Richard, try this link for the complete version of the debate. Hope it still works. <a href="http://r20.rs6. net/tn.jsp? et=1103223511106 &s=33018& e=001Bj8n- qEBByf1K7- 0ahA9WAf2UZZgt3A s7aRXIA6sVrJ_ _riYFyRE- BF-axBdBtIycEuEd 3W_yrE2pzl4Mt1ce ucUONu4ddXnpRr7t cmlolQ=></a> Deepak has no idea about quantum theory and is called on it by a theoretical physicist in the audience who offers to give him lessons!
You understand that theists and atheists, alike, are both agnostic, by default, right?
Neither group knows with any degree of certainty that there is/isn't a God. The debate is (or at least should be, as I haven't yet watched it) whether there is any GOOD reason to believe in God. All the atheist has to show is there are no good reasons, and he has succeeded. The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the theist to show that there is a God. Until that is done, atheists are entirely justified in their lack of belief.
And, in all my readings, I've never actually encountered anyone who states, adamantly, that they can disprove the existence of God. If they did claim such a thing, I would absolutely be as skeptical of their claims as I would be any theologian out there making sweeping claims about the will of his God.
Now, more to the point, we can disprove certain claims that theists make about their particular God. For example, that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authoritative word of God. This is a claim about the real world, and about a tangible piece of the real world. It can be scrutinized, and can either hold up under the weight of scrutiny, or fall apart.
As far as I'm concerned, it's crumbled when studied and scrutinized, and reveals itself as nothing more than bronze age mythology.
And remember, no one here mocks you for not beleiving in werewolves, even though you can't prove werewolves don't exist (despite the fact their existence is much more probable than the existence of supernatural claims, since we know of creatures that undergo radical morphing during their lives; think caterpillars into butterflies). Mocking doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
I wish Harris had have been able to get an answer to his "why use 'God' language?" question.
I'm really not sure what they would have said. The theists seemed sincere in not believing in the things that are normally meant by 'God'. And, they could have headed off a lot of misconceptions by using the word 'universe'.
So, are their beliefs oscillating? Or are they using God-language to inflate their numbers of followers?
You said:"You understand that theists and atheists, alike, are both agnostic, by default, right?"
Then you, like many, go on to invoke uncertainty as a manner in which neither the believe nor unbeliever as assured of their premise...
That's BUNK!
I only need a reasonable amount of certitude based upon multiple lines of evidence to make a rational assumption about what exists and what doesn't. We do this everyday. We have certitude that we'll have a job tomorrow. The job existing today "therefore it will exist tomorrow" isn't a certainty as we witness in the economy. There is no certainty about many things and yet we do not have to invoke a premise of agnosticism because of it.
We have certitude about unseen laws of logic being true or able to provide a rational method of interpreting data... yet we're not agnostic about logic because the laws of logic can't be proven...
Belief in God accounts for all the lines of data that exist. No more problematically than incomplete lines of scientific thought. Belief in Jesus specifically accounts for even more data that other religions leave unaccounted for...
Now, your agnosticism is birthed out of the dislike for the answer but that doesn't make the answer mythical, untrue or not real...
So far as "proving" something is concerned, the shoe is on the atheist foot to disprove God (prove a negative as they say) Why? God believers make the positive claim and we provide multiple lines of evidence for that claim...now, historically, science was birthed out of the need to discover what God (the assumption) had created and the works of God within creation. I contend and believe I can demonstrate that over the years, science has been hijacked by radical atheism, slanted with a naturalistic metaphysical bias and presupposition of atheism and made the assertion to the point that God is absent. But from the inception of science it was not so.
So far as this debate was concerned, Deepok was a spiritualist and did good and should have stuck to his guns on the mind body interface which atheists and materialists only take by a faith assumption because there is no evidence that a brain has a mind and further no evidence that biology or material nature of man is where the mind is generated and or created...
They 'pretend' to have evidence on their side but it's a work in progress full of anti-God faith assumptions and faith in future science.
"because there is no evidence that a brain has a mind and further no evidence that biology or material nature of man is where the mind is generated and or created...
There is plenty of evidence that the mind or thoughts are produced by the brain. Ever heard of PET scans-coloured images of thoughts. You can actually see thoughts. Previously they only had the EEG which measured thought in wave patterns. What about neurobiochemistry? Do you know how antidepressant medications change your depressing thoughts into normal ones? They do it by changing the brain's biochemistry at the neuron endings.
I appreciate that you have thought this question through, and I would like to know what "lines of evidence" you believe point to God. I am currently reading Edgar Andrews, "Who Made God?" He is taking the correct approach to the Biblical God question by hypothesizing the Biblical God, and then testing that hypothesis against the real world. It either holds water or it doesn't. He is correct in understanding the level of certitude in the natural world, and that's why he is using as the test by which he will hold up the God hypothesis. I think he will fail (remember, his hypothesis has to comport with all of reality; he can't exercise confirmation bias), but I'm interested to see his conclusions.
My agnosticism is based solely on the fact that I don't know anything, one way or the other, about the supernatural world. All argument I've seen for the existence of God, boil down to our lack of knowledge of how something originated, and then claim that these can't possibly have a naturalistic explanation. I think those arguments are hollow at best, deceptive at worst.
As far as the atheist shoe being on the other foot, I think you have it backwards. I look at it this way. All things that I have experienced in my life have been in every way related to the natural world. Whether I've felt things, heard them, seen them, touched them, tasted them or smelled them, they have been part of the natural world. I have never experienced the supernatural or any other realm other than the limited natural world in front of us and around us.
I've never even heard anyone explain what it is like to experience the supernatural, except through natural means. They heard a voice; they saw a vision; they felt the touch of God. These are all natural senses responding to natural instigation. The question is; are the sources of such instigation coming from beyond the natural realm? That's a good question, but how could we EVER KNOW that they are. Since, everything we can judge is wholly locked in the natural, the farthest we can ever go back, epistemically, is something involving the natural world, since we don't have the senses to understand or interact with the supernatural realm.
But you will say, our mind is how we interact. To that, I offer this. Phineas Gage was a railroad worker who had an iron rod go clear through his skull, destroying much of his frontal lobe. The effect of this PHYSICAL DAMAGE was extremely noticeable changes to his personality and behavior, so much so that the friends and relatives sometimes said that they no longer recognized him as the same person. If that's too distant and mythical, how about this?
I myself once suffered a head injury, and was unconcious for a week. What happened there? I suffered physical damage to my head and brain, and I lost consciousness, the very thing you claim is wholly separate from the physical realm. But if it's separate from the physical realm, then why does a head injury, of all injuries, cause one to lose conciousness? Why not just simply breaking your ankle? Or being shot in the chest? Why don't those make you lose conciousness?
We may not be able to explain the inner mechanisms of the brain and how it all relates to consciousness, but with these lines of evidence directly linking physical damage to the brain with loss of consciousness and changes in personality, we have every reason to conclude that there is a link between the physical world and the mind. May there be a supernatural aspect to it? Certainly, but until we exhaust all possible naturalistic avenues, it's not prudent to explore any others.
Beyond that, if the atheists are right, and there is no supernatural force (or any other realm of forces) acting behind the scenes, then by what reason do we expect that we ought to understand everything within the natural realm? If we are byproducts of evoution, and our brains have evolved in such a way to help us survive and reproduce, then why should we ever expect to exhaustively understand the natural world, much less something beyond the natural realm, if it were to exist?
Regarding your exposition of the transitory nature of science's assumption, you're right. But what does that prove? If oceanographers assumed that Poseidon is the sea God and the purpose of their enterprise is to understand how Poseidon goes about creating waves and whirlwinds, does that mean that they are right? Of course not.
Lastly, your equivocation of degrees of certitude: Certitude regarding my job is an entirely different ball game than certitude regarding God. I've had my current job for over 2 years now. I've been there every M-F during that time (give or take a sick day here and there). Certainty that I'll be going to that job tomorrow can be extremely high even in this economy. I am a valued employee, my production is of the highest in the company, I make peanuts relative to my production, and I get along well with my boss. Do I absolutely know that I will be at work tomorrow? No, because I may die tonight, but when I walk through the doors tomorrow at work, at that moment, I know that I am at work, and I will be paid for that day's labor.
What of God, though? How do I know God exists? I have never experienced God in any way, even though I was a Christian for 6 years, and was extremely open to him revealing himself the entire time. Even during my deepest doubts, I never gave up on him. I recognized my doubts as my fault, and again, asked him to reveal himself. I never got anything. It wasn't until depression, physical pain, and suicidal thoughts became the norm in my life, that I realized something wasn't quite right. That's what led me to question, then realize that it was all a delusion.
In a practical sense, I know I have a job. If you were to visit me right now, I could take you to my job's site. I could show you around the building; even show you some of the tasks I perform. I could introduce you to people who work there, and they could show you the tasks they perform. How could you match that level of empirical data concerning God? I am interested to hear your answer.
You said:"There is plenty of evidence that the mind or thoughts are produced by the brain. Ever heard of PET scans-coloured images of thoughts. You can actually see thoughts."
Wrong Jim. The PET scans only measure brain activities NOT thoughts. If so tell teh scan to tell what's being thought...Science examines the centers of the brain where certain activities are said to take place but what you're saying is incorrect.
What I'm talking about is where the "thought" begins and that doesn't begin with the brain...in fact there is no metaphysical necessity for thoughts based on simple materialism. There is an interface that science cannot measure. The body MIND interface is an uncharted path at least by materialistic means.
Harvey wrote: What I'm talking about is where the "thought" begins and that doesn't begin with the brain...in fact there is no metaphysical necessity for thoughts based on simple materialism. There is an interface that science cannot measure. The body MIND interface is an uncharted path at least by materialistic means.
Harvey,
Would you say the question of if we have a supernatural, non-material soul is one that science could never answer? If so, why?
For example, what if science were able to build a full-scale, working simulation of the human brain - not based merely on artificial intelligence algorithms, but a biologically accurate model of 100 billion neurons and a trillion synapses in the human brain? And what this simulation started generating it's own model of reality, including "thoughts", which we could identify in detail?
Should this occur, what would be your response?
I'm asking because there are scientists working on this problem right now in an attempt to provide better treatments for the 2 billion people who suffer from various forms of mental illnesses. And providing better treatments requires a far better understanding of the brain works than we have now.
However, wrapped up in this research are also a number of philosophical questions which have been the topic of discussions and speculation for centuries. Where is conciseness? Does the brain have the capacity to build a perceptual model universe around us like a bubble? Should we be able to create a full-scale simulation of a human brain, we could actually reach definitive answers to these questions.
If we could actually pinpoint and reproduce the very phenomena you claim could only be a supernatural gift of an all powerful, non-material God, it would represent the loss of one of the greatest refuge of theism.
Where would God would have have left to hide?
You might claim that this is all science fiction, rather than science fact. But we've already built a working single neo-cortical column simulation using supercomputers. And, so far, it works like it's biological counterpart. And when the necessary computing power becomes available, which is estimated to be approximately 10 years from now, we'll eventually be able to scale this simulation to the size of the entire human brain
Another rough example of the "mind" concept could be the ant colony.
Put one ant in a petri dish or on the ground and watch it run around aimlessly. (Probably looking for food)
Put 10's of thousands of ants together and they take on a "hive" mentality. The "hive" makes decisions on where to build the nest, when to move, etc.
It's just an emergent property of hundreds of thousands of cascading and interacting chemical signals.
This is basically what the human brain is doing. A cascade of neuronal signals (chemical interactions) takes on a different appearance than the individual pieces.
This is why changing the chemicals in the brain changes the "mind."
You asked:I would like to know what "lines of evidence" you believe point to God.
There are many...cosmological, teleological, ontological, historical, literary, not to mention experiential and those evidences of a personal nature. I mean there are many more but that covers some of the more popular lines of arguments that can be rendered.
You said:"All argument I've seen for the existence of God, boil down to our lack of knowledge of how something originated, and then claim that these can't possibly have a naturalistic explanation."
I think that's an interesting observation. Look at this...A Mercedes or BMW engine is finely tuned for performance. It functions with percision (as is their claim to fame right???)
now to look at those engines in function suggest that all processes are functioning as they should. At no time do they need an intervention from the assembly manager or design crew UNLESS something functions abnormally right?
Now based on the function of the engine once it's started and used, do any of us suggest that the engine wasn't designed or had no designer? I mean it's only an engine, but YET someone put it's functioning parts in place so that it can perform at the level of percision that it does...NOW, if you don't see the assembly persons that worked on the engine in development, design, manufacture and installation (which I never have seen the people responsible for any of that in any of my cars) is it reasonable to somehow conclude that they don't exist???
I mean the fact that the car is there is a proof of a designer and an engineer...
You mean to tell me, that it is a streatch that a universe, an earth, a body, a cell, so infinitely more complex than a automobile engine, who we KNOW has a designer, somehow simply props up on it's own through a series of random, undirected processes for absolutelu no reason, no purpose, with no objective???
What's harder to believe my friend? That a auto designer, whom you've never seen exists or that a God whom you've never seen exists???
I think if you exclude one, by the same logic you'd HAVE to exclude the other and pretend that neither actually exist in real time.
Your lack of knowledge of the auto designer DOES NOT exclude the fact that there was a designer. One's lack of knowledge of GOd, DOES NOT create any sort of evidence that God does not exist.
You said:"All things that I have experienced in my life have been in every way related to the natural world. Whether I've felt things, heard them, seen them, touched them, tasted them or smelled them, they have been part of the natural world. I have never experienced the supernatural or any other realm other than the limited natural world in front of us and around us."
I don't believe that my friend. You experience reason and logic don't you? can you touch, taste, see or smell it? I mean I may think your logic 'stinks"-LOL, but not because I can actually sense it with any sensory perception. Where is logic? Where is reason? They are immaterial realities. Further both of us believe there are certain rules by which logic and reason function...where are those rules and who records them? Who's the parliamentarian?
We believe and use many things every day that is beyond our materialistic and naturalistic perception...Then try to prove logic and reason...What you have to do is first start with a presumption. Without that you can't begin to figure it out in any way. These things are more philosophical in nature but under the godless rubric of things there is a presumption of materialism and an antisupernatural bias. However that same bias is not applied to the immaterial realm why??? Because it's convenient and you make certain assumption that logic and reason are a part of the material world and as stated these are things that cannot be proven with first assuming them...one more thing...prove math, without and assumption of math...you'll find it an impossibility.
You said:"I've never even heard anyone explain what it is like to experience the supernatural, except through natural means."
Why would you expect otherwise? people from earth talk and relate in earth terms, if we related in Pluto terms how could there be communication and sharing of ideas? God communicates to us in manners that we understand. the 'touch" of God usually doesn't mean a physical touch of the hand or pat on the back...so I believe your categories are confused.
It is also reasonable to assume that IF a person doesn't have all the equipment necessary to perform normally that they wouldn't perform normally at least most times or without intervention from God. This is what the miracles were about in the NT. Example: Jesus healed eyes that had never seen, by miraculous intervention. The eyes previously didn't have what was necessary to function properly. After meeting him they had what was necessary to function properly and began to function as they should under normal circumstances.
I don't see this as problematic and I have witnessed things along the lines of the miraculous in modern times.
You said:What of God, though? How do I know God exists? I have never experienced God in any way, even though I was a Christian for 6 years, and was extremely open to him revealing himself the entire time. Even during my deepest doubts, I never gave up on him. I recognized my doubts as my fault, and again, asked him to reveal himself.
Hey, I'm sorry for your experience or lack therefof. I've served for almost 30 years and at times wondered, 'why aam I going through this?" Answeres weren't always immediate nor are they always satisfactory...but it's really a matter of committment...Spouses know this of one another...beauty fades, weight changes, hair and teeth sometimes change, but then it comes to committment...when things aren't right realizing that everything isn't your fault! Some things have been given to you because you CAN handle it, not because you're lousy or no good. That's where faith and trust comes in for me...I am confident of God's existence, I exercise faith in GOd within circumstance. Sometimes I may not be as confident about the outcome of the circumstance, that's when I exercise faith and trust and after almost 30 years I can say that EVERY circumstance, no matter how undesireable and tough to go through has worked to my benefit and to the benefit of those around me. I am more of a benefit to those around me now, AFTER going through what I did and have gone through, than I ever would have been if I hadn't gone through what I did...
The revelation of God is in the life and lifestyle of the believer. Yea it's tough, but most good things are tough and worth fighting for.
What's up? you asked:Would you say the question of if we have a supernatural, non-material soul is one that science could never answer? If so, why?
Scott as long as science confines itself to the material realm it's perception of the supernatural realm and immaterial realm will come up short. How can it define something that it has no equipment for? As I stated to Exploring, even in order to do science, one must begin with certain assumptions and certain immaterial (untestable) assertions.
So far as brain function is concerned, you're confusing the nuts and bolts of the operation with the drive behind it...how can a blind man see? how does a paraplegic stand tall?
These determinations and actions are beyond the physical set of responses.
You said:"Should we be able to create a full-scale simulation of a human brain, we could actually reach definitive answers to these questions."
Then for now, I guess we'll just have to go with my answers right???
You said:"Where would God would have have left to hide?"
My premise is simple...one doesn't need a machine like the collider (JOKE) to experience the soul...you do that regularly and everyday. It's right before your eyes...or should I say in your heart???
now, the reason for the research is simple...what I suggest is true. There is no metaphysical reason for a mind/body/consciousness interface and not only is it unexplained what we do know suggests God or intervention, knowledge and input of some higher being...When I layer the bible on it, it says God to me all day long...
I don't have all the answers but i am willing to believe in the ones that I do have and so far they have stood a period of enlightenment and intense scrutiny and prophecies from all of it's apostles who claimed that one day God wouldn't be necessary...just in case, more people are flocking to him now than ever before...scientific enlightenment does nothing to meet the true needs of man...Only God does that.
Harvey wrote: As I stated to Exploring, even in order to do science, one must begin with certain assumptions and certain immaterial (untestable) assertions.
Harvey, I just suggested such a test: building a working simulation of a human brain based not on "magic" but an accurate biological model of neo-cortical columns. This would tell us if the brain's "hardware" was capable of generating a bubble of reality, thoughts, etc.
Should this occur, would you conclude God had endowed such a simulation with supernatural "soul" because he mistook it for a real brain in a human being, or would this indicate dualism is false?
Then for now, I guess we'll just have to go with my answers right???
Why would we default to God?
For example, imagine you went back in time 300 years and handed someone a recent laptop computer. Even someone with most powerful microscopes at the time would be unable to see the discrete 45 nanometer features that make up the computer's processor. Nor would they have the ability to observe the complex patterns in which they interact with each other to process information. As such, they might think it would be impossible for such a small rectangular "box" to bring the computer to "life" and conclude it must be "animated" by a supernatural force.
We're in a similar situation in regards to the human brain.
We can see individual neurons, but there are 10 billion of them and they are significantly more complex than transistors in computers. They are also connected in a massively parallel network with a trillion connection points. We simply cannot create a model at this scale using current computation power. As such there is a huge a gap in our knowledge about how the brain works. There is simply an overwhelming amount of information we simply cannot analyze.
Despite this gap, you claim to know the brain couldn't possibly be the cause of conciseness, thought, etc. That's like having read only 20 pages of a 300 page book, yet claiming to know the main character is never depicted performing some specific action, like eating ice cream or flying a plane.
There is no metaphysical reason for a mind/body/consciousness interface and not only is it unexplained what we do know suggests God or intervention, knowledge and input of some higher being...When I layer the bible on it, it says God to me all day long...
Harvey, in making this claim, you might as well have said mental illnesses like Schizophrenia are caused by demons or non-material spirits. If the very ability to construct reality does not originate in our brains, these two billion people would merely unfortunate "casualties" of a supernatural war between God and Satan.
Should we just give up now, since further research couldn't possibly understand God's handiwork?
I expect Harvey is one of those people who really does think schizophrenics are possessed by demons. Exorcism is still big business. That is part of the problem with mind-body dualism- believing that the mind and the body or brain are somehow separate. It opens the way to all sorts of superstitious "woo-woo" thinking as expressed by Sam Harris in the debate. Harris is a neuroscientist,by the way, and so has more knowledge than most on the workings of the human brain- at the very least, a lot more than Deepak Chopra!
Pretty long and detailed message, Harvey. Hopefully I don't trip over myself too much here.
I think the cosmological argument hasn't overcome the hurdle that we've never actually witnessed something truly "come into existence". All we've ever witnessed is substances changing form, since the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed (therefore, it cannot begin to exist). Until someone presents evidence showing that something can literally begin to exist, the cosmological argument becomes speculation (there is speculation on both sides of the argument, mind you). We must defer on this one.
The teleological argument is an interesting one, and, in principle, I wholeheartedly agree. Richard Carrier once stated that before the discovery of evolution, scientists and all thinking men were justified in believing in a designer. As of that time, it was the theory with the most explanatory power. What evolution did that was so profound, and I think many people miss this when clinging to the idea that evolution is mindless so strictly, is they miss the replacement designer in evolution.
First, I think we must look at design, and how it applies to this topic. The definition of design most applicable to the teleological argument for the believer is as follows: "to fashion and intend for a definite purpose". What evolutionary theory has done through natural selection is claim that there is in fact a designer, but the designer is nature. The "method" by which it designs is basically trial by fire, as it tries out each and every random mutation that comes along. The "purpose" of its design? Survival and more specifically, reproductive success. It's actually ridiculously basic at its core. The creatures that reproduces more successfully (and this is overwhelmingly linked with survival ability) propogates more often, and given enough time, the variation will become so vast, that you will get what we have now. 10-100 million different species on our planet.
So, yes, when I look at a BMW, I assume that there was a designer, because I see a very specific purpose. If we could not see the purpose of a configuration of parts, thus not even knowing if they have a purpose, we have no ground upon which to infer an intelligent designer. For example, if you study a Jackson Pollack painting, you could easily explain that by random processes. If Pollack came along though, and explained how each drop was placed precisely where it is for a purpose, your entire view would be changed. But, we know that nature has the power to "design" creatures for survival. We also know that it doesn't do it very well, and sometimes it's downright sloppy. Thus, the basis for the dysteleological argument.
Moreover, having precedence that objects can be "designed" by nature, the fine-tuning argument loses a lot of its luster as well. If the universe has specific fundamental constants, and if we know that nature will weed out those beings that can't survive under those constants (or will never permit them into existence in the first place), then we should expect that those things that do survive under such circumstances would be those who have the capability to survive. I think this is known as the anthropic principle.
The ontological argument is a bad argument. If for nothing more than it posits that the human mind cannot come up with something bigger than itself, yet all the while we are told we cannot understand the mind of God or the substance of God or the duration of God, or the will of God. If we cannot understand these things, and can only understand the things that we can understand (...), then we really haven't come up with anything larger than our minds, have we? In fact, the attributes of God are found in us, and then just "maximized" in God, but how many of these can even be understood once maximized? For example, God is supposed to be maximally loving and powerful, but no one really knows how that should work. This is the reason you have Arminians, Calvinists, Universalists, Molinists etc. Everyone is speculating.
Furthermore, I attended a message last night for my old church's midweek meeting, and one of the pastors gave a message on Heaven. His entire description of Heaven was completely physical and grandiose. As he described, Heaven has streets, but streets of gold, gates, but gates of jewels, water that is as clear as a crystal (all this is directly from the Bible), but when he pressed himself to explicate the more spiritual parts of Heaven, he said that he has no idea how such things work, or what they'd be like.
I don't find it hard to beleive, in the least, that the concept of God was completely imagined.
The historical arguments will rage forever, since history, in a sense is unapproachable at a certain point. In a bit of Humean reasoning, if I had never seen ice in my entire life (say I lived in the desert), and there were people telling me tales about water freezes and becoming hard as rock, I am justified completely in not believing in the existence of ice, even though ice is completely real. Until I am shown direct evidence of it, or the ice itself, I have no reason to believe it exists. You may claim that I believe in things like black holes or atoms even though I've never seen a black hole or touched an atom. The thing is, my belief in these is extremely basic and inconsequential. Now, like in the case of the God claim, if scientists were claiming that I had to live my life a certain way based on the existence of black holes, I would certainly want evidence before making such a fundamental life choice. Now, I have read up on these topics, and I have seen good reason to believe in them, but I think you get my point.
Lastly, regarding experience (I'm not sure how literary works here; hopefully you can elaborate there), experience is a very fickle form of evidence. But I think I can flip it on you regarding the natural/supernatural divide. I would claim that everyone alive today has experienced the natural world, and would admit to it. Yet, there are over 1 billion people who would claim that they've never experienced the supernatural. Among the other billion claiming to have experienced this other realm, the reports among them are so disparate and, often times, contradictory, it would take a great deal of rationalization to claim that the evidence for the natural world and the supernatural world are on an even plain. The natural world has to be our measuring stick against the supernatural, because the consensus on the natural world is universal, while the jury is still out on the supernatural realm. Therefore, I'm safe to assume that there are purely natural means for experiental lines of evidence, and especially when such an abundant array of instances have been shown to be products of purely natural explanations.
*takes a breath*
I think you have made a categorical error regarding the essence of logic. Logic is not an entity unto itself that humans somehow access. Logic is simply the method by which we describe the nature of things within the world. I don't have to prove logic anymore than I have to prove that hot isn't cold, and vice versa. Logic is the way in which we describe the world, and basic laws of logic are the most self-evident truths that we have noticed in our world, such as that something cannot both be itself and not be itself simultaneously. We don't have to access some external reality to assert this. We just assert what we have experienced.
This is seen more clearly in how logic as evolved, just like so many other aspects of our knowledge and discourse. There was a time where logic was simply Aristotelian logic, and that was it. That's not the case anymore. There are different schools of thought in logic. I'm not a logician, so I don't want to write checks my knowledge can't cash, but I do think it is folly to assert that logic is somehow provable. The same can be argued for mathematics. Mathematics is the study of quantities and spaces within 2 and 3 dimensions (and so much more). Math was borne out of observations of how things worked. From this, we have built math from the ground up. And math is all about assumptions, as well. For example you can't make the same assumptions in 3-dimensional geometry as you can in plane geometry (parallel lines can meet in 3-D, for example). Again, mathematics is just like everything else. From the ground up and knowledge increases and evolves over time.
I think we are wholly justified in assuming that the natural world is all there is until we are shown GOOD evidence that something beyond the supernatural exists. And again, I can't begin to speculate as to what that would be. Miracles are cited quite often as specific claims of evidence. But miracles happen (I don't actually believe they do, but for the sake of argument) in real time, in space, and they involve physical and tangible realities. It's been said before, but the theist has the doulbe burden of proof. He has to first thow that his claim actually happened, then he has to show that his claim CAN'T have a natural explanation. This is a heavy burden, and I don't think it's been met. Moreso, there is so much that man can do today that would have been absolutely considered miraculous in ages past. Something as simple as talking on a cell phone. Who's to say that things like telekinesis or telepathy, if they ever pan out, don't have natural antecedents and explanations?
If we are inclined to believe things (believe in such a way that it molds our decisions and our lifestyles) that we can't verify, that we can't vet, that we can't scrutinize and that we can't explicitly display to an outsider, than what is to stop us from believing ANYTHING? Moreover, if our belief is founded on such an inscrutable being as "God", than what is to separate our belief from fantasy?
I want to finish by reiterating a point I made earlier. If it's true that there is no God and we just exist here as products of evolution and natural processes, in which we evolved in such a way as to augment our ability to survive and reproduce, and not to understand the farthest reaches of the universe, then it is foolish to think that we should be able to explain everything about our universe and ourselves. The fact that we grasp as much as we do it is a testament to our ingenuity and ambition. What we've discovered so far is that the universe appears, in every way, indifferent our existence, and thus, God, for all intents and purposes, might as well not exist. If that's the case, then it is only prudent to live a life either in disbelief or his existence, or apathetic to his existence.
Thanks for the dialogue, and I look forward to your response, though I may not have quite as much time to respond to the next one.
Supernatural to me means outside the realm of nature, nature's laws and the universe we live in. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, supernatural=does not exist. There, simple! If scientists eventually discover they are all wrong, so be it. They will have to recant, but up till then,if that ever happens, there is nothing that is supernatural and that includes God, Heaven and souls. I am not a philosopher, but this is just plain logic. The supernatural is merely a figment of the theist's imagination.
You said:"All we've ever witnessed is substances changing form, since the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed (therefore, it cannot begin to exist). Until someone presents evidence showing that something can literally begin to exist, the cosmological argument becomes speculation (there is speculation on both sides of the argument, mind you). We must defer on this one."
I appreciate what you're sayign but there are only 2 options for matter...1- either matter is eternal and has always existed or 2- matter began to exist.Now I think you may have meant "energy" as opposed to matter, but I digress.
You said regarding evolution:"but the designer is nature. The "method" by which it designs is basically trial by fire, as it tries out each and every random mutation that comes along."
I don't think a premise of natural selection is that it tests or tries every possible mutation...I think you are trying to give NS an intelligence that I don't know that any scientist acsribes to it. So I don't accept that NS is like the metaphysical naturalists answer or equivalent to God. Another thing is that it has no mechanism to even begin in the primordial slime. So I don't follow this part of your claim.
You said:"The "purpose" of its design? Survival and more specifically, reproductive success. It's actually ridiculously basic at its core. The creatures that reproduces more successfully (and this is overwhelmingly linked with survival ability) propogates more often, and given enough time, the variation will become so vast, that you will get what we have now. 10-100 million different species on our planet."
What you describe is a virus. I remember a movie, I think the Matrix, where the rogue program...I forgot his name claimed that man was a virus on earth. You basically claim that NS's only purpose among man was to make help man replenish and subdue the planet. Once again, this interpretation borrows from everything that is accredited to God's command to mankind in subduing and replinishing the earth but leaves out the command to obey and serve God.
I simply can't find NS that smart on it's own. It is random even if you confine it to the process that it confines itself to once started. It has no purpose or alterior motive and could care less about your survival. NS has no priority to make any of us successful. If that was a priority of NS many spoecies would not be extinct would they? Wouldn't the same process of NS be existent within even extinct species? even if survival of the fittest is present, I don't believe we can say only what exists today is the "fittest"...that's make a few too many assumptions.
You stated regarding the design within nature: "We also know that it doesn't do it very well, and sometimes it's downright sloppy."
The "sloppiness" of natures design doesn't infer that it is not designed. What it infers is that we don't know or can't ascertain the purpose for which it is designed. It certainly doesn't indicate a dysteleology or a dysfunction in design. Appendages are one example. For years the appendix was thought to be a leftover from evolution and unecessary. This was darwin's premise right??? It has been found that there is a Purpose for the appendix The design is not dysteleological.
I mean I can understand your perspective and I'm sure you understand mine...
BTW, what the heck happoened to Syracuse??? Messed up my whole weekend already!-LOL!!! On the other hand this Xavier/K State game is fantastic...
You said:Moreover, having precedence that objects can be "designed" by nature, the fine-tuning argument loses a lot of its luster as well.
I don't think so. Nature of itself has proven that it has no priority or concern for the survival of anything. There is no repository of natural altruism that you can point to to justify your argument. There is no natural council of universal concern either. Total impersonality. Fine tuning is very strong, because if any of the attributes of that fine tuning were missed or adjusted slightly, we wouldn't simply have a different kind of life under a different evolutionary scale...we'd have NO life at all. That's the argument and debate of the anthropic principle.
You said:"The ontological argument is a bad argument. If for nothing more than it posits that the human mind cannot come up with something bigger than itself,"
There are 2 parts to this argument.
1: A-perfection must be attributed to the most perfect being possible otherwise it wouldn't be the most perfect being possible.
B-Necessary existence is a perfection which can be attributed to the most perfect being possible.
C- Therefore necessary existence must be attributed to to the most perfect being possible.
And the second part:
A- If God exists we conceive of him as a necessary being.
B- by definition a necessary being must exist and cannot not exist.
C- therefore if God exists he must exist and cannot not exist.
This is the platform upon which the argument for God's existence is built. Consequently, the imperfection that we see within the universe is a sure sign that the universe is not perfect, therefore not eternal and ultimately created by something greater than itself.
You made the observation regarding the physical attributes ascribed to heaven. Have you not read the scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:9 ~"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
The bible writers sought to personalize and describe in communicable terms what God said. Heaven is one of those things given natural shape and dimension to drive home the point of not only a physical abode but a physical relationship that will be experienced. however Paul placed it in the correct context, we can't imagine what heaven is like as we have no correlation, except that physicality of it will be real.
You said"Therefore, I'm safe to assume that there are purely natural means for experiental lines of evidence, and especially when such an abundant array of instances have been shown to be products of purely natural explanations.
*takes a breath*
OK, me too!-LOL!!! This is a variation of John's argument of probability. He says (regarding miracles)"so improbable that that they must be ruled out as a possibility" vis a vis Hume, Spinoza etc...
What I'm saying is that personal experience cannot simply be thrown out as a part of the evidence. It can be questioned and examined as any witness could, but to throw it out becaue it's personal experience is like throwing out a definition of a word found in the dictionary simply because it's a word in the dictionary...That makes no sense...so examine the testimony for what it is as any investigator would.
You'll come to a few limited conclusions:
1- I'm a liar and know that I am lying. 2- I'm a liar by way of delusion or mistake and believe I'm true. 3- I'm telling the truth.
Now if you choose 1 or 2 you must have a basis for that. Mass hysteria, trained delusion (another of John's favorites) or flat out liar and deceiver. My life and actions should display any inconsistency and should be available to either affirm or deny the volidity of my testimony. Once that passes muster, one can equivocate all day, but number 3 creeps closer and closer until it can't be denied. In short arbitrarily deciding to exclude personal testimony isn't what' s included in a real search for truth.
So far as logic you said:"Logic is simply the method by which we describe the nature of things within the world.",
Although logic is not a description of what is opbserved in nature, if I grant your definition, then that only begs the question, (a logical fallacy) why is logic "the" method by which we describe things? That still makes logic an immaterial or abstract set of thoughts, or a certain set of uniform principles.
I mean is logic arbitrary? If so anything we can think of would be logical wouldn't it? However we know that everything we can think is not logical...because we know that logic follows a set of principles that are not arbitrary but are universally constant...If that's the case, there must be a uniform set of principles of logic.
Since we see that logic exists and that by nature cannot be arbitrary then we further know that logic is an immaterial, abstract reality with no extension in space. That's not category confusion. If I said that logic were an emotion like love (for both are immaterial realities) then that would be an error and cross-categorical confusion.
Further the purely material universe itself does not provide this logic, and if it's a convention of men, then EVERYTHING that can be thought of is logical, but as I said that's not true. We see that logic exists. Where does it come from in a purely materialistic universe? Once again there is no evidence that biological physiology produces it and if it does YOU would have to prove it...
That goes back to my question...prove logic!
Logic is not discovered by observation. Logic is discovered by thought. Logic is conceptual in nature, a reality and and not physical. The materialistic universe cannot account for it.
You said:"I don't have to prove logic anymore than I have to prove that hot isn't cold, and vice versa."
You use logic to "describe" that's not what logic is. Logic is more than a mere descriptive. But I digress to my previous line of questioning and reasoning about the subject.
Sorry, if I sounded like I'm adding sentience to nature in my design argument. That was not my purpose. You are right. Nature is ambivalent to our survival, but we musn't limit evolutionary claims to just simply survival. It's really about reproductive success. For example, the male peacock is bright colored and weighed down with much plumage. These peacocks have less survival ability that male peacocks with less plumage and more dull colors. Why would evolution favor this peacock? Because this peacock is more sexually desirable to female peacocks, therefor this male will reproduce more often, and thus his genes will propogate in the gene pool more frequently. So, if the dull, lighter peacocks lives 10 years on average, but only produces two offspring, while the brighter and weightier peacock only lives 5 years on average (because it is eventually killed by a predator), but in those 5 years, has 30 offspring, evolution will "favor" the more brightly colored peacock. (I made those ages up, by the way)
It's just a numbers game. That which reproduces (or replicates for earlier Earth simple molecules) more often will have its gene spread through the pool. Nature, entailing all the complex structures, including evironmental pressures, predation, diseases, etc. becomes the designer by default. If all these mutations, protein and bits of DNA were just being thrown about randomly within a vaccuum, you're right; it would be ridiculous to believe that life just randomly formed and then varied. But, it's not in a vaccuum. There is selection pressure present everywhere, and it's design from the groud up, not the top down. Evolution just works with whatever it already has, and does the best with what it's got.
And no, it hasn't given the Earth over to mankind to be subdued. As we developed conciousness, and the ability to use tools, our survival ability has exponentially been augmented. Anthropic principle again.
Also, regarding dysteleolgoy and the human appendix, Jerry Coyne makes a great point about this in his book, Why Evolution is True. Even if the appendix has a minor useage to humans (and he agrees that it does), the disadvantage that it causes in humans is FAR outweighed by any advantage that it has given us. This is easily shown by the fact that a great many people live their whole lives WITHOUT an appendix, and some are even born without it. At the same time though, many people also die from ruptured appendices (often times without warning), and before surgery was a viable option, this number was probably far greater. The appendix is a superfluous organ for the majority of, if not all, people, and its function within the human body tends to be overwhelmingly negative. This is why it gives credence to dysteleology, and can only be understood in the light of evolution.
Regarding fine tuning, again nature is completely and utterly ambivalent and indifferent to creaturely survival. Look at it this way. Within the universe in any given locality, there will either be life, or there won't be life. Agree? Well, if there is life in one specific locality, it would have to be life that has survived the rigors of whatever pressures that area offers, and has developed over time to more capably handle those pressures. For example, in a universe with our specifc gravitational constant, we should only expect to see life in that universe that is able to survive under that condition. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. I fear that advocates of the fine-tuning argument are looking at things backwards. They see life on Earth, assume that is the only type of life possible, and assume that it is some kind of great goal and objective of the universe. They then ask, "what are the odds that the exact specifications that would allow this type of life to exist actually exist?" Fine-tuning!
But if you look at it from a universe-first perspective, you see specific constants within the universe, and then you look at life, and ask, "Is this life able to survive within these constants?" I think it would actually be evidence for God if the universe appeared designed against life (which is actually true of pretty much all of the universe we've seriously studied; at least our version of life), and yet despite that, life still survived, and even thrived. That would call for some extra-natural explanation of sorts. The fact is, life evolved to survive under the constants that were present before it came on the scene, because if it couldn't survive, it would have been snuffed out early on, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
One thing I wanted to bring up to you, and get your take on is the following: Why is it such that God's existence is debatable? I mean, you brought up a lot of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The ontological, for one, can become very abstruse and, to many, more frustrating then convincing (even for believers). But why is this so?
You posit that there is a God who loves us, desires that we not perish, desires to be glorified as greatly as possible and by as many beings as possible, desires to save and spread his gospel, and desires to be worshipped. But here's my question. We're talking about presuppositions here and self-evident truths. Concerning your worldview, why isn't God a self-evident truth?
I could understand if we were debating whether or not God was good or trustworthy or powerful enough to beat Satan, all the while treating his existence as axiomatic. It would irreverent but it would make more sense given the Christian worldview. But why, if God is the creator of existence, the sustainer of existence, and the greatest thing in existence; why, if the knowledge of his existence is such a foundational springboard to our being saved and regenerated, is his existence not obvious and self-evident?
Why is Christianity one of many "truths" being sold in the religious marketplace? Why isn't it the only truth being sold, whereby people would only have one choice. Like Joshua, they would either choose to serve the Lord or not. Yet the problem is deeper than that. People like me see that there is simply no reason to believe God exists, and you are tacitly admitting that the reasons aren't obvious enough, otherwise why the need to debate (which, by the way, I'm thoroghly enjoying), and not just point to such a self-evident truth.
Oh, and before you bring up the objection, I don't argue that it's self-evidently true that God doesn't exist. I just argue that there are no good reasons to beleive in his existence. I always keep open the possibility that God does exist, and when shown good reason/evidence, I would change my position accordingly.
Thanks once again, and I look forward to your response.
I don't agree with you that if the universe appears imperfect, it must have a perfect designer, because you would have show that perfection can beget imperfection. I'm not sure how one would go about doing such a thing, but it seems absurd to me.
Personal experience: I defer to one of my heros, Thomas Paine, on this one.
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a [revelation] if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it."
Thomas Paine doesn't dispute the veracity of someone claiming revelation. He just shows that those who gather the "revelation" by hearsay have no obligation to believe it. I agree with him here.
By the way, I'd put you in the second category.
Regarding logic, you said that anything we could think of would be logical if it's arbitry, but his is not true. For starters, much of logic is wrapped up in language and definitions. When we say a square triangle is illogical, it is illogical because of how we define squares and triangles. Squares and triangles are both shapes (by definition). A square is, by definition, a shape that is equilateral and equiangular, with 4 sides and and angles. A triangle is, by definition, a shape with 3 sides and 3 angles. By definition, a square is NOT triangular, and a triangle is NOT square. Logical absolutes, in this case, is just our way of affirming that these words do have meaning, and that we are just going to hold fast to their meaning, otherwise, words would become meaningless, and communication would be rendered null.
Here's a good video by a YouTuber who makes a great case against the Transcendental Argument that you are espousing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8dePAhDMh4
Mind his name, but his arguments are persuasive.
The greatest argument that he makes is that in every worldview, there are certain basic presumptions that we all make, and not being able to ultimately "account" for them does not automaticaly invalidate the worldview, otherwise we would go bonkers in an infinite regress, trying to account for every little nook and cranny of our worldview. This is true of your worldview as well.
very interesting debate... if anything I think it's telling that ABC chose not to have a Fundamental / Evangelical Christian debating the Pro God side... I think this in and of itself says that Society can no longer stomach this kind of God and so Deepak's (Oprah Winfrey's God) is all that's left.
37 comments:
Is there an unedited version of the whole debate? You know, before the network edits 'for balance'?
The version I watched yesterday had one shot of Harris and Shermer trying not to roll their eyes while Deepak was spewing his gibberish.
Several times the audience starting laughing at Deepak right in the middle of his weird rants.
Glad Shermer affirms that he can't prove that there is no God...sounds like atheism is trying to reivent itself as agnosticism...
What is this now, the new, new agnostics???
I seemed as though all four of them were having a different conversation of their own.
I think deepak at first was trying to assert conciousness apart from the brain, and then later retracted it to a hypothesis!
Richard, try this link for the complete version of the debate. Hope it still works.
<a href="http://r20.rs6. net/tn.jsp? et=1103223511106 &s=33018& e=001Bj8n- qEBByf1K7- 0ahA9WAf2UZZgt3A s7aRXIA6sVrJ_ _riYFyRE- BF-axBdBtIycEuEd 3W_yrE2pzl4Mt1ce ucUONu4ddXnpRr7t cmlolQ=></a>
Deepak has no idea about quantum theory and is called on it by a theoretical physicist in the audience who offers to give him lessons!
Sorry, I don't know what I did wrong with the HTML.
Perhaps you can copy and paste.
---
Harvey,
You understand that theists and atheists, alike, are both agnostic, by default, right?
Neither group knows with any degree of certainty that there is/isn't a God. The debate is (or at least should be, as I haven't yet watched it) whether there is any GOOD reason to believe in God. All the atheist has to show is there are no good reasons, and he has succeeded. The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the theist to show that there is a God. Until that is done, atheists are entirely justified in their lack of belief.
And, in all my readings, I've never actually encountered anyone who states, adamantly, that they can disprove the existence of God. If they did claim such a thing, I would absolutely be as skeptical of their claims as I would be any theologian out there making sweeping claims about the will of his God.
Now, more to the point, we can disprove certain claims that theists make about their particular God. For example, that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authoritative word of God. This is a claim about the real world, and about a tangible piece of the real world. It can be scrutinized, and can either hold up under the weight of scrutiny, or fall apart.
As far as I'm concerned, it's crumbled when studied and scrutinized, and reveals itself as nothing more than bronze age mythology.
And remember, no one here mocks you for not beleiving in werewolves, even though you can't prove werewolves don't exist (despite the fact their existence is much more probable than the existence of supernatural claims, since we know of creatures that undergo radical morphing during their lives; think caterpillars into butterflies). Mocking doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
That exchange was gorgeous.
I wish Harris had have been able to get an answer to his "why use 'God' language?" question.
I'm really not sure what they would have said. The theists seemed sincere in not believing in the things that are normally meant by 'God'. And, they could have headed off a lot of misconceptions by using the word 'universe'.
So, are their beliefs oscillating? Or are they using God-language to inflate their numbers of followers?
Exploring,
You said:"You understand that theists and atheists, alike, are both agnostic, by default, right?"
Then you, like many, go on to invoke uncertainty as a manner in which neither the believe nor unbeliever as assured of their premise...
That's BUNK!
I only need a reasonable amount of certitude based upon multiple lines of evidence to make a rational assumption about what exists and what doesn't. We do this everyday. We have certitude that we'll have a job tomorrow. The job existing today "therefore it will exist tomorrow" isn't a certainty as we witness in the economy. There is no certainty about many things and yet we do not have to invoke a premise of agnosticism because of it.
We have certitude about unseen laws of logic being true or able to provide a rational method of interpreting data... yet we're not agnostic about logic because the laws of logic can't be proven...
Belief in God accounts for all the lines of data that exist. No more problematically than incomplete lines of scientific thought. Belief in Jesus specifically accounts for even more data that other religions leave unaccounted for...
Now, your agnosticism is birthed out of the dislike for the answer but that doesn't make the answer mythical, untrue or not real...
So far as "proving" something is concerned, the shoe is on the atheist foot to disprove God (prove a negative as they say) Why? God believers make the positive claim and we provide multiple lines of evidence for that claim...now, historically, science was birthed out of the need to discover what God (the assumption) had created and the works of God within creation. I contend and believe I can demonstrate that over the years, science has been hijacked by radical atheism, slanted with a naturalistic metaphysical bias and presupposition of atheism and made the assertion to the point that God is absent. But from the inception of science it was not so.
So far as this debate was concerned, Deepok was a spiritualist and did good and should have stuck to his guns on the mind body interface which atheists and materialists only take by a faith assumption because there is no evidence that a brain has a mind and further no evidence that biology or material nature of man is where the mind is generated and or created...
They 'pretend' to have evidence on their side but it's a work in progress full of anti-God faith assumptions and faith in future science.
"because there is no evidence that a brain has a mind and further no evidence that biology or material nature of man is where the mind is generated and or created...
There is plenty of evidence that the mind or thoughts are produced by the brain. Ever heard of PET scans-coloured images of thoughts. You can actually see thoughts. Previously they only had the EEG which measured thought in wave patterns.
What about neurobiochemistry? Do you know how antidepressant medications change your depressing thoughts into normal ones? They do it by changing the brain's biochemistry at the neuron endings.
---
Harvey,
I appreciate that you have thought this question through, and I would like to know what "lines of evidence" you believe point to God. I am currently reading Edgar Andrews, "Who Made God?" He is taking the correct approach to the Biblical God question by hypothesizing the Biblical God, and then testing that hypothesis against the real world. It either holds water or it doesn't. He is correct in understanding the level of certitude in the natural world, and that's why he is using as the test by which he will hold up the God hypothesis. I think he will fail (remember, his hypothesis has to comport with all of reality; he can't exercise confirmation bias), but I'm interested to see his conclusions.
My agnosticism is based solely on the fact that I don't know anything, one way or the other, about the supernatural world. All argument I've seen for the existence of God, boil down to our lack of knowledge of how something originated, and then claim that these can't possibly have a naturalistic explanation. I think those arguments are hollow at best, deceptive at worst.
As far as the atheist shoe being on the other foot, I think you have it backwards. I look at it this way. All things that I have experienced in my life have been in every way related to the natural world. Whether I've felt things, heard them, seen them, touched them, tasted them or smelled them, they have been part of the natural world. I have never experienced the supernatural or any other realm other than the limited natural world in front of us and around us.
I've never even heard anyone explain what it is like to experience the supernatural, except through natural means. They heard a voice; they saw a vision; they felt the touch of God. These are all natural senses responding to natural instigation. The question is; are the sources of such instigation coming from beyond the natural realm? That's a good question, but how could we EVER KNOW that they are. Since, everything we can judge is wholly locked in the natural, the farthest we can ever go back, epistemically, is something involving the natural world, since we don't have the senses to understand or interact with the supernatural realm.
But you will say, our mind is how we interact. To that, I offer this. Phineas Gage was a railroad worker who had an iron rod go clear through his skull, destroying much of his frontal lobe. The effect of this PHYSICAL DAMAGE was extremely noticeable changes to his personality and behavior, so much so that the friends and relatives sometimes said that they no longer recognized him as the same person. If that's too distant and mythical, how about this?
---
I myself once suffered a head injury, and was unconcious for a week. What happened there? I suffered physical damage to my head and brain, and I lost consciousness, the very thing you claim is wholly separate from the physical realm. But if it's separate from the physical realm, then why does a head injury, of all injuries, cause one to lose conciousness? Why not just simply breaking your ankle? Or being shot in the chest? Why don't those make you lose conciousness?
We may not be able to explain the inner mechanisms of the brain and how it all relates to consciousness, but with these lines of evidence directly linking physical damage to the brain with loss of consciousness and changes in personality, we have every reason to conclude that there is a link between the physical world and the mind. May there be a supernatural aspect to it? Certainly, but until we exhaust all possible naturalistic avenues, it's not prudent to explore any others.
Beyond that, if the atheists are right, and there is no supernatural force (or any other realm of forces) acting behind the scenes, then by what reason do we expect that we ought to understand everything within the natural realm? If we are byproducts of evoution, and our brains have evolved in such a way to help us survive and reproduce, then why should we ever expect to exhaustively understand the natural world, much less something beyond the natural realm, if it were to exist?
Regarding your exposition of the transitory nature of science's assumption, you're right. But what does that prove? If oceanographers assumed that Poseidon is the sea God and the purpose of their enterprise is to understand how Poseidon goes about creating waves and whirlwinds, does that mean that they are right? Of course not.
Lastly, your equivocation of degrees of certitude: Certitude regarding my job is an entirely different ball game than certitude regarding God. I've had my current job for over 2 years now. I've been there every M-F during that time (give or take a sick day here and there). Certainty that I'll be going to that job tomorrow can be extremely high even in this economy. I am a valued employee, my production is of the highest in the company, I make peanuts relative to my production, and I get along well with my boss. Do I absolutely know that I will be at work tomorrow? No, because I may die tonight, but when I walk through the doors tomorrow at work, at that moment, I know that I am at work, and I will be paid for that day's labor.
What of God, though? How do I know God exists? I have never experienced God in any way, even though I was a Christian for 6 years, and was extremely open to him revealing himself the entire time. Even during my deepest doubts, I never gave up on him. I recognized my doubts as my fault, and again, asked him to reveal himself. I never got anything. It wasn't until depression, physical pain, and suicidal thoughts became the norm in my life, that I realized something wasn't quite right. That's what led me to question, then realize that it was all a delusion.
In a practical sense, I know I have a job. If you were to visit me right now, I could take you to my job's site. I could show you around the building; even show you some of the tasks I perform. I could introduce you to people who work there, and they could show you the tasks they perform. How could you match that level of empirical data concerning God? I am interested to hear your answer.
Jim,
You said:"There is plenty of evidence that the mind or thoughts are produced by the brain. Ever heard of PET scans-coloured images of thoughts. You can actually see thoughts."
Wrong Jim. The PET scans only measure brain activities NOT thoughts. If so tell teh scan to tell what's being thought...Science examines the centers of the brain where certain activities are said to take place but what you're saying is incorrect.
What I'm talking about is where the "thought" begins and that doesn't begin with the brain...in fact there is no metaphysical necessity for thoughts based on simple materialism. There is an interface that science cannot measure. The body MIND interface is an uncharted path at least by materialistic means.
Exploring,
I'm cooking right now and I'll get back in a minute, but good commentary so far and I appreciate the dialogue!
Later...
Harvey wrote: What I'm talking about is where the "thought" begins and that doesn't begin with the brain...in fact there is no metaphysical necessity for thoughts based on simple materialism. There is an interface that science cannot measure. The body MIND interface is an uncharted path at least by materialistic means.
Harvey,
Would you say the question of if we have a supernatural, non-material soul is one that science could never answer? If so, why?
For example, what if science were able to build a full-scale, working simulation of the human brain - not based merely on artificial intelligence algorithms, but a biologically accurate model of 100 billion neurons and a trillion synapses in the human brain? And what this simulation started generating it's own model of reality, including "thoughts", which we could identify in detail?
Should this occur, what would be your response?
I'm asking because there are scientists working on this problem right now in an attempt to provide better treatments for the 2 billion people who suffer from various forms of mental illnesses. And providing better treatments requires a far better understanding of the brain works than we have now.
However, wrapped up in this research are also a number of philosophical questions which have been the topic of discussions and speculation for centuries. Where is conciseness? Does the brain have the capacity to build a perceptual model universe around us like a bubble? Should we be able to create a full-scale simulation of a human brain, we could actually reach definitive answers to these questions.
If we could actually pinpoint and reproduce the very phenomena you claim could only be a supernatural gift of an all powerful, non-material God, it would represent the loss of one of the greatest refuge of theism.
Where would God would have have left to hide?
You might claim that this is all science fiction, rather than science fact. But we've already built a working single neo-cortical column simulation using supercomputers. And, so far, it works like it's biological counterpart. And when the necessary computing power becomes available, which is estimated to be approximately 10 years from now, we'll eventually be able to scale this simulation to the size of the entire human brain
Please see Henry Markram's talk at TED for more information about this research.
Another rough example of the "mind" concept could be the ant colony.
Put one ant in a petri dish or on the ground and watch it run around aimlessly. (Probably looking for food)
Put 10's of thousands of ants together and they take on a "hive" mentality. The "hive" makes decisions on where to build the nest, when to move, etc.
It's just an emergent property of hundreds of thousands of cascading and interacting chemical signals.
This is basically what the human brain is doing. A cascade of neuronal signals (chemical interactions) takes on a different appearance than the individual pieces.
This is why changing the chemicals in the brain changes the "mind."
Exploring,
You asked:I would like to know what "lines of evidence" you believe point to God.
There are many...cosmological, teleological, ontological, historical, literary, not to mention experiential and those evidences of a personal nature. I mean there are many more but that covers some of the more popular lines of arguments that can be rendered.
You said:"All argument I've seen for the existence of God, boil down to our lack of knowledge of how something originated, and then claim that these can't possibly have a naturalistic explanation."
I think that's an interesting observation. Look at this...A Mercedes or BMW engine is finely tuned for performance. It functions with percision (as is their claim to fame right???)
now to look at those engines in function suggest that all processes are functioning as they should. At no time do they need an intervention from the assembly manager or design crew UNLESS something functions abnormally right?
Now based on the function of the engine once it's started and used, do any of us suggest that the engine wasn't designed or had no designer? I mean it's only an engine, but YET someone put it's functioning parts in place so that it can perform at the level of percision that it does...NOW, if you don't see the assembly persons that worked on the engine in development, design, manufacture and installation (which I never have seen the people responsible for any of that in any of my cars) is it reasonable to somehow conclude that they don't exist???
I mean the fact that the car is there is a proof of a designer and an engineer...
You mean to tell me, that it is a streatch that a universe, an earth, a body, a cell, so infinitely more complex than a automobile engine, who we KNOW has a designer, somehow simply props up on it's own through a series of random, undirected processes for absolutelu no reason, no purpose, with no objective???
What's harder to believe my friend? That a auto designer, whom you've never seen exists or that a God whom you've never seen exists???
I think if you exclude one, by the same logic you'd HAVE to exclude the other and pretend that neither actually exist in real time.
Your lack of knowledge of the auto designer DOES NOT exclude the fact that there was a designer. One's lack of knowledge of GOd, DOES NOT create any sort of evidence that God does not exist.
Exploring,
You said:"All things that I have experienced in my life have been in every way related to the natural world. Whether I've felt things, heard them, seen them, touched them, tasted them or smelled them, they have been part of the natural world. I have never experienced the supernatural or any other realm other than the limited natural world in front of us and around us."
I don't believe that my friend. You experience reason and logic don't you? can you touch, taste, see or smell it? I mean I may think your logic 'stinks"-LOL, but not because I can actually sense it with any sensory perception. Where is logic? Where is reason? They are immaterial realities. Further both of us believe there are certain rules by which logic and reason function...where are those rules and who records them? Who's the parliamentarian?
We believe and use many things every day that is beyond our materialistic and naturalistic perception...Then try to prove logic and reason...What you have to do is first start with a presumption. Without that you can't begin to figure it out in any way. These things are more philosophical in nature but under the godless rubric of things there is a presumption of materialism and an antisupernatural bias. However that same bias is not applied to the immaterial realm why??? Because it's convenient and you make certain assumption that logic and reason are a part of the material world and as stated these are things that cannot be proven with first assuming them...one more thing...prove math, without and assumption of math...you'll find it an impossibility.
You said:"I've never even heard anyone explain what it is like to experience the supernatural, except through natural means."
Why would you expect otherwise? people from earth talk and relate in earth terms, if we related in Pluto terms how could there be communication and sharing of ideas? God communicates to us in manners that we understand. the 'touch" of God usually doesn't mean a physical touch of the hand or pat on the back...so I believe your categories are confused.
It is also reasonable to assume that IF a person doesn't have all the equipment necessary to perform normally that they wouldn't perform normally at least most times or without intervention from God. This is what the miracles were about in the NT. Example: Jesus healed eyes that had never seen, by miraculous intervention. The eyes previously didn't have what was necessary to function properly. After meeting him they had what was necessary to function properly and began to function as they should under normal circumstances.
I don't see this as problematic and I have witnessed things along the lines of the miraculous in modern times.
Exploring,
You said:What of God, though? How do I know God exists? I have never experienced God in any way, even though I was a Christian for 6 years, and was extremely open to him revealing himself the entire time. Even during my deepest doubts, I never gave up on him. I recognized my doubts as my fault, and again, asked him to reveal himself.
Hey, I'm sorry for your experience or lack therefof. I've served for almost 30 years and at times wondered, 'why aam I going through this?" Answeres weren't always immediate nor are they always satisfactory...but it's really a matter of committment...Spouses know this of one another...beauty fades, weight changes, hair and teeth sometimes change, but then it comes to committment...when things aren't right realizing that everything isn't your fault! Some things have been given to you because you CAN handle it, not because you're lousy or no good. That's where faith and trust comes in for me...I am confident of God's existence, I exercise faith in GOd within circumstance. Sometimes I may not be as confident about the outcome of the circumstance, that's when I exercise faith and trust and after almost 30 years I can say that EVERY circumstance, no matter how undesireable and tough to go through has worked to my benefit and to the benefit of those around me. I am more of a benefit to those around me now, AFTER going through what I did and have gone through, than I ever would have been if I hadn't gone through what I did...
The revelation of God is in the life and lifestyle of the believer. Yea it's tough, but most good things are tough and worth fighting for.
Scott,
What's up? you asked:Would you say the question of if we have a supernatural, non-material soul is one that science could never answer? If so, why?
Scott as long as science confines itself to the material realm it's perception of the supernatural realm and immaterial realm will come up short. How can it define something that it has no equipment for? As I stated to Exploring, even in order to do science, one must begin with certain assumptions and certain immaterial (untestable) assertions.
So far as brain function is concerned, you're confusing the nuts and bolts of the operation with the drive behind it...how can a blind man see? how does a paraplegic stand tall?
These determinations and actions are beyond the physical set of responses.
You said:"Should we be able to create a full-scale simulation of a human brain, we could actually reach definitive answers to these questions."
Then for now, I guess we'll just have to go with my answers right???
You said:"Where would God would have have left to hide?"
My premise is simple...one doesn't need a machine like the collider (JOKE) to experience the soul...you do that regularly and everyday. It's right before your eyes...or should I say in your heart???
now, the reason for the research is simple...what I suggest is true. There is no metaphysical reason for a mind/body/consciousness interface and not only is it unexplained what we do know suggests God or intervention, knowledge and input of some higher being...When I layer the bible on it, it says God to me all day long...
I don't have all the answers but i am willing to believe in the ones that I do have and so far they have stood a period of enlightenment and intense scrutiny and prophecies from all of it's apostles who claimed that one day God wouldn't be necessary...just in case, more people are flocking to him now than ever before...scientific enlightenment does nothing to meet the true needs of man...Only God does that.
Thanks.
---
Good stuff Harvey,
Unfortunately I won't be able to make a full response until later tonight, after work.
Thanks for the dialogue thus far.
Harvey wrote: As I stated to Exploring, even in order to do science, one must begin with certain assumptions and certain immaterial (untestable) assertions.
Harvey, I just suggested such a test: building a working simulation of a human brain based not on "magic" but an accurate biological model of neo-cortical columns. This would tell us if the brain's "hardware" was capable of generating a bubble of reality, thoughts, etc.
Should this occur, would you conclude God had endowed such a simulation with supernatural "soul" because he mistook it for a real brain in a human being, or would this indicate dualism is false?
Then for now, I guess we'll just have to go with my answers right???
Why would we default to God?
For example, imagine you went back in time 300 years and handed someone a recent laptop computer. Even someone with most powerful microscopes at the time would be unable to see the discrete 45 nanometer features that make up the computer's processor. Nor would they have the ability to observe the complex patterns in which they interact with each other to process information. As such, they might think it would be impossible for such a small rectangular "box" to bring the computer to "life" and conclude it must be "animated" by a supernatural force.
We're in a similar situation in regards to the human brain.
We can see individual neurons, but there are 10 billion of them and they are significantly more complex than transistors in computers. They are also connected in a massively parallel network with a trillion connection points. We simply cannot create a model at this scale using current computation power. As such there is a huge a gap in our knowledge about how the brain works. There is simply an overwhelming amount of information we simply cannot analyze.
Despite this gap, you claim to know the brain couldn't possibly be the cause of conciseness, thought, etc. That's like having read only 20 pages of a 300 page book, yet claiming to know the main character is never depicted performing some specific action, like eating ice cream or flying a plane.
There is no metaphysical reason for a mind/body/consciousness interface and not only is it unexplained what we do know suggests God or intervention, knowledge and input of some higher being...When I layer the bible on it, it says God to me all day long...
Harvey, in making this claim, you might as well have said mental illnesses like Schizophrenia are caused by demons or non-material spirits. If the very ability to construct reality does not originate in our brains, these two billion people would merely unfortunate "casualties" of a supernatural war between God and Satan.
Should we just give up now, since further research couldn't possibly understand God's handiwork?
I expect Harvey is one of those people who really does think schizophrenics are possessed by demons. Exorcism is still big business.
That is part of the problem with mind-body dualism- believing that the mind and the body or brain are somehow separate. It opens the way to all sorts of superstitious "woo-woo" thinking as expressed by Sam Harris in the debate. Harris is a neuroscientist,by the way, and so has more knowledge than most on the workings of the human brain- at the very least, a lot more than Deepak Chopra!
---
Pretty long and detailed message, Harvey. Hopefully I don't trip over myself too much here.
I think the cosmological argument hasn't overcome the hurdle that we've never actually witnessed something truly "come into existence". All we've ever witnessed is substances changing form, since the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed (therefore, it cannot begin to exist). Until someone presents evidence showing that something can literally begin to exist, the cosmological argument becomes speculation (there is speculation on both sides of the argument, mind you). We must defer on this one.
The teleological argument is an interesting one, and, in principle, I wholeheartedly agree. Richard Carrier once stated that before the discovery of evolution, scientists and all thinking men were justified in believing in a designer. As of that time, it was the theory with the most explanatory power. What evolution did that was so profound, and I think many people miss this when clinging to the idea that evolution is mindless so strictly, is they miss the replacement designer in evolution.
First, I think we must look at design, and how it applies to this topic. The definition of design most applicable to the teleological argument for the believer is as follows: "to fashion and intend for a definite purpose". What evolutionary theory has done through natural selection is claim that there is in fact a designer, but the designer is nature. The "method" by which it designs is basically trial by fire, as it tries out each and every random mutation that comes along. The "purpose" of its design? Survival and more specifically, reproductive success. It's actually ridiculously basic at its core. The creatures that reproduces more successfully (and this is overwhelmingly linked with survival ability) propogates more often, and given enough time, the variation will become so vast, that you will get what we have now. 10-100 million different species on our planet.
So, yes, when I look at a BMW, I assume that there was a designer, because I see a very specific purpose. If we could not see the purpose of a configuration of parts, thus not even knowing if they have a purpose, we have no ground upon which to infer an intelligent designer. For example, if you study a Jackson Pollack painting, you could easily explain that by random processes. If Pollack came along though, and explained how each drop was placed precisely where it is for a purpose, your entire view would be changed. But, we know that nature has the power to "design" creatures for survival. We also know that it doesn't do it very well, and sometimes it's downright sloppy. Thus, the basis for the dysteleological argument.
---
Moreover, having precedence that objects can be "designed" by nature, the fine-tuning argument loses a lot of its luster as well. If the universe has specific fundamental constants, and if we know that nature will weed out those beings that can't survive under those constants (or will never permit them into existence in the first place), then we should expect that those things that do survive under such circumstances would be those who have the capability to survive. I think this is known as the anthropic principle.
The ontological argument is a bad argument. If for nothing more than it posits that the human mind cannot come up with something bigger than itself, yet all the while we are told we cannot understand the mind of God or the substance of God or the duration of God, or the will of God. If we cannot understand these things, and can only understand the things that we can understand (...), then we really haven't come up with anything larger than our minds, have we? In fact, the attributes of God are found in us, and then just "maximized" in God, but how many of these can even be understood once maximized? For example, God is supposed to be maximally loving and powerful, but no one really knows how that should work. This is the reason you have Arminians, Calvinists, Universalists, Molinists etc. Everyone is speculating.
Furthermore, I attended a message last night for my old church's midweek meeting, and one of the pastors gave a message on Heaven. His entire description of Heaven was completely physical and grandiose. As he described, Heaven has streets, but streets of gold, gates, but gates of jewels, water that is as clear as a crystal (all this is directly from the Bible), but when he pressed himself to explicate the more spiritual parts of Heaven, he said that he has no idea how such things work, or what they'd be like.
I don't find it hard to beleive, in the least, that the concept of God was completely imagined.
The historical arguments will rage forever, since history, in a sense is unapproachable at a certain point. In a bit of Humean reasoning, if I had never seen ice in my entire life (say I lived in the desert), and there were people telling me tales about water freezes and becoming hard as rock, I am justified completely in not believing in the existence of ice, even though ice is completely real. Until I am shown direct evidence of it, or the ice itself, I have no reason to believe it exists. You may claim that I believe in things like black holes or atoms even though I've never seen a black hole or touched an atom. The thing is, my belief in these is extremely basic and inconsequential. Now, like in the case of the God claim, if scientists were claiming that I had to live my life a certain way based on the existence of black holes, I would certainly want evidence before making such a fundamental life choice. Now, I have read up on these topics, and I have seen good reason to believe in them, but I think you get my point.
---
Lastly, regarding experience (I'm not sure how literary works here; hopefully you can elaborate there), experience is a very fickle form of evidence. But I think I can flip it on you regarding the natural/supernatural divide. I would claim that everyone alive today has experienced the natural world, and would admit to it. Yet, there are over 1 billion people who would claim that they've never experienced the supernatural. Among the other billion claiming to have experienced this other realm, the reports among them are so disparate and, often times, contradictory, it would take a great deal of rationalization to claim that the evidence for the natural world and the supernatural world are on an even plain. The natural world has to be our measuring stick against the supernatural, because the consensus on the natural world is universal, while the jury is still out on the supernatural realm. Therefore, I'm safe to assume that there are purely natural means for experiental lines of evidence, and especially when such an abundant array of instances have been shown to be products of purely natural explanations.
*takes a breath*
I think you have made a categorical error regarding the essence of logic. Logic is not an entity unto itself that humans somehow access. Logic is simply the method by which we describe the nature of things within the world. I don't have to prove logic anymore than I have to prove that hot isn't cold, and vice versa. Logic is the way in which we describe the world, and basic laws of logic are the most self-evident truths that we have noticed in our world, such as that something cannot both be itself and not be itself simultaneously. We don't have to access some external reality to assert this. We just assert what we have experienced.
This is seen more clearly in how logic as evolved, just like so many other aspects of our knowledge and discourse. There was a time where logic was simply Aristotelian logic, and that was it. That's not the case anymore. There are different schools of thought in logic. I'm not a logician, so I don't want to write checks my knowledge can't cash, but I do think it is folly to assert that logic is somehow provable. The same can be argued for mathematics. Mathematics is the study of quantities and spaces within 2 and 3 dimensions (and so much more). Math was borne out of observations of how things worked. From this, we have built math from the ground up. And math is all about assumptions, as well. For example you can't make the same assumptions in 3-dimensional geometry as you can in plane geometry (parallel lines can meet in 3-D, for example). Again, mathematics is just like everything else. From the ground up and knowledge increases and evolves over time.
---
I think we are wholly justified in assuming that the natural world is all there is until we are shown GOOD evidence that something beyond the supernatural exists. And again, I can't begin to speculate as to what that would be. Miracles are cited quite often as specific claims of evidence. But miracles happen (I don't actually believe they do, but for the sake of argument) in real time, in space, and they involve physical and tangible realities. It's been said before, but the theist has the doulbe burden of proof. He has to first thow that his claim actually happened, then he has to show that his claim CAN'T have a natural explanation. This is a heavy burden, and I don't think it's been met. Moreso, there is so much that man can do today that would have been absolutely considered miraculous in ages past. Something as simple as talking on a cell phone. Who's to say that things like telekinesis or telepathy, if they ever pan out, don't have natural antecedents and explanations?
If we are inclined to believe things (believe in such a way that it molds our decisions and our lifestyles) that we can't verify, that we can't vet, that we can't scrutinize and that we can't explicitly display to an outsider, than what is to stop us from believing ANYTHING? Moreover, if our belief is founded on such an inscrutable being as "God", than what is to separate our belief from fantasy?
I want to finish by reiterating a point I made earlier. If it's true that there is no God and we just exist here as products of evolution and natural processes, in which we evolved in such a way as to augment our ability to survive and reproduce, and not to understand the farthest reaches of the universe, then it is foolish to think that we should be able to explain everything about our universe and ourselves. The fact that we grasp as much as we do it is a testament to our ingenuity and ambition. What we've discovered so far is that the universe appears, in every way, indifferent our existence, and thus, God, for all intents and purposes, might as well not exist. If that's the case, then it is only prudent to live a life either in disbelief or his existence, or apathetic to his existence.
Thanks for the dialogue, and I look forward to your response, though I may not have quite as much time to respond to the next one.
Supernatural to me means outside the realm of nature, nature's laws and the universe we live in. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, supernatural=does not exist. There, simple!
If scientists eventually discover they are all wrong, so be it. They will have to recant, but up till then,if that ever happens, there is nothing that is supernatural and that includes God, Heaven and souls.
I am not a philosopher, but this is just plain logic.
The supernatural is merely a figment of the theist's imagination.
Exploring,
You said:"All we've ever witnessed is substances changing form, since the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed (therefore, it cannot begin to exist). Until someone presents evidence showing that something can literally begin to exist, the cosmological argument becomes speculation (there is speculation on both sides of the argument, mind you). We must defer on this one."
I appreciate what you're sayign but there are only 2 options for matter...1- either matter is eternal and has always existed or 2- matter began to exist.Now I think you may have meant "energy" as opposed to matter, but I digress.
You said regarding evolution:"but the designer is nature. The "method" by which it designs is basically trial by fire, as it tries out each and every random mutation that comes along."
I don't think a premise of natural selection is that it tests or tries every possible mutation...I think you are trying to give NS an intelligence that I don't know that any scientist acsribes to it. So I don't accept that NS is like the metaphysical naturalists answer or equivalent to God. Another thing is that it has no mechanism to even begin in the primordial slime. So I don't follow this part of your claim.
You said:"The "purpose" of its design? Survival and more specifically, reproductive success. It's actually ridiculously basic at its core. The creatures that reproduces more successfully (and this is overwhelmingly linked with survival ability) propogates more often, and given enough time, the variation will become so vast, that you will get what we have now. 10-100 million different species on our planet."
What you describe is a virus. I remember a movie, I think the Matrix, where the rogue program...I forgot his name claimed that man was a virus on earth. You basically claim that NS's only purpose among man was to make help man replenish and subdue the planet. Once again, this interpretation borrows from everything that is accredited to God's command to mankind in subduing and replinishing the earth but leaves out the command to obey and serve God.
I simply can't find NS that smart on it's own. It is random even if you confine it to the process that it confines itself to once started. It has no purpose or alterior motive and could care less about your survival. NS has no priority to make any of us successful. If that was a priority of NS many spoecies would not be extinct would they? Wouldn't the same process of NS be existent within even extinct species? even if survival of the fittest is present, I don't believe we can say only what exists today is the "fittest"...that's make a few too many assumptions.
You stated regarding the design within nature: "We also know that it doesn't do it very well, and sometimes it's downright sloppy."
The "sloppiness" of natures design doesn't infer that it is not designed. What it infers is that we don't know or can't ascertain the purpose for which it is designed. It certainly doesn't indicate a dysteleology or a dysfunction in design. Appendages are one example. For years the appendix was thought to be a leftover from evolution and unecessary. This was darwin's premise right??? It has been found that there is a Purpose for the appendix The design is not dysteleological.
I mean I can understand your perspective and I'm sure you understand mine...
BTW, what the heck happoened to Syracuse??? Messed up my whole weekend already!-LOL!!! On the other hand this Xavier/K State game is fantastic...
Exploring,
You said:Moreover, having precedence that objects can be "designed" by nature, the fine-tuning argument loses a lot of its luster as well.
I don't think so. Nature of itself has proven that it has no priority or concern for the survival of anything. There is no repository of natural altruism that you can point to to justify your argument. There is no natural council of universal concern either. Total impersonality. Fine tuning is very strong, because if any of the attributes of that fine tuning were missed or adjusted slightly, we wouldn't simply have a different kind of life under a different evolutionary scale...we'd have NO life at all. That's the argument and debate of the anthropic principle.
You said:"The ontological argument is a bad argument. If for nothing more than it posits that the human mind cannot come up with something bigger than itself,"
There are 2 parts to this argument.
1:
A-perfection must be attributed to the most perfect being possible otherwise it wouldn't be the most perfect being possible.
B-Necessary existence is a perfection which can be attributed to the most perfect being possible.
C- Therefore necessary existence must be attributed to to the most perfect being possible.
And the second part:
A- If God exists we conceive of him as a necessary being.
B- by definition a necessary being must exist and cannot not exist.
C- therefore if God exists he must exist and cannot not exist.
This is the platform upon which the argument for God's existence is built. Consequently, the imperfection that we see within the universe is a sure sign that the universe is not perfect, therefore not eternal and ultimately created by something greater than itself.
You made the observation regarding the physical attributes ascribed to heaven. Have you not read the scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:9 ~"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
The bible writers sought to personalize and describe in communicable terms what God said. Heaven is one of those things given natural shape and dimension to drive home the point of not only a physical abode but a physical relationship that will be experienced. however Paul placed it in the correct context, we can't imagine what heaven is like as we have no correlation, except that physicality of it will be real.
Exploring,
You said"Therefore, I'm safe to assume that there are purely natural means for experiental lines of evidence, and especially when such an abundant array of instances have been shown to be products of purely natural explanations.
*takes a breath*
OK, me too!-LOL!!! This is a variation of John's argument of probability. He says (regarding miracles)"so improbable that that they must be ruled out as a possibility" vis a vis Hume, Spinoza etc...
What I'm saying is that personal experience cannot simply be thrown out as a part of the evidence. It can be questioned and examined as any witness could, but to throw it out becaue it's personal experience is like throwing out a definition of a word found in the dictionary simply because it's a word in the dictionary...That makes no sense...so examine the testimony for what it is as any investigator would.
You'll come to a few limited conclusions:
1- I'm a liar and know that I am lying.
2- I'm a liar by way of delusion or mistake and believe I'm true.
3- I'm telling the truth.
Now if you choose 1 or 2 you must have a basis for that. Mass hysteria, trained delusion (another of John's favorites) or flat out liar and deceiver. My life and actions should display any inconsistency and should be available to either affirm or deny the volidity of my testimony. Once that passes muster, one can equivocate all day, but number 3 creeps closer and closer until it can't be denied. In short arbitrarily deciding to exclude personal testimony isn't what'
s included in a real search for truth.
So far as logic you said:"Logic is simply the method by which we describe the nature of things within the world.",
Although logic is not a description of what is opbserved in nature, if I grant your definition, then that only begs the question, (a logical fallacy) why is logic "the" method by which we describe things? That still makes logic an immaterial or abstract set of thoughts, or a certain set of uniform principles.
I mean is logic arbitrary? If so anything we can think of would be logical wouldn't it? However we know that everything we can think is not logical...because we know that logic follows a set of principles that are not arbitrary but are universally constant...If that's the case, there must be a uniform set of principles of logic.
Since we see that logic exists and that by nature cannot be arbitrary then we further know that logic is an immaterial, abstract reality with no extension in space. That's not category confusion. If I said that logic were an emotion like love (for both are immaterial realities) then that would be an error and cross-categorical confusion.
Further the purely material universe itself does not provide this logic, and if it's a convention of men, then EVERYTHING that can be thought of is logical, but as I said that's not true. We see that logic exists. Where does it come from in a purely materialistic universe? Once again there is no evidence that biological physiology produces it and if it does YOU would have to prove it...
That goes back to my question...prove logic!
Logic is not discovered by observation. Logic is discovered by thought. Logic is conceptual in nature, a reality and and not physical. The materialistic universe cannot account for it.
You said:"I don't have to prove logic anymore than I have to prove that hot isn't cold, and vice versa."
You use logic to "describe" that's not what logic is. Logic is more than a mere descriptive. But I digress to my previous line of questioning and reasoning about the subject.
Thanks!!!
Does the Easter Bunny have a future?
---
Sorry, if I sounded like I'm adding sentience to nature in my design argument. That was not my purpose. You are right. Nature is ambivalent to our survival, but we musn't limit evolutionary claims to just simply survival. It's really about reproductive success. For example, the male peacock is bright colored and weighed down with much plumage. These peacocks have less survival ability that male peacocks with less plumage and more dull colors. Why would evolution favor this peacock? Because this peacock is more sexually desirable to female peacocks, therefor this male will reproduce more often, and thus his genes will propogate in the gene pool more frequently. So, if the dull, lighter peacocks lives 10 years on average, but only produces two offspring, while the brighter and weightier peacock only lives 5 years on average (because it is eventually killed by a predator), but in those 5 years, has 30 offspring, evolution will "favor" the more brightly colored peacock. (I made those ages up, by the way)
It's just a numbers game. That which reproduces (or replicates for earlier Earth simple molecules) more often will have its gene spread through the pool. Nature, entailing all the complex structures, including evironmental pressures, predation, diseases, etc. becomes the designer by default. If all these mutations, protein and bits of DNA were just being thrown about randomly within a vaccuum, you're right; it would be ridiculous to believe that life just randomly formed and then varied. But, it's not in a vaccuum. There is selection pressure present everywhere, and it's design from the groud up, not the top down. Evolution just works with whatever it already has, and does the best with what it's got.
And no, it hasn't given the Earth over to mankind to be subdued. As we developed conciousness, and the ability to use tools, our survival ability has exponentially been augmented. Anthropic principle again.
Also, regarding dysteleolgoy and the human appendix, Jerry Coyne makes a great point about this in his book, Why Evolution is True. Even if the appendix has a minor useage to humans (and he agrees that it does), the disadvantage that it causes in humans is FAR outweighed by any advantage that it has given us. This is easily shown by the fact that a great many people live their whole lives WITHOUT an appendix, and some are even born without it. At the same time though, many people also die from ruptured appendices (often times without warning), and before surgery was a viable option, this number was probably far greater. The appendix is a superfluous organ for the majority of, if not all, people, and its function within the human body tends to be overwhelmingly negative. This is why it gives credence to dysteleology, and can only be understood in the light of evolution.
---
Regarding fine tuning, again nature is completely and utterly ambivalent and indifferent to creaturely survival. Look at it this way. Within the universe in any given locality, there will either be life, or there won't be life. Agree? Well, if there is life in one specific locality, it would have to be life that has survived the rigors of whatever pressures that area offers, and has developed over time to more capably handle those pressures. For example, in a universe with our specifc gravitational constant, we should only expect to see life in that universe that is able to survive under that condition. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. I fear that advocates of the fine-tuning argument are looking at things backwards. They see life on Earth, assume that is the only type of life possible, and assume that it is some kind of great goal and objective of the universe. They then ask, "what are the odds that the exact specifications that would allow this type of life to exist actually exist?" Fine-tuning!
But if you look at it from a universe-first perspective, you see specific constants within the universe, and then you look at life, and ask, "Is this life able to survive within these constants?" I think it would actually be evidence for God if the universe appeared designed against life (which is actually true of pretty much all of the universe we've seriously studied; at least our version of life), and yet despite that, life still survived, and even thrived. That would call for some extra-natural explanation of sorts. The fact is, life evolved to survive under the constants that were present before it came on the scene, because if it couldn't survive, it would have been snuffed out early on, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
---
One thing I wanted to bring up to you, and get your take on is the following: Why is it such that God's existence is debatable? I mean, you brought up a lot of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The ontological, for one, can become very abstruse and, to many, more frustrating then convincing (even for believers). But why is this so?
You posit that there is a God who loves us, desires that we not perish, desires to be glorified as greatly as possible and by as many beings as possible, desires to save and spread his gospel, and desires to be worshipped. But here's my question. We're talking about presuppositions here and self-evident truths. Concerning your worldview, why isn't God a self-evident truth?
I could understand if we were debating whether or not God was good or trustworthy or powerful enough to beat Satan, all the while treating his existence as axiomatic. It would irreverent but it would make more sense given the Christian worldview. But why, if God is the creator of existence, the sustainer of existence, and the greatest thing in existence; why, if the knowledge of his existence is such a foundational springboard to our being saved and regenerated, is his existence not obvious and self-evident?
Why is Christianity one of many "truths" being sold in the religious marketplace? Why isn't it the only truth being sold, whereby people would only have one choice. Like Joshua, they would either choose to serve the Lord or not. Yet the problem is deeper than that. People like me see that there is simply no reason to believe God exists, and you are tacitly admitting that the reasons aren't obvious enough, otherwise why the need to debate (which, by the way, I'm thoroghly enjoying), and not just point to such a self-evident truth.
Oh, and before you bring up the objection, I don't argue that it's self-evidently true that God doesn't exist. I just argue that there are no good reasons to beleive in his existence. I always keep open the possibility that God does exist, and when shown good reason/evidence, I would change my position accordingly.
Thanks once again, and I look forward to your response.
---
I don't agree with you that if the universe appears imperfect, it must have a perfect designer, because you would have show that perfection can beget imperfection. I'm not sure how one would go about doing such a thing, but it seems absurd to me.
Personal experience: I defer to one of my heros, Thomas Paine, on this one.
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a [revelation] if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it."
Thomas Paine doesn't dispute the veracity of someone claiming revelation. He just shows that those who gather the "revelation" by hearsay have no obligation to believe it. I agree with him here.
By the way, I'd put you in the second category.
Regarding logic, you said that anything we could think of would be logical if it's arbitry, but his is not true. For starters, much of logic is wrapped up in language and definitions. When we say a square triangle is illogical, it is illogical because of how we define squares and triangles. Squares and triangles are both shapes (by definition). A square is, by definition, a shape that is equilateral and equiangular, with 4 sides and and angles. A triangle is, by definition, a shape with 3 sides and 3 angles. By definition, a square is NOT triangular, and a triangle is NOT square. Logical absolutes, in this case, is just our way of affirming that these words do have meaning, and that we are just going to hold fast to their meaning, otherwise, words would become meaningless, and communication would be rendered null.
Here's a good video by a YouTuber who makes a great case against the Transcendental Argument that you are espousing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8dePAhDMh4
Mind his name, but his arguments are persuasive.
The greatest argument that he makes is that in every worldview, there are certain basic presumptions that we all make, and not being able to ultimately "account" for them does not automaticaly invalidate the worldview, otherwise we would go bonkers in an infinite regress, trying to account for every little nook and cranny of our worldview. This is true of your worldview as well.
very interesting debate... if anything I think it's telling that ABC chose not to have a Fundamental / Evangelical Christian debating the Pro God side... I think this in and of itself says that Society can no longer stomach this kind of God and so Deepak's (Oprah Winfrey's God) is all that's left.
Post a Comment