own previous point in the same post. Are you trying to make Dan Quayle look well informed?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

So here we are at post #115 and nobody has budged an inch. No concessions whatsoever. Nothing exists but physical matter, end of discussion.

Tough crowd!

I'm sorry we don't believe something when someone doesn't provide any good reason to believe it.

Maybe it's not because we're being stubborn, but rather you aren't very convincing...?

So far all you have provided is your own belief and then unverified supernatural claims supported only by a link from a conspiracy theory website, which you have now abandoned...

So tell you what. You provide a single example of a miracle that you can show for an absolute fact happened, can confirm the details to a reasonable degree and for which the only possible explanation is something supernatural.
If that holds up, then maybe you can convince people.

If you can't provide this or have to avoid the challenge, then maybe you should start asking yourself why this is the case...

King Mob

smacl wrote: »

You do realise that the article you linked directly contradicts your own previous point in the same post. Are you trying to make Dan Quayle look well informed?

It also contradicts the point they were making there.
Kelly1 claimed that most scientists don't believe the universe has a beginning. The article explains how the majority of scientists believe in the big bang.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

So here we are at post #115 and nobody has budged an inch. No concessions whatsoever. Nothing exists but physical matter, end of discussion.

Tough crowd!

You've had pretty much every point you've made soundly rebutted and yet you continue to plough on regardless. Then you come and accuse us of intransigence? C'mon now Ted, if its shifting you're looking for, look no further than your own position.

kelly1

pauldla wrote: »

On post #114 above, would kelly1 like to give examples of 'historical evidence'?

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-wuMZGXq2c (Reliability of NT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4 (ditto)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bLlpiWh9-k (Historical evidence for Jesus)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFI07vLJA0 (ditto)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPbkn5Aq3A0 (Resurrection - Gary Habermas)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKg62GDqF4 (Resurrection - WLC)

magicbastarder

very first link, wikipedia entry on the host:
"John Ankerberg (born December 10, 1945) is an American Christian evangelist and TV presenter."

i'm not going to bother clicking any other links.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Kelly1 claimed that most scientists don't believe the universe has a beginning. The article explains how the majority of scientists believe in the big bang.

What I'm saying is that, yes, the Big Bang is the best model supported by the evidence but a lot of scientists are uncomfortable about the idea of a beginning to a universe. It stinks of God, it leaves no wriggle room for a physical explanation.

So in response to that scientists have tried unsuccessfully to come up with eternal cosmologies which is just what is predicted by the BGV theorem.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

very first link, wikipedia entry on the host:
"John Ankerberg (born December 10, 1945) is an American Christian evangelist and TV presenter."

i'm not going to bother clicking any other links.

Head in the sand! It's the John Ankerberg show, William Lane Craig is the one making the argument.

magicbastarder

ah, don't be so hard on yourself.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that, yes, the Big Bang is the best model supported by the evidence but a lot of scientists are uncomfortable about the idea of a beginning to a universe. It stinks of God, it leaves no wriggle room for a physical explanation.

So in response to that scientists have tried unsuccessfully to come up with eternal cosmologies which is just what is predicted by the BGV theorem.

Evidence for this "lots of scientists" please.
The article you linked to show this mentioned 2.

RichieO

I have only been an atheist for the last 65 years and I must admit I do not have a great deal of patience with religious nuts, so I have a great respect for you guys, as it obvious that the mind that accepts religion as a belief has no interest in facts or evidence of any sort, but will go to great lengths to substantiate their beliefs... And yet always end using "divine revelation" and "you need to have faith" not to mention, "because the bible tells me so"...

I wrote this some time ago, not sure if everyone would agree with it...

You cannot be a “good Christian” without cherry picking the hell out of the bible, and changing most of it to fit in with current scientific facts and ever changing moral issues… When you cherry pick your religion, you are more or less forced to cherry pick science, the end result is you create your own reality in which you are happy to live…

smacl

King Mob wrote: »

It also contradicts the point they were making there.
Kelly1 claimed that most scientists don't believe the universe has a beginning. The article explains how the majority of scientists believe in the big bang.

I think the main point which has been made repeatedly throughout this thread is that if we don't understand something inserting 'God did it' is neither a credible or rational response. There are lots of things that we didn't understand, many we still don't, and many we may never. Throughout history, various religious types have inserted a 'God did it' in the gaps in our knowledge, and as many of those gaps have been filled with reasonable solutions, religions have furiously back-peddled to stop looking silly (or in the case of YEC and other extremists continued to push their utter nonsense and become widely considered as nutters). 'God did it' has never proven to be the right answer to any gap in our knowledge and there is no reason to suppose it ever will be. Where we don't understand something, saying 'I don't understand' remains the most reasonable option.

Blowfish

kelly1 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that, yes, the Big Bang is the best model supported by the evidence but a lot of scientists are uncomfortable about the idea of a beginning to a universe. It stinks of God, it leaves no wriggle room for a physical explanation.

I think you are confused as to what scientists consider 'the universe'. They don't use it as a short hand for everything that has ever existed in any possible sense. They use it as a shorthand to describe the current structure of spacetime, it's contents, matter, energy and laws of physics that we are currently present in.

From that perspective, the evidence does indeed point to a 'big bang' or inflationary period. The maths of general relativity points to a singularity (i.e. an infinitly small and dense point) as a beginning. The issue is though, and the reason why scientists are hesitant to call it a 'beginning', is that when you get to small enough and dense enough levels, such as close to the 'big bang', the laws of general relativity break down and the laws of quantum physics play a dominant role. Quantum physics and relativity disagree in key areas, in particular quantum physics does not point to an initial singularity that is infinitely dense and infinitely small.

To absolutely confirm confirm what happened at the 'beginning' of what we define as the universe, or to understand what came before, we'd need a much better understanding of how to consolidate the disagreements between quantum physics and general relativity, in particular in the field of gravity. In the meantime we have other theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity and the multiverse theory.

For all intents and purposes and for the vast majority of science, the 'big bang'/inflationary period is as near as makes no difference to a 'beginning' as it's when our current mass/energy and laws were defined.

smacl

RichieO wrote: »

You cannot be a “good Christian” without cherry picking the hell out of the bible, and changing most of it to fit in with current scientific facts and ever changing moral issues… When you cherry pick your religion, you are more or less forced to cherry pick science, the end result is you create your own reality in which you are happy to live…

Only 51 years an atheist myself, so lacking your experience but I suspect we all cherry pick at science and every other field of academic endeavour to some extent regardless of whether we're religiously inclined. The rationale here is that as a race we have amassed huge amounts of knowledge and us being rather short lived with a tendency to procrastinate will only ever really study a tiny proportion of it in depth. As such, we all rely heavily on trusted sources where we have neither the time nor the inclination to delve further. Same goes for religious people with the only difference that they include religious material and the church hierarchy as a trusted source, where most atheists would not. I think of most people as good people until they prove me wrong, and have actually found most people to be good, whatever good means. This includes plenty of 'good Christians', or rather good people who are Christian. No idea how good they are at being Christian :pac:

endacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would guess that a lot of atheists would be quite happy to respond 'i don't know' to many of those questions.
except the one about whether quarks are self-aware.

This one would be quite happy to respond with an 'I don't care'.

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, I, errm, ah fcuk it.
Can't be arsed. While you discuss, I'll be having sex.

smacl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, I, errm, ah fcuk it.
Can't be arsed. While you discuss, I'll be having sex.

Go forth and multiply so

melty melty beautiful wickedness

People are saying that determinism means that free will cannot exist.

That isn't true.

There are levels or heirarchies of cause and effect and upper levels, like human minds or computer software while it's running, control the actions of lower levels by providing context for the actions of the lower levels.

The upper levels (like human minds and software) are capable of independent thought and of independent action, despite the fact that they are the result of the actions of the lower layers in the heirarchy, and the lower levels are determinstic.

pauldla

kelly1 wrote: »

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-wuMZGXq2c (Reliability of NT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4 (ditto)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bLlpiWh9-k (Historical evidence for Jesus)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFI07vLJA0 (ditto)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPbkn5Aq3A0 (Resurrection - Gary Habermas)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKg62GDqF4 (Resurrection - WLC)

Would you care to offer an argument, or at best a synopsis? The offering you make above is little better than 'go read the Bible'.

King Mob

pauldla wrote: »

Would you care to offer an argument, or at best a synopsis? The offering you make above is little better than 'go read the Bible'.

It's the typical stuff.
Jesus was mentioned once by a historian decades after the fact.
The Bible mentions real places, therefore must be real. Much as Spider-man is real cause he lives in Queens.
The apostles could possibly lie about something or be tricked or just be gullible.

There's nothing new or shocking alas.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Evidence for this "lots of scientists" please.
The article you linked to show this mentioned 2.

I'm not going to waste my time getting a list of names. The fact is that a beginning to the universe is something very difficult to explain and smacks of a creation event/creator. This is a difficult position for a scientist to be in. In response to that, physicists attempted to construct alternative cosmologies which don't involve a beginning. I see this as a glass-ceiling situation.

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

You've had pretty much every point you've made soundly rebutted and yet you continue to plough on regardless. Then you come and accuse us of intransigence? C'mon now Ted, if its shifting you're looking for, look no further than your own position.

Soundly rebutted, my ar**!

The free-will discussion concluded in an acceptance that we don't actually have free-will, it's an illusion. What a cop-out!

I've claimed that humans have the ability to use pure reason, i.e. conceiving of ideas that have nothing to do with the physical world, numbers, using pure logic etc.

This ability to reason can not be explained in physical terms. If you assume reason has a physical basis, you cannot claim that the reasoning process result in truth. In a physical model, reasoning could just as easily result in falsehood.
And you cannot appeal to evolution because evolution, as I've been reminded, has no goal and hence we have no reason to think evolution produces a brain which can produce reason/logic/truth. I don't think I can make my argument any clearer than this!

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not going to waste my time getting a list of names. The fact is that a beginning to the universe is something very difficult to explain

Yes.

and smacks of a creation event/creator

A creation event maybe, such as the big bang, but not a creator. Certainly nothing whatsoever to suggest the notion of Christian God, or any other god for that matter. Does it not ring alarm bells for you that the creation story in the bible, garden of Eden, Noah's ark etc... are no longer considered historical truths by most Christians where they were once, and so much of the religion that would have been taught as literal truth a few decades ago is to taught a metaphorical?

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

And you cannot appeal to evolution because evolution, as I've been reminded, has no goal and hence we have no reason to think evolution produces a brain which can produce reason/logic/truth.

huh?

melty melty beautiful wickedness

kelly1 wrote: »

...
The free-will discussion concluded in an acceptance that we don't actually have free-will, it's an illusion. What a cop-out!
....

My contribution has been that free will and determinism can both exist.

The lower layer of a heirarchy is deterministic (i.e a physical computer processor, or a physical brain) but the upper layers, like human minds or computer software while its running, controls and provides context for the lower layers. By doing so the upper layers control the lower layers and provide context for the actions of the lower layers.


Free will is possible in such a world.

That's how computer software works.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

This ability to reason can not be explained in physical terms. If you assume reason has a physical basis, you cannot claim that the reasoning process result in truth. In a physical model, reasoning could just as easily result in falsehood.

I'm guessing you haven't heard of the Turing test so, or the fact that a computer passed it for the first time in 2014. While this does not represent general artificial intelligence, it does suggest that true general artificial intelligence is not that far off, as Elon Musk is getting so concerned about..

melty melty beautiful wickedness

kelly1 wrote: »

...
This ability to reason can not be explained in physical terms. If you assume reason has a physical basis, you cannot claim that the reasoning process result in truth. In a physical model, reasoning could just as easily result in falsehood.
...

You use language somewhat confusingly, and that leads to confusion.

Reason depends on logic, and logic doesn't depend on physical universes.

Maths truths are true, in this physical universe but also outside this physical universe.

Maths proofs don't rely on physical facts, therefere maths truths transcend physical universes.


Our space is not Euclidian, therefore perfect Euclidian triangles don't exist, as they're twisted out of shape by our curved spacetime. So the only place perfect maths forms exist is in a imaginary platonic universe, where 'ideal' maths forms live.


So, maths truth, (and logic), transcend our universe and are therefore not only true in our universe but they are true in all universes.


No physical facts are mentioned in maths proofs, or in sub-branches of maths like pure computer science, therefore physical universes can change but the maths truths are still true.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

kelly1 wrote: »

...
And you cannot appeal to evolution because evolution, as I've been reminded, has no goal and hence we have no reason to think evolution produces a brain which can produce reason/logic/truth. I don't think I can make my argument any clearer than this!

How did God ensure that humans would be created in Gods image if evolution is undirected and has no goal?

God must have interfered in evolution in order to produce humans, or otherwise he sidestepped evolution and placed humans, fully formed, on the earth.

smacl

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

My contribution has been that free will and determinism can both exist.

The lower layer of a heirarchy is deterministic (i.e a physical computer processor, or a physical brain) but the upper layers, like human minds or computer software while its running, controls and provides context for the lower layers. By doing so the upper layers control the lower layers and provide context for the actions of the lower layers.


Free will is possible in such a world.

That's how computer software works.

Perhaps you need to give an example here, because I wouldn't agree with the above. The only way a computer program can behave in a truly non-deterministic way would be if it had access to truly random input. In this sense it is no more or less deterministic than anything else in our universe. Note that just because we aren't able to determine how a random number was generated, doesn't make it truly random and non-deterministic. For example, you might generate a number combining the heat of the CPU, recent mouse and keyboard input, and the least significant part of the time of day stated in microseconds. You also might not state how you derive this pseudo-random number, such that it might appear truly random for nearly any practical purpose, giving our computer program the appearance of non-deterministic behaviour. This is however just an appearance, as is our free will, albeit a much more convincing appearance.

kelly1

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

How did God ensure that humans would be created in Gods image if evolution is undirected and has no goal?

I'm not claiming that. I've said that my belief is that God creates an immortal soul in every human being and that this soul gives us faculties of reason and will.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

I thought the bible insisted than humans were made in Gods image.

Either,
God interfered in evolution to achieve that result.
God placed humans on earth fully formed.
Humans are not made in Gods image.

What happens if evolution continues and human appearance changes?



Smacl.
I always thought that determinism meant that free will couldn't exist. Now I don't.


There are layers of cause and effect. Some upper layers, like software or human minds, are almost virtual but they control the lower layers, and provide context for the lower layers. By doing so the upper layers direct the actions of the lower layers.

The upper layers are capable of original thought and of original action.

I agree that I'm not great at explaining. I got the idea from a book whose name I can't remember.

If determinism was real then how do you explain how anything happens?
Why does the world improve and change?

The changes in the world are directed by the upper layers of human minds.

I believe that human minds genuinely make choices.

kelly1

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

I thought the bible insisted than humans were made in Gods image.

Either,
God interfered in evolution to achieve that result.
God placed humans on earth fully formed.
Humans are not made in Gods image.

God is spirit, not a man with gray hair sitting in the clouds. And we humans are body and spirit. OK?

The body has evolved but the spirit cannot evolve because it's not physical!

We are conceived and born and somewhere in that period, God "places" an immortal soul within our bodies.

smacl

melty melty beautiful wickedness wrote: »

I believe that human minds genuinely make choices.

They do, but those choices are based on their current states which are at the ends of causal chains. Just because we might never be able to decode or understand those causal chains doesn't mean that they don't exist.

melty melty beautiful wickedness

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you need to give an example here, because I wouldn't agree with the above. The only way a computer program can behave in a truly non-deterministic way would be if it had access to truly random input. In this sense it is no more or less deterministic than anything else in our universe.

I gave the examples of lower layer of physical computer processor and upper layer of software while its running, and second example of lower layer of physical human brain, and upper layer of human mind.


We could say that the computer receives non-random input from the human operator but this simply moves the problem to inside the humans head.

If the human brain is as deterministic as the computer then how does the human brain act in non-deterministic ways?


The upper layers depend on emergent properties, or on the fact that the sum is greater than the parts.

Simple rules, such as those in Conways Game of Life, can lead to unexpectedly complex behaviour. Is that behaviour emergent or is that behaviour predictable from the simple rules?


I now think that humans do genuinely make choices, despite the fact that human minds are the result of physical brains, and physical brains are deterministic. I can't explain this fully but our human mind depends on emergent properties of large complex interconnected systems, and it is the same as computer software when it's running.