Printable View
I just wanted to say that ive enjoyed reading the debate in this thread between Myrddraal and Big_John. Either side is not "preaching" and can debate in respectful manner without attacking the other person or insulting his beliefs or lack of beliefs. Maybe you guys should do that debate for the Gahzette?:yes:
I was going to save my arguments for the Gahzette debate on the existance of God, but hey.
Frankly, I don't know why I'm replying to someone who repeatedly calls me stupid, but here goes anyway.
Please Vicious Monkey, consider what I have to say with respect, and not as ammunition to ridicule me.
I believe in a god of some kind. I'm rock solid in that belief. I also call myself a Christian (Catholic actually, I'm sure the pope would disagree) but I'm not so rock solid in that belief.
The first and most important reason for my belief in a god or spiritual force is my belief in a soul or some kind of life force.
I am self aware. It's a philosophical argument as old as the hills, "I think therefore I am". Descartes used this as a philosophical argument, considering the idea that even if there was an all deceiving all powerful being bent on confusing him, he would remain sure of the fact that 'he' (the being which is being confused) must exist in order to be confused. However, I want to use this argument with reference to our brains, and the limitations of science (as we know it).
I can create a very complex electric system, with plenty of feedback control and some very complex mathematics. That kind of system could fly an airplane better than I can, but it would not be self aware (at least not in the same way as I am).
I could make a similar chemical system, and extend that to basic cells. I still cannot accept that such a system can be self aware.
The next step is to extend this argument to the human mind.
As an organism becomes more and more complex, as the control systems that make it work become more and more complex, at what point does it become self aware?
You could argue that it becomes self aware after the first feedback loop is introduced. You could argue that that it becomes self aware after some kind of system component monitors the rest of the system to check all it's outputs are still correct.
But in that case, why am I not conscious in some form of every system in my mind? Large parts of your mind you are never conscious of, they don't even enter your subconscious. The nerve impulses that keep you heart ticking over, the nerve impulses that never leave your spinal chord for example.
So what is this thing that is self aware, it certainly isn't the human brain. Is it only one part of the brain? I'm not a neurologist, but I cannot accept the idea that a chemical reaction, however complex, can have self awareness in the same way that I do.
This is why I believe that I have a soul. That soul is completely tied in with my brain, (I would be a fool to claim it is independent of it, if I were writing this smashed it would less comprehensible, if it is at all :wink:) but it is also separate. It is, if you like, part of me that is empowered by my brain. It is the spark of consciousness, and it is not a physical thing. This is what I believe a soul is.
The obvious criticism of my argument is my use of the phrase: "the limitations of science (as we know it)".
Let me rephrase that, perhaps there is a science which governs this thin I call the soul, but it is not explained by any science we have to date (oh we can explain systems and control, I study systems and control all the time, but as I already said, I cannot accept that the human consciousness is governed entirely by a complex chemical reaction).
So if we do not understand the soul, who are we to judge what limitations there are to 'soul science'. Could there not be a consciousness independent of a physical brain? Of course, this is not proof, since I don't understand the soul, just an idea.
And secondly, what is it that creates the soul in each of us? Certainly it is created, since it did not exist before 'I' existed*. Our bodies are created following the laws of physics, through biology and chemistry. Since this sould is not a physical thing however, we cannot look to physics. Whatever that force is, I believe in it.
*(unless of course, 'I' can exist without being self aware, then become self aware when I get a body, but let's not confuse things)
Now you can dismiss my entire argument if you like, but if you believe yourself to be an amazing and incredibly complex chemical reaction, I believe you are underestimating yourself.
Why am I a Christian? Because I was raised one. A better question would be; why am I still a Christian? Well I don't think any atheists here will be interested in my answer, but I'll tell you anyway (I've left big spaces between the sections of this post, so feel free to skip this one).
Since I am persuaded of the existence of a soul and the existence of some force which creates and governs the soul, this is not an issue. Believing in the Christian God is the leap of faith for me.
I should stress at this point that calling myself a Catholic is a little hypocritical of me. I by no means believe in every word of the bible or the church's dogma. I believe in the Christian God because of Christ. The events of his life are what lead me to believe in the Christian God.
Why should I believe in Jesus? Well I think it's fact that he existed, but I also believe that the events described by the evangelists follow the truth because I don't believe that they could have been successful if it was just a good yarn written on a cold night when they had nothing better to do. The history of Jesus' life is full of witnesses. The early Christian church could never have existed if those witnesses did not.
Why do I believe that Jesus wasn't a very very clever con man? Well apart from the improbability of his success, giving the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of a good laugh is a little unlikely.
Lastly, I believe in an interventionalist god because I believe that some miracles have happened. You'll say to me that accounts of miracles are either very old, or very dubious. I invite you to google a most recent example; google "The Miracle of the Sun".
Now I don't necessarily accept all the worded messages and instructions that accompany this miracle; they are vulnerable to abuse. Yet at the same time, the prediction combined with the widely witnessed event are enough for me.
I've seen a possible scientific explanation given. I don't doubt that it was a phenomenon of this kind that was witnessed, but that it just happened to occur at the time and place predicted, I doubt it.
The other explanations I've heard are that it was a UFO (which takes no account of the prediction) or the work of Satan... :shrug:
If you read all that, congratulations. I'm sure you're eager to pick it apart and point out logical flaws, and I'll appreciate it.
I hope I at least made you think of some new arguments, if not agree.
i actually have little interest in a gahzette debate. formal debates bore me, i prefer a conversation like i'd have with my friends. myrddraal, i'll get to that post later... :wink:
Hehe, I understand you completely.
I've got this feeling of dread, like I'm about to be leapt on by Catholics, Evangelicals, Creationists, Protestants, Atheists, Muslims, Buddists, and anyone who has an oppinion on the matter.
I'll have to take refuge with any Anglicans or Agnostics around, one'll just say: "You mentioned God, that counts", the other won't know really.
Does the big bang theory count too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Or the formation of the earth?
Or plate tectonics?
Might as well assume everyone's in the dark.
Aethiests obviously know their strongest argument is the lack of evidence from religion, and I hope anybody who plays the thiest knows what they're doing.
i'll apologize in advance for chopping up the post, but it's the only way i can deal with such a long one.i would argue that the belief in a soul is as irrational as beilef in god, so long as we are defining "soul" as in anyway metaphysical. the definition of "soul" is very problematic, though. to really have a discussion about it, you need to explain as clearly as possible what you mean by the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
why would you expect a complex electric system to be self-aware? i don't think it's fair to expect an laptop to be self-aware, and then, when it exhibits no evidence of self-awareness to hold that as evidence for a spiritual 'soul'.Quote:
I am self aware. It's a philosophical argument as old as the hills, "I think therefore I am". Descartes used this as a philosophical argument, considering the idea that even if there was an all deceiving all powerful being bent on confusing him, he would remain sure of the fact that 'he' (the being which is being confused) must exist in order to be confused. However, I want to use this argument with reference to our brains, and the limitations of science (as we know it).
I can create a very complex electric system, with plenty of feedback control and some very complex mathematics. That kind of system could fly an airplane better than I can, but it would not be self aware (at least not in the same way as I am).
I could make a similar chemical system, and extend that to basic cells. I still cannot accept that such a system can be self aware.
but, what criteria are you using to decide if something is self-aware or not? why do you know an airplane auto-pilot is not self-aware? better yet, is an amoeba self-aware? an ant? a dog? a porpoise? a chimpanzee? do they have 'souls'?
afaik, the nature of consciousness is an open field of research. cognitive science is still a developing field, and may hold answers in the future (or already, i don't keep up with it).Quote:
The next step is to extend this argument to the human mind.
As an organism becomes more and more complex, as the control systems that make it work become more and more complex, at what point does it become self aware?
must awareness of the 'self' be perfect to count as "self-awareness"? and, do you consider the autonomic nervous system to be part of the mind? that's a broad definition.Quote:
You could argue that it becomes self aware after the first feedback loop is introduced. You could argue that that it becomes self aware after some kind of system component monitors the rest of the system to check all it's outputs are still correct.
But in that case, why am I not conscious in some form of every system in my mind? Large parts of your mind you are never conscious of, they don't even enter your subconscious. The nerve impulses that keep you heart ticking over, the nerve impulses that never leave your spinal chord for example.
i don't understand how you are certain that the brain is not the seat of awareness. have you witnessed brainless people that are self-aware in the sense you've been talking about above? again, why would you expect a chemical reaction to have self awareness? awareness could be an emergent property of complex central nervous systems. as a very simple example of an emergent property, take water. neither hydrogen, nor oxygen are liquid at 20 degrees celsius. but combine the two, and you have a new substance with very different properties.Quote:
So what is this thing that is self aware, it certainly isn't the human brain. Is it only one part of the brain? I'm not a neurologist, but I cannot accept the idea that a chemical reaction, however complex, can have self awareness in the same way that I do.
to me, none of this is any more sensible than blind faith. i dont see how you get from: consciousness is mysterious to me to i have a soul!Quote:
This is why I believe that I have a soul. That soul is completely tied in with my brain, (I would be a fool to claim it is independent of it, if I were writing this smashed it would less comprehensible, if it is at all :wink:) but it is also separate. It is, if you like, part of me that is empowered by my brain. It is the spark of consciousness, and it is not a physical thing. This is what I believe a soul is.
i think a more useful approach would be empiricism. instead of starting with the contention that human consciousness cannot be a product of the physical system alone, why not replicate that physical system first, and see if it exhibits consciousness? in the case of humans, this means, let's build a human brain, down to the molecule, and see if it can exhibit the whatever signs of consciousness we're looking for.Quote:
The obvious criticism of my argument is my use of the phrase: "the limitations of science (as we know it)".
Let me rephrase that, perhaps there is a science which governs this thin I call the soul, but it is not explained by any science we have to date (oh we can explain systems and control, I study systems and control all the time, but as I already said, I cannot accept that the human consciousness is governed entirely by a complex chemical reaction).
sounds far-fetched? it's certainly science fiction right now, but i don't think it's impossible that we could someday be able to construct a perfect example of a human brain. if we do, we would have a way to test whether consciousness is more than a physical phenomenon.
and i believe you are underestimating chemistry. :wink:Quote:
So if we do not understand the soul, who are we to judge what limitations there are to 'soul science'. Could there not be a consciousness independent of a physical brain? Of course, this is not proof, since I don't understand the soul, just an idea.
And secondly, what is it that creates the soul in each of us? Certainly it is created, since it did not exist before 'I' existed*. Our bodies are created following the laws of physics, through biology and chemistry. Since this sould is not a physical thing however, we cannot look to physics. Whatever that force is, I believe in it.
*(unless of course, 'I' can exist without being self aware, then become self aware when I get a body, but let's not confuse things)
Now you can dismiss my entire argument if you like, but if you believe yourself to be an amazing and incredibly complex chemical reaction, I believe you are underestimating yourself.
as for your christianity, i think the rest of this thread deals with the problems associated with that particular faith well enough. though i must say, i find chirsitianity no more irrational than any other belief system that makes metaphysical claims.
nothing about the "miracle of the sun" strikes me as especially credible (i.e., more credible than other miracles one hears about). in general, i will always believe a physical explanation over a metaphysical one, simply because, as i've stated before, i have reason to believe in a physical world, and no reason to believe in a metaphysical world. and even if a metaphysical world exists, i have no reason to believe that there can be interaction between the two.Quote:
Lastly, I believe in an interventionalist god because I believe that some miracles have happened. You'll say to me that accounts of miracles are either very old, or very dubious. I invite you to google a most recent example; google "The Miracle of the Sun".
Now I don't necessarily accept all the worded messages and instructions that accompany this miracle; they are vulnerable to abuse. Yet at the same time, the prediction combined with the widely witnessed event are enough for me.
I've seen a possible scientific explanation given. I don't doubt that it was a phenomenon of this kind that was witnessed, but that it just happened to occur at the time and place predicted, I doubt it.
The other explanations I've heard are that it was a UFO (which takes no account of the prediction) or the work of Satan... :shrug:
this, i suppose, is a basic philosophical difference. i am always inclined to believe that a physical event has a physical explanation. and if we don't understand a physical event, i either assume that there is a physical explanation that i'm not aware of, or i simply reserve judgment. i have never had cause to believe that a metaphysical reality has intruded upon the phenomenal world.
count for what? all three of those things are supported by empirical evidence, if that is what you are asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
as descartes recognized in formulation the meditations, the only truly useful tact is begin from a position of ignorance. from there we can build up the world around us. to start from assumptions is simply unsafe.Quote:
Might as well assume everyone's in the dark.
Aethiests obviously know their strongest argument is the lack of evidence from religion, and I hope anybody who plays the thiest knows what they're doing.
The big bang. How'd we observe that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
to attack the existence of someone we cannot see, hear, smell etc with science but is believed in by faith is simply unsound. Since according to todays society faith and science are incongruent..well I guess we can assume the rules of scientific proof do not apply to faith and religion at all.~D
you can educate yourself fairly easily about the empirical evidence for the singularity at the beginning of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
sure, that's one tact. you can simply admit there is no logical reason to believe in god.Quote:
to attack the existence of someone we cannot see, hear, smell etc with science but is believed in by faith is simply unsound. Since according to todays society faith and science are incongruent..well I guess we can assume the rules of scientific proof do not apply to faith and religion at all.~D
No no, do not spare how we observed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
by science you're correct, but it doesnt really matter if all I need is faith isnt it?...
besides..logic? part of science and science in todays world cannot connect so those arguments dont hit the target to the trained theist eye.
can't say i follow your last post, Boyar Son. if you want to understand the evidence for the big bang, start with wikipedia.
oops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
try this a little changed.
by the rules of science you're correct, but it doesnt really matter if all I need is faith (God) isnt it?...
besides..logic? thats part of science, and science in todays world cannot connect, so those arguments (science disproves God...) _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye (regular believers in God with no debating skills can easily fall victim to the over used argument from the aethiest side, but " _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye ").
and nah I dont think wiki will bring aethiest point any closer to proof.
are you arguing that all you need to believe in god is faith? if so, then i suppose that's true. though, i think many theists would disagree with you. but that's not what we are arguing here. we are arguing first about whether the description of a omnipotent, omni-benevolent god is tenable, and then we also began to consider whether there is a rational reason to believe in god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
i'm only concerned with rational reasons in this discussion. i don't deny that there are irrational reasons to believe in god, and other supernatural things. but i try not to construct my worldview from irrational building blocks.Quote:
besides..logic? thats part of science, and science in todays world cannot connect, so those arguments (science disproves God...) _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye (regular believers in God with no debating skills can easily fall victim to the over used argument from the aethiest side, but " _dont_ hit the target to the trained theist eye ").
it's not meant to bring any point "closer to proof". you asked what evidence there is for the big bang theory, wikipedia has a good primer on that. i was just trying to help you out with the leg work.Quote:
and nah I dont think wiki will bring aethiest point any closer to proof.
your writing style is hard for me to understand (is english your primary language?). sorry if i've missed your points.
Sadly, it is. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
1. so why'd you try to argue against my argument instead of saying that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
2. rationality sounds good and is the right thing in determining most things, but when it comes to FAITH it has no place, so the closest aethiests will ever get to discredit God is "logic, rationality".. but never disproving Him (because there is no way to prove with logic, rationality).
3. wiki isnt the most trusted source for info isnt it?
why do you try to make it sound bad when I said instead of scientific proof you need faith to believe that God is real?
so it is irrational to have faith? or hope? (also, english is my 1st language. but I dont bother to re-read and spell check :P) and thanks for not bashing God by calling him some fairy tale,like most aethiests do
iCe-:drama2: :quiet:
The sad thing is when someone needs a spell check to write something that others can understand. :hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
for one thing, i think (i could be wrong) that this thread is primarily concerned with finding a rational foundation for a certain type of god. the reason i first addressed you is that you were answering vicious monkey's post, which was concerned with rationalism, with mere presumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
personally, i agree with you. i don't think i can 'disprove' god, but i don't think i need to in order to disregard the existence of god. a basic axiom of "one can't prove a negative" could apply here.Quote:
2. rationality sounds good and is the right thing in determining most things, but when it comes to FAITH it has no place, so the closest aethiests will ever get to discredit God is "logic, rationality".. but never disproving Him (because there is no way to prove with logic, rationality).
however, to my understanding, there are a good many atheists who do in fact positively assert that god can be disproved based on logcal impossibility. i'm not that familiar with that school of thought, so don't ask me to elaborate.
come on, what are you arguing here? are you saying that wikipedia's entry on the evidentiary basis for the big bang theory has been doctored? is run by rabid atheists with no concern for the science? wikipedia's entries, in general, are based on outside sources. that particular entry references sources such as the astrophysical journal, the national academy of sciences, and the royal astronomical society, among others.Quote:
3. wiki isnt the most trusted source for info isnt it?
but, if you don't trust wikipedia, you can follow their sources and read the material first hand. or go to a library and check out the big bang books there. it's not a hard subject to find.
as i said above, i believe this thread is primarily concerned with rational reasoning. so, i felt your argument was out of place.Quote:
why do you try to make it sound bad when I said instead of scientific proof you need faith to believe that God is real?
personally, i don't mind people that use faith to justify their belief in god. as i said earlier, irrational reasoning about something remote and of little import to how people live day-to-day lives is nothing to get in a huff over. but when that type of non-critical thinking spills over into other aspects of life, it is very dangerous. i believe that societies and individuals
i wouldn't say it's strictly irrational to have faith or hope for certain things. to have hope that your lost daughter will be found, for example could make a lot of sense. it might be what keeps you going. it could be the driving force that ultimately leads you to find your child. an unreasonable belief can be very useful, adaptively beneficial. but it is not an valid argument. because i have faith that my child will be found is no kind of argument that she will be.Quote:
so it is irrational to have faith? or hope? (also, english is my 1st language. but I dont bother to re-read and spell check :P) and thanks for not bashing God by calling him some fairy tale,like most aethiests do
[Hijack]Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Native speakers are actually much more sloppy when writing their language down than non-natives who have the same level of "proficiency" essentially.
It's a strange phenomenon somebody somewhere probably has an explanation for. I can guarantee it's true at least for me though. I type just as sloppily in my "native" language as anybody else (the way that would drive language teachers up the wall wailing and gnashing their teeth) but I think my English is at least decent; although using the stuff everyday does help...
Still, I do prefer people to do their best typing when online. I'm the kind of idiot to use full sentences in chat rooms. :sweatdrop:
[/Hijack]
[hijack]
I've noticed that my grammar and spelling is a lot worse than most of the euro members in the backroom.
[/hijack]
I never tried to say that Einstein believed in a personal deity such as the christian god. I have a very broad definition of what it means to be religious. If I remember correctly he believed in some form of an overarching force in the universe. To me that makes him religious.
Einstein was a human like everyone else is. Einsten's beliefs does not change reality in anway. As a side note, Einstein pursued for the rest of his life to disprove one of his theories simply because he did not like it. He failed however, and the theory still stands today (I saw this in a movie, I assume it is correct; cannot remember which theory in particular).
What Vicious is trying to point out however...is that the only way of being irrational is by believing in a god, which is of course a huge fallacy; since irrationality is, as anything else, relative. From a nihilistic point of view, everything in life is in reality based upon faith. Atheism is only better in this aspect, not in the other. It all boils down to the aspect(s). Same goes for political views and so on..
Plato answered this one over 2,000 years ago and I think it works today as well as it did then.
God is good, all that is good proceeds from God and since all proceeds from God everything is good.
We're just too stupid to realise it, we can't get to grips with the world so we think it is full of evil. In reality the evil is only within us.
The arguement is the basis of Stoicism, everything that comes to you can be turned to good or evil and the choice about which it is is up to you.
An example from Seneca: A man who looses his eyes will appreciate the beauty of music more readily. It's a hard philosophy but if you think about it it makes a lot of sense of the world we live in.
At every juncture bad decisions are made and those lead to bad events but they are only bad events after the next bad decision.
When you are taught a new language you learn the gammar, therefore you write with a better syntax than someone who learns their native tongue, because they speak and write by "feel".Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
I just had to respond to him. His posts want me to start a holy war...Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
And about that presumption.
Jesus is the son of God, so he walks on water (because he the _son of God_).
So when no one else can, he presumes its false.
Its because its so hard to believe isnt it?
that no one believes...but the big bang.. as soon it is credited by science (with no _direct_ proof) everyone assume it happened (even though its a theory).
a basic axiom of "one can't prove a negative" could apply here.
so you're assuming he doesnt exist? even though i don't think i can 'disprove' god means there is no way to show he cant?
I drank a 750ml bottle of wine alone on my own today so erm, whatever but I just think that using the correct grammar, in germand and english can only be useful because when I get used to it I may always write like that even if i should happen to write an exam. Only exception is when i write all lowercase in german chats sometimes as it's easier than writing every noun in uppercase as it should be in german(I tend to release Shift before typing the letter, couldn't really get rid of that so far), however you may notice my grammar is usually correct even when slightly drunkas I am right now. exceptions prove the rule(and indicate I'm a bit more drunk ~;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Bollox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
In this case I have to say I'm just somewhat gifted or talented, the german and english grammar just come to me, i never really learned both. I learned a bit of german grammar in my latin lessons (7th class and on, was supposed to learn it 5th class and on but always managed to get around it), I never bothered to learn the english grammar despite it being required by the teachers. I flunked latin and ended the course with a 5 (6 being the worst grade), ah well, now I forgot what I was aiming at(oh the joys of drunken posting) but maybe you get part of my point, a bit of effort and some skilland you can produce a decent message or something like that. :beam:
you state that jesus is the son of god, but you provide no reasoning for that belief. in this thread, i contend but an objective person, starting from ignorance, has no cause to believe jesus was the son of god, nor that a god even exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
what do you me by "direct" proof? do you mean you will not believe that something occured unless you see it with your own eyes? do you believe george washington was ever president of the united states? did you see him take office?Quote:
that no one believes...but the big bang.. as soon it is credited by science (with no _direct_ proof) everyone assume it happened (even though its a theory).
i'm not assuming god doesn't exist, i'm beginning from a state of ignorance. the theist makes the positive claim, and carries the burden of proof. i'm not trying to disprove god; i just see no reason to believe one should exist.Quote:
a basic axiom of "one can't prove a negative" could apply here.
so you're assuming he doesnt exist? even though i don't think i can 'disprove' god means there is no way to show he cant?
The jist of my argument is: I don't believe that consciousness and self awareness can be the product of any chemical reaction. Therefore there must be something more; this I call the soul.Quote:
the definition of "soul" is very problematic, though
The next step is to say that something must have created this thing, and since I don't understand this thing, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is a force I don't understand that causes the existance of this soul. This force I call god.
That is the one of the foundations of my belief.
Hang on, you got the wrong end of the stick completely here. What I'm saying is that a complex electrical or chemical system can exhibit evidence of self-awareness. I do not believe however that it is self aware. I'm saying that the symptoms of self-awareness can be created chemically/electrically; a very good robot from the far future could reproduce type and submit this argument to the .org, yet I don't believe that it is self-aware in the same way as I am conscious of my own existence. There is something more to my existance than the reactions in my brain.Quote:
why would you expect a complex electric system to be self-aware? i don't think it's fair to expect an laptop to be self-aware, and then, when it exhibits no evidence of self-awareness to hold that as evidence for a spiritual 'soul'.
The rest of you, I don't know, you could all be complex chemical reactions, because I have no awareness of you beyond my senses.
It would indeed be very interesting. I don't think it would work. However, just to argue the point for the sake of arguing (devils advocate time). What if spirits are drifting around all the time, waiting for a medium into this world, and every time a brain is formed, a spirit enters the brain? Now this is complete science fiction and I don't believe it for a second, but I'm just making the point because we should consider all possibilities, however ridiculous :wink:Quote:
sounds far-fetched? it's certainly science fiction right now, but i don't think it's impossible that we could someday be able to construct a perfect example of a human brain. if we do, we would have a way to test whether consciousness is more than a physical phenomenon.
Oh I agree, I'm sure there was a physical phenomenon that occured that day. However, how was it predicted so accurately, or rather, was it triggered?Quote:
nothing about the "miracle of the sun" strikes me as especially credible ... i am always inclined to believe that a physical event has a physical explanation. and if we don't understand a physical event, i either assume that there is a physical explanation that i'm not aware of, or i simply reserve judgment. i have never had cause to believe that a metaphysical reality has intruded upon the phenomenal world.
This miracle seems incredibly credible to me. Prophesy + Prophesy fulfilled in a way which humans couldn't reproduce, and witnessed by a huge crowd of theists and atheists alike. What are the odds?
i find this reasoning very unsound. edit: see belowQuote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
i read this as saying, "i don't understand something, therefore 'god' and 'the soul.'" it makes little sense to me. it seems no different from coming upon a forest fire, looking around for the arsonist responsible, and upon not being able to find one, forming the conviction that thor must have descended from asgard and struck the forest with his hammer.Quote:
The next step is to say that something must have created this thing, and since I don't understand this thing, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is a force I don't understand that causes the existance of this soul. This force I call god.
That is the one of the foundations of my belief.
ah, i misunderstood you. sorry.Quote:
Hang on, you got the wrong end of the stick completely here. What I'm saying is that a complex electrical or chemical system can exhibit evidence of self-awareness. I do not believe however that it is self aware. I'm saying that the symptoms of self-awareness can be created chemically/electrically; a very good robot from the far future could reproduce type and submit this argument to the .org, yet I don't believe that it is self-aware in the same way as I am conscious of my own existence. There is something more to my existance than the reactions in my brain.
The rest of you, I don't know, you could all be complex chemical reactions, because I have no awareness of you beyond my senses.
ok, so you are just stating your belief without providing any rationale for that belief, is that correct? i see no good reason agree with your belief that a chemical or electrical system that exhibits evidence of awareness is not in fact aware. what is your rationale for holding this belief?
in such a case, the person making the claim of wandering spirits should be able to provide some reason for others to believe the claim. what evidence is there of such spirits, and that they make a habit of moving into new brains? as occam would say, 'do not multiply entities unnecessarily'.Quote:
It would indeed be very interesting. I don't think it would work. However, just to argue the point for the sake of arguing (devils advocate time). What if spirits are drifting around all the time, waiting for a medium into this world, and every time a brain is formed, a spirit enters the brain? Now this is complete science fiction and I don't believe it for a second, but I'm just making the point because we should consider all possibilities, however ridiculous :wink:
i probably wouldn't take the description as particularly accurate without evidence. so i'm curious, are there pictures of the event and the crowd or written and signed statements by people stating that they are 'atheists' and have just witnessed something they would describe as miraculous? if a prophesy existed beforehand, that could be an argument against the objective reality of the miracle as easily as for. i would simply ask the question, "can we account for the event, in totality, within the physical system?" if so, then i see no reason to postulate a non physical cause. that appears to be the likely case here.Quote:
Oh I agree, I'm sure there was a physical phenomenon that occured that day. However, how was it predicted so accurately, or rather, was it triggered?
This miracle seems incredibly credible to me. Prophesy + Prophesy fulfilled in a way which humans couldn't reproduce, and witnessed by a huge crowd of theists and atheists alike. What are the odds?
No rather, there is something. I don't understand it. I will call this thing 'soul' and whatever force or event that caused this creation 'god'.Quote:
i read this as saying, "i don't understand something, therefore 'god' and 'the soul.'
You could call 'soul' 'life spark' or 'god' 'life force', or even call them 'thingy' and 'bobby'.
All I am concluding from this argument is that there is more to a living conscious object than the physical, and that some force or event that controls this thing.
It's a very basic idea of a 'god'.
Well no :inquisitive:. I spent some time drawing parallels between systems that I think all would agree are not self aware, and parts of the human brain and nervous system. The question I ultimately asked is; can a combination of non-aware objects, arranged in a certain manner, now be self-aware?Quote:
ok, so you are just stating your belief without providing any rationale for that belief, is that correct?
This is the argument I was expecting from you in your first reply :smile:. Of course I don't know. I'm a building up an argument, asking a question, and pointing to what seems to me to be the most plausible answer. However, to use the age old argument of the non believer; there is no proof that a complex chemical or electrical system is self aware as I am. Proove it, the burden of proof lies with the claimant :wink:Quote:
i see no good reason agree with your belief that a chemical or electrical system that exhibits evidence of awareness is not in fact aware. what is your rationale for holding this belief?
Since there's no proof, I'm going to ask you; do you believe that a theoretical genius could create an electronic conscious being?
If not then why do you believe that a theoretical genius could create a conscious biological being?
If I as a conscious being am only aware of part of the information in my brain, are the other systems in my brain self aware too?
Ultimately, if you wanted to argue with me for the sake of arguing, we could never resolve this point. Do you sincerely believe that the sum total of human consciousness can exist due only to a sum of non-conscious elements? I don't, if you do, I can't disprove it (not till we get your molecular built brain to test anyway :wink:)
Of course there are other arguments for the existance of a god. The clockmaker one I'm sure you're familiar with. We could discuss the origins of life, and the probabilities of life evolving from primordial soup, but these arguments of probability are doomed to go down a path of what we each believe as well, because nobody knows the probabilities, or can even make anything more than a vague guess, since any estimate of the number of worlds with similar conditions to ours can be based on a wide range of assumptions.
Let me just make one point on these kinds of arguments. A common argument against the clockmaker argument is that if there is any probability of something occuring, then the universe is so huge that actually it's quite likely it'll happen somewhere. This is a logical fallacy. If time passed and the amount of matter in the universe is infinite, only then can you start using this argument. Any other time, the probability can always be considerably smaller than the number of places where it might occur. Just because it's a very small number doesn't mean it can't exist.
Frankly, this seems quite likely given that the best science can provide is to set up a reaction in which the proteins needed for a protein shell to protect rna or dna* from immediate breakdown are created. This was done in conditions that all agree are nothing like those of early earth.
*assuming that these too have spontaneously formed (!)
Gah! I only wanted to mention that argument as an aside, but now I've written this much I might as well post it. Please note that I wrote the facts of that last section from memory, and it's very early in the morning here and I should be asleep. Tomorrow I'll check wikipedia :grin:
excuse me, i've had a bit to drink tonight, so this response will probably be incomplete, at best.to me it sounds like you are not so much "concluding" anything, as starting from the basic assumption. you're first statement is "there is something". well, back up that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
why couldn't a combination of non-aware objects become aware once arranged correctly? two gaseous elements, once combined in the correct proportions can become liquid water. where is the 'wetness' of water in elemental hydrogen? in elemental oxygen? where does it come from?Quote:
Well no :inquisitive:. I spent some time drawing parallels between systems that I think all would agree are not self aware, and parts of the human brain and nervous system. The question I ultimately asked is; can a combination of non-aware objects, arranged in a certain manner, now be self-aware?
not quite. unless you are a global skeptic or a nihilist, we can agree that the physical world exists. therefore, when we observe a physical phenomenon, we can agree that a physical explanation is is at least possible, or better likely, or best definite. we both accept physical reality, and for good reason. i make no metaphysical (supernatural) claim in expecting that the physical phenomenon of consciousness has a physical cause.Quote:
This is the argument I was expecting from you in your first reply :smile:. Of course I don't know. I'm a building up an argument, asking a question, and pointing to what seems to me to be the most plausible answer. However, to use the age old argument of the non believer; there is no proof that a complex chemical or electrical system is self aware as I am. Proove it, the burden of proof lies with the claimant :wink:
i believe it is possible.Quote:
Since there's no proof, I'm going to ask you; do you believe that a theoretical genius could create an electronic conscious being?
i don't understand this question. is your foot self-aware? should it be?Quote:
If I as a conscious being am only aware of part of the information in my brain, are the other systems in my brain self aware too?
again, i'll point you to the fact of emergent properties. that alone can account for the 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts' phenomenon you seem to be stuck on.Quote:
Ultimately, if you wanted to argue with me for the sake of arguing, we could never resolve this point. Do you sincerely believe that the sum total of human consciousness can exist due only to a sum of non-conscious elements? I don't, if you do, I can't disprove it (not till we get your molecular built brain to test anyway :wink:)
we can always err on the side of caution, using what we know must be true to determine what is likely, and what is unnecessary. that is the rational method.Quote:
Of course there are other arguments for the existance of a god. The clockmaker one I'm sure you're familiar with. We could discuss the origins of life, and the probabilities of life evolving from primordial soup, but these arguments of probability are doomed to go down a path of what we each believe as well, because nobody knows the probabilities, or can even make anything more than a vague guess, since any estimate of the number of worlds with similar conditions to ours can be based on a wide range of assumptions.
the more direct counterargument to the watchmaker analogy is to simply say that the claim that the universe appears to be designed is flawed. we can simply say the universe is, and need make no further inferences. it is a false analogy.Quote:
Let me just make one point on these kinds of arguments. A common argument against the clockmaker argument is that if there is any probability of something occuring, then the universe is so huge that actually it's quite likely it'll happen somewhere. This is a logical fallacy. If time passed and the amount of matter in the universe is infinite, only then can you start using this argument. Any other time, the probability can always be considerably smaller than the number of places where it might occur. Just because it's a very small number doesn't mean it can't exist.
but we could play out a more elaborate watchmaker argument if you'd like. for example, you say all watches imply a watchmaker, and so a designed universe implies a designer (god)... but all watchmakers imply father and mother, and so all designers imply a... father of god. tell me about god's father, if you will.
you are talking about the billions of years of evolution. you wish to test theories about the origin of life that make no metaphysical claim (as i've mentioned, i believe we can both agree on the existence of physical reality). are you willing to wait a few million years, to see the results? of course we can't wait that long.. so what's the next step, to assume a supernatural cause or draw logical inference and parallels based on the physical reality that we understand very well and interact with everyday?Quote:
Frankly, this seems quite likely given that the best science can provide is to set up a reaction in which the proteins needed for a protein shell to protect rna or dna* from immediate breakdown are created. This was done in conditions that all agree are nothing like those of early earth.
*assuming that these too have spontaneously formed (!)
let me know what you find out. ~:)Quote:
Gah! I only wanted to mention that argument as an aside, but now I've written this much I might as well post it. Please note that I wrote the facts of that last section from memory, and it's very early in the morning here and I should be asleep. Tomorrow I'll check wikipedia :grin:
Yes Big John that is all that is required to believe in God. Faith is a strange and wonderful concept. It does not have to relay on rational input to be valid, it just takes a belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John