Naturalism and human faculties...

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I cannot accept that I am nothing more than a complex arrangement of particles. I refuse to reduce myself to a machine. I completely deny that free-will is an illusion. I *know* I have free will.

kelly1

seamus wrote: »

My experience in this world tells me that my mind is nothing except my physical brain. My mind goes everywhere my brain goes. When I take chemicals which affect my brain, it affects my mind. When my brain goes into an altered state, I go unconscious.

Your mind goes everywhere your body goes, would be more accurate. You haven't managed to remove your brain, have you?
[Edit: sorry, last comment sounds a bit "smart"]

And as for altered states etc, the theory that I adhere to is that the mind is separate from the body and is the controller and originator of thoughts. Maybe it operates using quantum physics i.e. the mind is the observer that causes the quantum cloud to collapse into a determined state. The mind interfaces with the brain and the brain controls the body. So if the brain altered, it could block or interfere with the "messages" that come from the mind.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe it operates using quantum physics i.e. the mind is the observer that causes the quantum cloud to collapse into a determined state. The mind interfaces with the brain and the brain controls the body. So if the brain altered, it could block or interfere with the "messages" that come from the mind.

This is completely empty waffle based on movie level quantum physics. It is not how actual quantum physics works, nor is it a viable explanation for how the brain might work.

Further, it contradicts your earlier anecdote, which implied that the brain is apparently not important to the function of the mind.

kelly1

Let me give a simple example, please.

Let's say I claim that a square circle is impossible or that no married batchelors exist or that 1+1 = 2.

How do I determine the *truth* of these claims? Could I be wrong in making these claims?

In a purely material world, I have no way of determining the truth of these claims. The are the product of material forces over which I have no control and I've no way of determining if these forces are capable of producing truth.

Do atheists believe in the existence of objective truths?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

Let me give a simple example, please.

Could you please go back and answer the questions directed to you first?

Ok then. How does supernatural causes explain the conciousness?
Please detail what supernatural elements are essential to conciousness, how did they arise? How do they interact with the physical elements of conciousness? How did they become integrated? How does conciousness continue without the physical elements of itself?

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

This is completely empty waffle based on movie level quantum physics. It is not how actual quantum physics works, nor is it a viable explanation for how the brain might work.

I'm referring to the uncertainty principle. i.e. a particles precise position and momentum are undetermined until observation occurs. Before the observation occurs, you're dealing with probabilities.

Further, it contradicts your earlier anecdote, which implied that the brain is apparently not important to the function of the mind.

No, I'm saying the mind is the "master", while the brain is the "slave".

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

Could you please go back and answer the questions directed to you first?

From which post?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm referring to the uncertainty principle. i.e. a particles precise position and momentum are undetermined until observation occurs. Before the observation occurs, you're dealing with probabilities.

Yes, this is a layman's understanding of some aspects of quantum mechanics.
However it is not correct to apply them in the ways you are applying them.

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I'm saying the mind is the "master", while the brain is the "slave".

So which parts of the brain can been removed without effecting the mind? And how is that possible in the first place?

How does the physical brain communicate with the spiritual mind?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

From which post?

I quoted them:

Ok then. How does supernatural causes explain the conciousness?
Please detail what supernatural elements are essential to conciousness, how did they arise? How do they interact with the physical elements of conciousness? How did they become integrated? How does conciousness continue without the physical elements of itself?

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

Your mind goes everywhere your body goes, would be more accurate. You haven't managed to remove your brain, have you?

And as for altered states etc, the theory that I adhere to is that the mind is separate from the body and is the controller and originator of thoughts. Maybe it operates using quantum physics i.e. the mind is the observer that causes the quantum cloud to collapse into a determined state. The mind interfaces with the brain and the brain controls the body. So if the brain altered, it could block or interfere with the "messages" that come from the mind.

The mind is NOT separate from the brain, no more than the brain is separate from the body, the mind and brain are connected to the body in ways that are still poorly understood by experts in the field, so how can anyone conclude they are separate or separable? Only by imagining it and having faith that it's true...???

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Do atheists believe in the existence of objective truths?

Atheists don't have any shared beliefs other than they don't believe there is a god or gods. I'm not quite sure what you mean by objective truth. There are observable phenomena, e.g. the speed of light in a vacuum, that are largely independent of the observer. The accuracy of the result has improved with improving measurement techniques, but the result stays the same. Anything declared as theoretical is subject to change, and many other understandings get revised or event upturned as new discoveries are made. Many truths are subjective, e.g. I love my wife. I know it to be true, you don't know whether or not I'm lying, thus the truth is subjective.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

I quoted them:

Sorry! Missed the quote bit

Ok then. How does supernatural causes explain the conciousness?
Please detail what supernatural elements are essential to conciousness, how did they arise? How do they interact with the physical elements of conciousness? How did they become integrated? How does conciousness continue without the physical elements of itself?

Obviously none of these things can be explained in physical terms so we're moving into the realm of philosophy/theology.

I believe the intellect and will are faculties of the soul/spirit which is created by God. The body is the vehicle for the soul and the soul survives bodily death because it does not depend on the body.

As for the soul-body interaction mechanism, I've no idea on that.

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

The mind is NOT separate from the brain, no more than the brain is separate from the body, the mind and brain are connected to the body in ways that are still poorly understood by experts in the field, so how can anyone conclude they are separate or separable? Only by imaging it and having faith that it's true...???

In a naturalistic world, there can be no mind, only brain, surely? Is the mind then, a region within the brain?

magicbastarder

In a naturalistic world, there can be no mind, only brain, surely?
In a naturalistic world, there can be no brain, only cells, surely?
In a naturalistic world, there can be no cells, only molecules, surely?

you probably see what i'm getting at. emergent phenomena which (to use a clumsy phrase) are greater than the sum of their parts.

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

....I'm not quite sure what you mean by objective truth....

I mean the truth of a claim regardless of what people think.

e.g. there are an infinite number of integers is either true or it is false independent of a person's belief on the subject.

Was this true before life began in the universe?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I mean the truth of a claim regardless of what people think.

e.g. there are an infinite number of integers is either true or it is false independent of a person's belief on the subject.

Was this true before life began in the universe?

Integers are an abstract mathematical concept invented by humankind, they are not a truth. Mathematics is simply one way we might describe a thing real or imagined, often the most obvious way for us to describe the thing. Like any form of communication it only exists while we exist to use it or while it is available in a stored medium such that someone else might use it in the future.

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

Integers are an abstract mathematical concept invented by humankind, they are not a truth.

yet they seem to obey rules we have no control over...

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

Obviously none of these things can be explained in physical terms so we're moving into the realm of philosophy/theology.

This is a dodge. You claimed that the supernatural can accurately explain the origins and mechanics of consciousness in ways that materialism cannot.
So please detail this solidly.

Vague claims are not going to be convincing.

For example, you can detail what parts of the consciousness are contained in the brain or which are contained in the supernatural part, then explain how you know this.

Or you could explain how the supernatural elements of the consciousness became entangled with a physical organ? Or similarly explain how it's impossible for a physical brain to produce a consciousness, yet perfectly acceptable for quarks and particles to some how connect and communicate with something supernatural.

Basically you can detail anything more in depth than "ooooh it's magic", which you are doing now.

kelly1 wrote: »

As for the soul-body interaction mechanism, I've no idea on that.

Then your theory has no explanatory power. It's not a useful theory.

It also begs the question of how you can be so sure that a soul exists, yet cannot even speculate about its most basic form and rules.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

you probably see what i'm getting at. emergent phenomena which (to use a clumsy phrase) are greater than the sum of their parts.

Yes, I take your point, thanks.

RichieO

I don't know why but this old observation suddenly appeared, like a vision...

It is difficult to reason with people who are.

1. Religious.
2. Deluded.
3. Uneducated.
4. Confused.
5. Angry.
6. Blinkered.
7. Narrow minded.
8. Drunk
9. Drugged.
10. Mental.

It seems to have some truth... I should know, I have, in the past suffered 9 of them....

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

yet they seem to obey rules we have no control over...

That doesn't suggest that they exist beyond our imagining them, that they existed prior to us imagining them, or that they will continue to exist after we're gone. Counting things is something that demands intelligence, having a concept of negative numbers even more so.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

The body is the vehicle for the soul and the soul survives bodily death because it does not depend on the body.

If the soul survives bodily death why does it hang around at all?

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

Integers are an abstract mathematical concept invented by humankind, they are not a truth. Mathematics is simply one way we might describe a thing real or imagined, often the most obvious way for us to describe the thing. Like any form of communication it only exists while we exist to use it or while it is available in a stored medium such that someone else might use it in the future.

Mathematics is the only means we have to model physical processes in our universe and it's quite remarkable that mathematics allows us to make such incredible predictions.

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

This is a dodge. You claimed that the supernatural can accurately explain the origins and mechanics of consciousness in ways that materialism cannot.
So please detail this solidly.

You know very well I can't explain *how* the soul produces consciousness. I can't even show that the soul exists. But there are two points I would like to make:

1) As I have been claiming throughout this thread, it is my belief that physical matter cannot account for consciousness. Lots of people here are assuming that matter produces it but cannot explain how that works. It's is assumed on the *belief* that nothing but matter and energy exist, ergo it must come from matter/energy.

On the subject of free-will, the consensus appears to be that free-will is an illusion produced by the mind/brain.

2) Knowledge about God (and other supernatural matters) can only come from God since we cannot put God under the microscope for observation.

So my belief in God is based on general revelation and special revelation. For Christianity in particular, the strongest evidence we have is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And many would claim that this evidence if far stronger that that for other faiths, making it the most plausible of the theistic religions.

The point I'm making is that's it a top down approach. i.e God revealed to us that he gave us the intellect and will through a soul, and to my mind there is no better explanation. I believe science has hit a brick-wall in this area, just as I think it has hit a brick-wall in physics, trying to blend general relativity and quantum mechanics.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Mathematics is the only means we have to model physical processes in our universe and it's quite remarkable that mathematics allows us to make such incredible predictions.

Not really though. I can calculate the gradient of a hill using a mathematical model. I can also calculate it using a contour drawing and measuring the distance between contours. I can also calculate it by building a physical scale model of the area of interest. The same is true for very many physical processes, and much of what we do computationally today we used to do using other methods. Mathematics and more recently algorithmics allow us to describe and model many processes but they are our inventions.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

So my belief in God is based on general revelation and special revelation. For Christianity in particular, the strongest evidence we have is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And many would claim that this evidence if far stronger that that for other faiths, making it the most plausible of the theistic religions.

By many, you're of course talking about many Christians. Many Muslims for example might disagree, as might many Hindus, many Sikhs, many Buddhists, etc,etc... I would suggest that the members of each group are suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias, in that they want their truth to be the one genuine truth and dismiss others as false on that basis. Of course all the other groups do the same, and with a huge number of religions out there, present and past, either none of them are true or one of them is true. There is no evidence that any of them are true, such that the probability of any one of them being true is the same for each religion. Given the large number of conflicting belief systems, this is a very small number.

smacl

RichieO wrote: »

I don't know why but this old observation suddenly appeared, like a vision...

It is difficult to reason with people who are.

1. Religious.
2. Deluded.
3. Uneducated.
4. Confused.
5. Angry.
6. Blinkered.
7. Narrow minded.
8. Drunk
9. Drugged.
10. Mental.

It seems to have some truth... I should know, I have, in the past suffered 9 of them....

11. Dead

Which kind of makes me wonder about this life everlasting and soul business.

Samaris

I am not a biologist, although I have a bit of basic experience in the field, but I subscribe more or less to the view that a person's mind/conciousness/soul - however you like to call it - is all based on chemical and electrical signals, modified between individuals based on their genetic coding and enviromental influences that have allowed certain parts of the brain to develop more or less.

Take a human being and their brain.

When they are born, pathways have already started to be implanted - the pathways that allow for responses important to living to start with, but then certain other pathways linking sensation and rudimentary memory. A baby is soothed by something familiar; that brain pathway - the link between the baby sensing mama nearby and comfort, along with the "understanding" that it is safe - is being formed and reimpressed every time mama comforts sprog.

As children get older, more pathways develop - language use, learning. The connection between action and reward (or punishment). Thoughts that lodge themselves and become an important part of how a child views the world, becomes part of the lens through which the child experiences the world. Each person is individual because how their brain works is based both on their genetics and their environment. That is why it is so difficult to socialise a "wild" child - a child that has been raised with no human contact. Their brain has missed the opportunity to form pathways it needed. There have been no documented cases of a "wild" child ever managing to master social interaction to the extent that those with a normal background can do instinctively. They also tend to remain mute or have very limited vocabularies, often just one or two words.

The only proof we have of a "soul" is that every person is individual, some good, some bad, and we cannot see our own thought processes (although we can measure electrical activity "lighting up" the brain in response to stimuli. In my view, the explanation above (although I am sure a biologist could phrase it all better) covers it quite well without having to invoke the supernatural. I as an individual person am a product of my genes and of my environment. All choices I make are down to me, not down to an angel of demon on my shoulder speaking to my soul.

Regarding objective reality - if it can be tested empirically multiple times by different people and come out with the same result, I'm willing to bet the farm that it's probably real. If it turns out not to be real, well, the farm wasn't real either. :P Even if I scream myself hoarse that that electric fence isn't there, if I touch it I'm still going to get a shock.

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

By many, you're of course talking about many Christians. Many Muslims for example might disagree, as might many Hindus, many Sikhs, many Buddhists, etc,etc... I would suggest that the members of each group are suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias, in that they want their truth to be the one genuine truth and dismiss others as false on that basis. Of course all the other groups do the same, and with a huge number of religions out there, present and past, either none of them are true or one of them is true.

Yes, this is a problem. So I think the sensible approach is to start with 'general revelation' i.e what we can deduce about God from nature and what He has created and then consider the 'special revelations' from each religion and decide which, if any, is the most plausible.

There is no evidence that any of them are true, such that the probability of any one of them being true is the same for each religion. Given the large number of conflicting belief systems, this is a very small number.

Sorry, can you explain this for me in different words, I don't get your meaning?

Samaris

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, this is a problem. So I think the sensible approach is to start with 'general revelation' i.e what we can deduce about God from nature and what He has created and then consider the 'special revelations' from each religion and decide which, if any, is the most plausible.


Sorry, can you explain this for me in different words, I don't get your meaning?

Er, would it not make more sense to look at the world and deduce what we can about the world and how it works and only jump to supernatural conclusions once there is a basis for them?

You're still starting off from the point that there must be a God. That is an assumption that biases any further findings. Starting off from the viewpoint that God (if one exists and happens to be the one from Christian ideology) is irrelevant to how processes work (you can say that God made the processes if you have to!) until there is a process that cannot be explained other than God seems a more sensible approach.

And that's the "Christian scientist" view, rather than just the scientific view which precludes supernatural causes as there is no proof for the supernatural (which I tend to personally stick with).

God did it is also a bit of a cop-out answer. It means that there is no answer and it's not worth investigating because God and His ways are ineffable and all the rest of it. There generally is an answer, but it may take hard work and a lot of studying of data to figure it out. If we just throw our hands up and accept that God did it and so it doesn't need to follow natural rules, then there's an awful lot that might get disregarded because it is simply too difficult.

smacl

if we have N belief systems each of which consider their God to be the one true God either none of them is right or one of them is right. Assuming none of them can provide any objective evidence to support their claim they are as likely as each other to be right. Thus the probability of any one being right is 1/N. However, there are an infinite number of possible belief systems thus the probability of any being the one right one is infinitesimal.

kelly1

Samaris wrote: »

Er, would it not make more sense to look at the world and deduce what we can about the world and how it works and only jump to supernatural conclusions once there is a basis for them?
... You're still starting off from the point that there must be a God

But there is evidence for God and I find it quite convincing. Examples:

- scientifically verified miracles e.g. Lourdes.
- Scientific studies done on "near death experiences". e.g congenitally blind people being able to "see" during their NDE.
- The elegance of the laws of nature and the beauty of nature (general revelation)
- Philosophical arguments for God's existence e.g the Kalam cosmological argument. Or the mathematical argument that time can stretch infinitely into the past because actual infinities cannot exist, implying that the universe must have had a beginning.
- The philosophical argument from morality.
- Scientific arguments e.g (disputed) arguments for the impossibility of a past-eternal universe based on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
- Fine-tuning of the universe and multiverse models.
- Apparent intelligence behind the design of the universe and biological life.
- The fact the every culture in history appear to have a strong need to find transcendent meaning in life.

God did it is also a bit of a cop-out answer. It means that there is no answer and it's not worth investigating because God and His ways are ineffable and all the rest of it. There generally is an answer, but it may take hard work and a lot of studying of data to figure it out. If we just throw our hands up and accept that God did it and so it doesn't need to follow natural rules, then there's an awful lot that might get disregarded because it is simply too difficult.

I completely understand this point of view. "God of the gaps" is the wrong approach. Science should keep trying to push the boundaries out as far as it can. But let's also keep in mind that the scientific revolution took off *because* the scientists of the day believe the world to be rational and intelligible precisely because they believed it was created by a rational God!

Before Christianity, pagans believed they were at the mercy of the whims of the gods and nothing was predictable. Christianity did away with all that.

Having said that, it's my personal belief that science will inevitably hit invisible boundaries because it excludes the supernatural.

kelly1

smacl wrote: »

if we have N belief systems each of which consider their God to be the one true God either none of them is right or one of them is right. Assuming none of them can provide any objective evidence to support their claim they are as likely as each other to be right. Thus the probability of any one being right is 1/N. However, there are an infinite number of possible belief systems thus the probability of any being the one right one is infinitesimal.

ok, gotcha. A process of elimination can be applied here. Any religion which claims something illogical must be eliminated.

e.g lets say science proves that the universe had a beginning but some religion e.g. Hinduism says that the universe had no beginning, the we can rule it out.

Another religion e.g Islam says that Jesus was never crucified but the historical records show that he was, then we can rule Islam out as being false.

Then we takes what left and weigh them up based on evidence for their truth claim.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

ok, gotcha. A process of elimination can be applied here. Any religion which claims something illogical must be eliminated.

e.g lets say science proves that the universe had a beginning but some religion e.g. Hinduism says that the universe had no beginning, the we can rule it out.

Another religion e.g Islam says that Jesus was never crucified but the historical records show that he was, then we can rule Islam out as being false.

Then we takes what left and weigh them up based on evidence for their truth claim.

So I assume you believe, as the Christian church did in the middle ages, that the Earth is at the centre of the universe?

kelly1

Pherekydes wrote: »

If the soul survives bodily death why does it hang around at all?

Hang around? On earth or what?

Pherekydes wrote: »

So I assume you believe, as the Christian church did in the middle ages, that the Earth is at the centre of the universe?

You assume wrong. The Church, albeit slowly, came around the scientific view. I don't live in the middle-ages and the Church no longer holds this view, so your point is moot.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

Hang around? On earth or what?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why does the soul hang around in the human body? Why not just fly free?

You assume wrong. The Church, albeit slowly, came around the scientific view. I don't live in the middle-ages and the Church no longer holds this view, so your point is moot.

The church was wrong at one point in time. Ergo, it is ruled out as being false. Changing its mind later is irrelevant.

kelly1

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why does the soul hang around in the human body? Why not just fly free?

No I'm not being obtuse, your question was lazy and unclear. You didn't clarify whether meant before or after death. I would have assumed after.

If we didn't have bodies, we'd be angels. I don't know why God gave us bodies. I suppose it was a means to hide himself from us to test us properly.

The church was wrong at one point in time. Ergo, it is ruled out as being false. Changing its mind later is irrelevant.

Now who's being obtuse? The Church was wrong and so were the beliefs of the scientists before they discovered the sun was the centre of the solar system. Before that discovery, there was no conflict between Church and science. Sure the Church was slow to react but that's the nature of the beast.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

No I'm not being obtuse, your question was lazy and unclear. You didn't clarify whether meant before or after death. I would have assumed after.

My question was "If the soul survives bodily death why does it hang around at all?"

Is it clear yet? Obviously after death it heads off to heaven or hell. Why does it hang around waiting for its body to die? Clear enough for ya?

If we didn't have bodies, we'd be angels.

If we didn't have bodies we wouldn't exist.

Now who's being obtuse? The Church was wrong and so were the beliefs of the scientists before they discovered the sun was the centre of the solar system. Before that discovery, there was no conflict between Church and science. Sure the Church was slow to react but that's the nature of the beast.

The key point here that you seem to have overlooked is that the church was wrong! Let it sink in for a mo, then ask yourself, "How could the church be wrong?"

kelly1

Pherekydes wrote: »

The key point here that you seem to have overlooked is that the church was wrong! Let it sink in for a mo, then ask yourself, "How could the church be wrong?"

The Church has been wrong on many matters but not when it comes to matters concerning salvation. I'm referring to dogma here. Having the sun vs the earth at the centre of the cosmos makes no difference when it comes to salvation.

The Church, including the pope, is made up of fallible human beings. Ecclesial infallibility is the work of the holy spirit and only occurs when a doctrine is officially taught Ex Cathedra. But this is *very* rare.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

You know very well I can't explain *how* the soul produces consciousness. I can't even show that the soul exists. But there are two points I would like to make:

Yes I know this because as I have pointed out your explanation is not really an explanation.
If you cannot even speculate about the hows and particulars of the supernatural explanation, what does it explain? What makes it a better explanation?

kelly1 wrote: »

1) As I have been claiming throughout this thread, it is my belief that physical matter cannot account for consciousness. Lots of people here are assuming that matter produces it but cannot explain how that works. It's is assumed on the *belief* that nothing but matter and energy exist, ergo it must come from matter/energy.

You cannot explain how the soul produces consciousness, so why does that not count against your explanation.
How do you know for a fact that physical matter cannot account for consciousness?
And again, it's not an assumption, it's what is evidently the case.
Please show something that is not matter or energy, yet also exists,

kelly1 wrote: »

On the subject of free-will, the consensus appears to be that free-will is an illusion produced by the mind/brain.

This may be the case, but by your definition, free will absolutely cannot exist with your God.

kelly1 wrote: »

2) Knowledge about God (and other supernatural matters) can only come from God since we cannot put God under the microscope for observation.

So my belief in God is based on general revelation and special revelation.

How is this different from delusion or fiction? There doesn't seem to be any way to tell the difference.

kelly1 wrote: »

For Christianity in particular, the strongest evidence we have is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And many would claim that this evidence if far stronger that that for other faiths, making it the most plausible of the theistic religions.

People have tried this rather sad argument many times before. It doesn't really work and is a bit dishonest.
Hopefully Oldrnwisr will take the time to tear it apart again. It's always entertaining when he does.

kelly1 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that's it a top down approach. i.e God revealed to us that he gave us the intellect and will through a soul, and to my mind there is no better explanation. I believe science has hit a brick-wall in this area, just as I think it has hit a brick-wall in physics, trying to blend general relativity and quantum mechanics.

But you have not really explained how science has hit a brick wall.
And at the same time, you admit your explanation is a brick wall as you are utterly incapable of providing any details about your explanation...

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

But there is evidence for God and I find it quite convincing. Examples:

All of these have been trotted out on this forum many times before and they are all lacking when you apply even a scrap of skepticism to them.

kelly1 wrote: »

- scientifically verified miracles e.g. Lourdes.

There are no scientifically verified miracles. There are no such occurrences that have happened under conditions where other natural explanations can be completely excluded. For instance: Why can't God cure amputees? That would be rather easy to verify and impossible to explain with natural means.
For Lourdes specifically, when you compare the tiny handful of "verified" cures accepted by the church to the number of visitors to the shrine, the rate of miracles is actually much lower than the average rate of spontaneous remission for a lot of illnesses. Statistically, you are less likely to be cured if you go to Lourdes.
Further, this leads to problems of a God who's only selectively interventionist...

kelly1 wrote: »

- Scientific studies done on "near death experiences". e.g congenitally blind people being able to "see" during their NDE.

Again, no such studies have shown any such occurrence in the absence of natural explanations. All objective tests on this phenomenon have failed to show it's a case of a soul leaving a body.
Also, the reports of these things should be dubious for you since they are not compatible with the Christian view of the afterlife.

kelly1 wrote: »

- The elegance of the laws of nature and the beauty of nature (general revelation)

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

And on top of that, it's selective cherry picking. You can wax lyrical about the beauty of a flower or the practicality of the banana (Both being the result of human selective breeding btw). But can you say the same about something like the Ebola virus. Or how about that fly who's life cycle involves laying eggs in the eyes of African children. Or cancer... Or AIDS... Or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome... Or...

kelly1 wrote: »

- Philosophical arguments for God's existence e.g the Kalam cosmological argument. Or the mathematical argument that time can stretch infinitely into the past because actual infinities cannot exist, implying that the universe must have had a beginning.

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

kelly1 wrote: »

- The philosophical argument from morality.

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

kelly1 wrote: »

- Fine-tuning of the universe and multiverse models.

- Apparent intelligence behind the design of the universe and biological life.

More cherry picking arguments. Leaving aside Tsetse flies and cancer etc. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999*% of the volume of the observable universe would kill us pretty much instantly. I fail to see how this is finely tuned.

kelly1 wrote: »

- The fact the every culture in history appear to have a strong need to find transcendent meaning in life.

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

You reject these religions as being completely wrong, so you can't really then also claim they support your beliefs. It's a bit self contradictory as well as a bit ethnocentric and ignorant...

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

ok, gotcha. A process of elimination can be applied here. Any religion which claims something illogical must be eliminated.

e.g lets say science proves that the universe had a beginning but some religion e.g. Hinduism says that the universe had no beginning, the we can rule it out.

Another religion e.g Islam says that Jesus was never crucified but the historical records show that he was, then we can rule Islam out as being false.

Then we takes what left and weigh them up based on evidence for their truth claim.

Christianity is constantly at odds with science though, whether its from the more obvious creationist guff such as Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the age of the Earth, or simply insisting that miracles are real, e.g. water to wine, people getting turned into pillars of salt, transubstantiation involving the body of Christ or whatever.

As for Jesus and the Crucifixion, the historicity of Jesus thread might be worth a read as would Bart Ehrman. Religions are prone to invent their own history to fit in with their mythology and Christianity is no exception.

Blowfish

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, this is a problem. So I think the sensible approach is to start with 'general revelation' i.e what we can deduce about God from nature and what He has created and then consider the 'special revelations' from each religion and decide which, if any, is the most plausible.

Even starting with that shows your confirmation bias. Why are you starting with the assumption of a God, rather than multiple Gods? Why couldn't each bit of (your claimed) evidence be evidence from a different God?

Further, why are you assuming that the 'special' revelations have to fit into Earth's existing religions? In other words, why do you presume that God(s) gives a shit about us?

To use the general/special revelation for evidence of anything, you have to squeeze so many assumptions into the required narrative that far from being the explanation that makes the most sense, you end up jumping through so many hoops to explain it that it borders on absurdity.

kelly1

King Mob and BlowFish, I didn't start this thread to argue for God's existence so I not going to get dragged into that topic.

I started this thread to argue that a materialistic view of the universe:

1) has nothing to offer in terms of explaining consciousness.

2) leads to the conclusion that free will does not exist and any semblance of it can only be an illusion.

3) has nothing to offer in terms of explaining the human ability to reason. We have no reason to suppose that thoughts produced by matter/energy have any relationship to truth.

On point 1, all I've heard is that conscious must come from matter because that's all that exists. But I don't accept the materialistic view. This is an assumption. I don't think we're going to make any progress on this one.

On point 2, everybody here seems to accept there is no actual free-will, but only the illusion.
Again I don't agree, because my experience of life tells me otherwise.

On point 3, I've had very little engagement. Nobody seems to be quite grasping this one.

Now if we could focus on point 3, and the leave out the God debate, that would be great.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

On point 1, all I've heard is that conscious must come from matter because that's all that exists. But I don't accept the materialistic view. This is an assumption. I don't think we're going to make any progress on this one.

But we explained that it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on observation. Nothing non-material or supernatural has been observed.
Please point to an example of something non-material that you can show for a fact is real and is not fictional.
You also have failed to explain how materialism will fail to explain consciousness other than your assumption that there is some supernatural element, which you have also not explained at all.
I have also pointed out that on top of this, using supernaturalism, you fail to actually explain consciousness since "ooooh magic" is not an explanation.

kelly1 wrote: »

On point 2, everybody here seems to accept there is no actual free-will, but only the illusion.
Again I don't agree, because my experience of life tells me otherwise.

Yet, by your own definition of free will, you cannot have it if God exists. You keep dodging this.

kelly1 wrote: »

On point 3, I've had very little engagement. Nobody seems to be quite grasping this one.

This is because your point is based on flawed reasoning and assumptions stemming from other points.
I have addressed this directly. If reason and rationality are not reliable, how is it possible that objective scientific predictions can be made with any accuracy?
Like for example: Einstein's predictions of gravitation lensing. Halley predicting his comet's return. Predicting and detecting the Higgs Boson.

None of these required faith or supernaturalism, yet they produced firm, testable, accurate and verifiable predictions that were shown to be true.

How would the universe being only materialistic effect this? How does God/magic explain this?

RichieO

Sorry kelly but I am NOT apologising, there is a reason you will not get the answers you are looking for if you start from the premise that god made humans a few thousands years ago, if you study evolution in great depth, you will find some answers... If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would have realised that man made gods, and not vice versa... Religion is THE greatest legal con on the planet and only brainwashing kids can achieve that... This is not just my opinion, but that of almost all of the greatest intellectuals ever born...

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

King Mob and BlowFish, I didn't start this thread to argue for God's existence so I not going to get dragged into that topic.

Unfortunately though you're on an atheist forum and your point of view is predicated on the existence of God. People here don't accept that predicate so your argument has no real merit.

Now if we could focus on point 3, and the leave out the God debate, that would be great.

You believe you have free will based on your subjective experience. Now imagine you could think as you do but didn't have free will, how would you know?

kelly1

King Mob wrote: »

But we explained that it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on observation. Nothing non-material or supernatural has been observed.

I agree that supernatural "things" can't be observed directly (most of the time). i.e. you can't create an experiment to detect the supernatural. But I would claim that we can see the effects of supernatural activity, for example:
- Miracles
- Near death experiences
- Exorcisms
- Paranormal activity

King Mob wrote: »

Please point to an example of something non-material that you can show for a fact is real and is not fictional.

Love, mercy, justice, rights, freedom, mathematics etc.

King Mob wrote: »

You also have failed to explain how materialism will fail to explain consciousness other than your assumption that there is some supernatural element, which you have also not explained at all.

My point is that people here are assuming that consciousness emerges from matter and the only evidence being offered is a lack of evidence for the supernatural. It's a big assumption!

Maybe science will someday discover the mechanism, who knows.

King Mob wrote: »

Yet, by your own definition of free will, you cannot have it if God exists. You keep dodging this.

I don't understand this. How does God deny free will?

King Mob wrote: »

This is because your point is based on flawed reasoning and assumptions stemming from other points.
I have addressed this directly. If reason and rationality are not reliable, how is it possible that objective scientific predictions can be made with any accuracy?
Like for example: Einstein's predictions of gravitation lensing. Halley predicting his comet's return. Predicting and detecting the Higgs Boson.

None of these required faith or supernaturalism, yet they produced firm, testable, accurate and verifiable predictions that were shown to be true.

How would the universe being only materialistic effect this? How does God/magic explain this?

Again, there is an *assumption* here that reason somehow emerges from matter/energy. Matter is assumed to be the source because there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural. Isn't reason the ability to arrive at truths by means of cognitive processes? If reasoning is driven by physical processes, how can we assume those processes arrive at any kind of truth? Something similar could be said about evolution of the brain. If the goal of evolution is survival and survival is not necessarily dependent of truth, why assume evolution produces a brain whose goal is truth?

Is that not a reasonable point?

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree that supernatural "things" can't be observed directly (most of the time). i.e. you can't create an experiment to detect the supernatural. But I would claim that we can see the effects of supernatural activity, for example:
- Miracles
- Near death experiences
- Exorcisms
- Paranormal activity

Nope. No supernatural events have ever been shown to happen in conditions that exclude delusion, trickery or other natural explanations.
Exorcisms on top of being not paranormal, they are disgusting abuses of people with mental health issues.

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

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

kelly1 wrote: »

Love, mercy, justice, rights, freedom, mathematics etc.

All of which only exist as much as humans decide they are a thing.
Please point to, say a supernatural entity that exists independent of humans.

kelly1 wrote: »

My point is that people here are assuming that consciousness emerges from matter and the only evidence being offered is a lack of evidence for the supernatural. It's a big assumption!

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

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe science will someday discover the mechanism, who knows.

You did apparently because you declared several times that it could not.
Were you wrong when you claimed this.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't understand this. How does God deny free will?

Your definition:

kelly1 wrote: »

My definition would be one's ability to freely make decisions i.e. without any coercion, force or pre-determined outcome.

First and formost, God knows the outcome of your decisions, therefore they would be predetermined.
Secondly, by using eternal rewards and punishments, he is using both coercion and force.
Thirdly, the God in the Bible liberally applies both coercion and force as well as blackmail, abuse of authority and often mind control. He often boasts about having the ability to know the future.

So by your own definition...

kelly1 wrote: »

Again, there is an *assumption* here that reason somehow emerges from matter/energy. Matter is assumed to be the source because there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural.

This is a bit nonsensical. please try again.

kelly1 wrote: »

Isn't reason the ability to arrive at truths by means of cognitive processes? If reasoning is driven by physical processes, how can we assume those processes arrive at any kind of truth?

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

kelly1 wrote: »

Something similar could be said about evolution of the brain. If the goal of evolution is survival and survival is not necessarily dependent of truth, why assume evolution produces a brain whose goal is truth?

Is that not a reasonable point?

No it is not a reasonable point because evolution does not have a "goal".

You are not making a whole lot of sense with a point you seem to think is a killer.
What do you believe a universe without god would look like with regards to truth or whatever it is you are getting at?

RichieO

Here is a video about conscious reality that does explain a lot...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&list=WL&index=10