Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Underlying Presuppositions
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostIt is difficult to deal with the concept of what is the universe. I say all that exists to include multiverse concepts, etc.A caused existence may not be a problem for you personally. It does leave open the question of what that cause might be.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThis makes no sense. I believe we were created by a rational Creator who generally aims us towards true beliefs.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou believe that the non-rational forces of nature, that care nothing about true beliefs, except by accidential correspondence, created our cognitive abilities. Why is your belief more plausible?
You see, Seer, you have apparently (arbitrarily) decided that consciousness must come from consciousness, life from life, etc. I do not make those assumptions. I look for the evidence around me, and follow it where it takes me. My fundamental assumptions do not include things like gods and creations. I look at the foundational assumptions I DO have, and then reason to the presence/absence of such beings. It is possible I am wrong. If I am, hopefully I will find other evidence, or hear another argument that will show me that I am wrong, and my beliefs will change.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes - you do. And the belief is inviolate, because when you posit an omnisicent, omnipotent, eternal creator god, that god can do anything (except the logically impossible). Ergo your beliefs are indeed internally consistent. They also cannot be shown to be untrue because you have declared this belief a fundamental assumption. This means you have an ironclad belief system immune to questioning. If the belief is true, you're in great shape. If it is not, you will stay trapped in it, unable to actually determine if it is true or untrue or escape it. Ultimately, that probably does not matter a great deal. If the beliefs lead you to a good life and good choices for yourself and the society around you, whether or not they are true only matters if truth actually matters to you.
My belief is not intrinsically more plausible. It is more plausible to me because it a) defines the mechanism by which this occurs, b) aligns with the reality we see around us, and c) is testable/verifiable - so it can be shown to be wrong if it is, indeed, wrong.
You see, Seer, you have apparently (arbitrarily) decided that consciousness must come from consciousness, life from life, etc. I do not make those assumptions. I look for the evidence around me, and follow it where it takes me. My fundamental assumptions do not include things like gods and creations. I look at the foundational assumptions I DO have, and then reason to the presence/absence of such beings. It is possible I am wrong. If I am, hopefully I will find other evidence, or hear another argument that will show me that I am wrong, and my beliefs will change.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not sure how that is relevant to my point.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut that is begging the question, which is why is life rational. We both agree that it is. You have no idea that unguided natural forces created rationality as we know it, you weren't there when it happened and neither was I. What you are testing is what is already here not how it got that way. For instance, we have no idea how or where self awareness popped up or why.
All of these are testable things. If perception/reasoning provide a survival value, we know nature will select for them because we know that's how evolution works.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut you are assuming that non-ration and non-conscious forces created consciousness and rationality (whether you admit it or not). Yet you can not go back in history and tell us where or how.
Evolution and natural selection are not part of my "foundational assumptions." Evolution and natural selection are derived truths BASED on foundational assumptions coupled with a great deal of perception and reasoning. They are conclusions I have reasoned to. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the evidence suggests that accurate reasoning and perception are characteristics that would be selected for by evolution.
I also cannot go back in hostory and tell you where and how humanity first used fire, began creating art, or domesticated the first animal. I cannot tell you where and how the first creature developed color vision (or any vision, for that matter), or became bipedal, or developed lungs. That does not make it impossible for me to know these things happened, and that evolution is the force that led to their occuring. So why would you take "reasoning" out of the set of human characteristics that can be explained by evolution and treat it differently?
Unless you're a creationist and I don't know it...?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostGibberish.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostWord tickling just means you are playing with words but made no response to anything I wrote. I used "creation" because you objected when I used "everything that exists." You keep quibbling with words and ignoring the fact that the choice of whether to accept a creator beyond the existing system is one of personal incredulity. I find it personally incredulous that the detectable universe is self existent. You find it personally incredulous that it is not.
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostOh, and the Law of Parsimony is not truly a law, but a rule of thumb when dealing with testable scientific issues. When you are dealing with competing answers, the one requiring the fewest assumptions is more likely, nothing more. It can not apply as a test of the truth of a creator beyond the creation.
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI get my physics from simplified popular treatments. I have not read any new ones for a year or so, but the "something from nothing" question, as adrift pointed out, has been clearly rejected.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 12:30 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
No. I am not assuming it. Indeed, the one making assumptions here is you: you are assuming your god exists and created everything, and have acknowledged that these are unprovable foundational assumptions you accept a priori.
I also cannot go back in hostory and tell you where and how humanity first used fire, began creating art, or domesticated the first animal. I cannot tell you where and how the first creature developed color vision (or any vision, for that matter), or became bipedal, or developed lungs. That does not make it impossible for me to know these things happened, and that evolution is the force that led to their occuring. So why would you take "reasoning" out of the set of human characteristics that can be explained by evolution and treat it differently?
Unless you're a creationist and I don't know it...?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course you are. Tell me here how, where and why nature created self-awareness. Especially in light of the fact that self-awareness is not necessary for survival. Most creature do not have it and survive just fine.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut when it comes to self-awareness - nature must have did it.
Originally posted by seer View PostAll Christians are creationists...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI'm merely trying to explain to Adrift the difference between the concept of a multiverse and that of an absolute nothingness. The former has a scientific basis, the latter does not.
Saying that the universe came from a special false vacuum state, and bubbled out into this state (as in chaotic inflation theory), not the same as saying "The universe came from nothing."
You might as well say to a farmer who wished he had two horses instead of two cows "Well what if you just called them horses?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI understood it just fine. Do you fail to grasp the difference between meaninglessness and incorrectness, or are you just unfamiliar with the longer words?
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes, I conclude that reason/perception are results of an evolutionary process. That is a conclusion based on the available evidence - not an assumption. All other attributes of our being are derived via evolution, so I see no reason to separate this one out and treat it differently.
Yes - but some are "pure" creationists (no evolution - god created us as is) and some recognize the scientific validity of evolution and simply push god's creative activity to "creating the process." I use the term "creationist," as I think most people do, in the first sense.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYet there is no evidence on how or where or even why the process created self-awareness, especially in light of the fact that, given what we know, it is not necessary for survival. So yes, you are working on an assumption, that because the process seems to do certain things it must have done this also.
And you continue to make the same logical error, somehow just assuming that because abstract beliefs are not necessary for survival, they do not benefit from the same accuracy of perception and reasoning that IS linked to survival. I gave you an analogy to show how your logic here fails. If you did not see it or understand it, I can repeat it and explain if you wish.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd Christians fall in on all points in between - but all remained creationists...
*Edited to Add: coincidentally, I happen to be listening to a podcast where they discuss that modern Artifical Intelligence systems are beginning to produce non-deterministic results, and there is even evidence of a form of "dreaming" in these systems. Indeed, they are having to insert program elements to eliminate these things from the desired output of the system, because they are a form of "distraction" for the computer. As computing power increases, and program complexity increases with it, it is becoming increasinly likely that consciousness will emerge from a system comprised entirely of non-organic elements. That would significantly change this discussion.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 01:54 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOf course there is. We have an enormous body of evidence about how evolution works. We have an enormous body of evidence about the relationship between mind and brain. We have an enormous body of evidence about the cognitive differences between different species and their links to brain complexity. What I fail to see is why we should isolate out "reasoning" and "consciousness" from all of our other attributes as somehow separately derived. Since all other attributes we possess are derived via evolution, someone would need to make the case for why this one should be treated differently*.
Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view....
Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. even in principle.
https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/And you continue to make the same logical error, somehow just assuming that because abstract beliefs are not necessary for survival, they do not benefit from the same accuracy of perception and reasoning that IS linked to survival. I gave you an analogy to show how your logic here fails. If you did not see it or understand it, I can repeat it and explain if you wish.
*Edited to Add: coincidentally, I happen to be listening to a podcast where they discuss that modern Artifical Intelligence systems are beginning to produce non-deterministic results, and there is even evidence of a form of "dreaming" in these systems. Indeed, they are having to insert program elements to eliminate these things from the desired output of the system, because they are a form of "distraction" for the computer. As computing power increases, and program complexity increases with it, it is becoming increasinly likely that consciousness will emerge from a system comprised entirely of non-organic elements. That would significantly change this discussion.Last edited by seer; 02-12-2018, 02:43 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain, that is still an assumption. And consciousness is different in the sense that it not necessary for survival. Let me quote Sam Harris whom I linked earlier:
We also see signs of reasoning/consciousness in other beings than humans - and the degree to which these are developed is directly related to the comlexity of their brains. I do not see how anyone can ignore this body of evidence. I certainly will not.
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm speaking of consciousness here, not necessarily abstract beliefs. And remember the rest of the animal kingdom survives just fine without abstract beliefs, so even those are not necessary for survival.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, intelligence creating intelligence...
The point of my comment was to note that it appears that intelligence CAN arise from base materials that are not intelligent in a different configuration. Unless you are suggesting that a human being can somehow imbue these materials with a property they do not have (other than their arrangement)? So unless you are proposing that humans are adding something other than arrangement - then it logically follows that anything that can provide for that kind of complexity can result in consciousness emerging. I submit that evolution is a process that canproduce increasing degrees of complexity, hence it is capable of producing consciousness IF consciousness benefits the being in terms of survival. Given that consciousness and reasoning, together with bipedalism and opposing thumbs, are the primary drivers for our ability to manipulate the environment, resulting in things as complex as the tools we use today, and we now dominate every environmental niche we enter, it clearly has survival value.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 03:26 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
405 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
317 responses
1,411 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
230 responses
1,124 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:44 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment