nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

How about you start paying attention? See the first line of my last post.
Are you telling me that if ther was an amputee growing back a limb and you could not explain it you would believe God did it?

No, but I would be much more open to the idea that he did over other alternative explains that don't invoke a super powerful deity.

But my point (if you were paying attention) is that we aren't even there yet.

All we have is the equivalent of coming home to find your window open and declaring "God did it!".

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
administered and run only by doctors. Its most noted function is the medical investigation of apparent cures associated with the shrine of Lourdes.

The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).

If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs.

For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

so your above criterion that it

Is clearly bunkum in the above cases!

Not at all, it fits the criteria perfectly, the CMIL can only declare something medically inexplicable, which just means we don't know how that happened, not that it could not happen based on the current understood laws of physics.

Again this is why you do not see amputees growing new arms or legs. That would actually require a miracle, not simply an undocumented natural process.

ISAW wrote: »

As regards limb related cases...

Pieter De Rudder was a farm labourer, born Jabbeke July 2, 1822, died March 22, 1898[6]. His recovery from a broken leg (1875) is one of the most famous recognized Lourdes miracles (a bronze cast of his bones is exhibited in the Lourdes Medical Bureau

Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli

Wow, 1875 the pinicle of modern scientific knowledge :rolleyes:

This is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about, something that can easily be explained by ignorance of what happened or falsehoods on the part of the participants.

A broken leg healing hardly requires the suspension of the natural laws of physics. If he had his leg removed by doctors and the next day was walking around with a brand new leg, that might raise an eyebrow. Instead what we have is 19th centuries doctors saying they can't cure his leg, him going away and then his leg healing.

I notice none of your other examples are spontaneous regeneration of amputeed limbs either. Why doesn't God do this for all to see? Cause well that would be too much evidence that he exists, and then what would be the point of faith, right?

It is exactly the same as the question why do psychics only come up with fluff in their sessions, why do people who can bend metal only bend spoons, why do people who can see far away spaces only see places they have been and you haven't etc etc etc

Cause it ain't real

ISAW

Twin-go wrote: »

I was wondering how people with strong faith and missing limbs accept that will not be cured (no go to Lourdes with one arm and come back with two moment) by God no matter how much they pray. How can they, when faced with this, still hold on to their faith?

I am a great lover of Thomas who had to see it to believe it.
There are some however who don't see and yet still believe. So I guess I'm a skeptic not a cynic.

As to your and Jimi times points.
They to me seem a variation on the theme of "why does evil exist?"

Well look up Irenaean theodicy; Augustinian theodicy ;The Malthusiam concept of what might be today phrased as "we need stress". Leibniz also has a good take on the issue but I think Voltaire's Candide is a hilarious "touché" on it

I think the problem you may have is in trying to quantify units of faith. In the end one believes or one doesn't. It is boolian rather than quantized.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

How about you start with one amputee growing back his limbs, and we will take it from there

How about you start paying attention? See the first line of my last post.
Are you telling me that if ther was an amputee growing back a limb and you could not explain it you would believe God did it?

You are aware that if you want to ask a closed scientific question as to whether or not something psychic happened that a protocol and how we measure something has to be agreed in advance of the experiment/measurement being conducted?

I'm asking you if a person grows a limb and says "God did it" and science cant determine the limb is fake would that make you believe in God or would that constitute proof? I believe your answer will be "no". Care to contradict me?

God only cures people in ways that could equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers. Odd that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
administered and run only by doctors. Its most noted function is the medical investigation of apparent cures associated with the shrine of Lourdes.

The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).

If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs.

For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

so your above criterion that it

could equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers.

Is clearly bunkum in the above cases!

As regards limb related cases...

Pieter De Rudder was a farm labourer, born Jabbeke July 2, 1822, died March 22, 1898[6]. His recovery from a broken leg (1875) is one of the most famous recognized Lourdes miracles (a bronze cast of his bones is exhibited in the Lourdes Medical Bureau

Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli

Visited Lourdes: 5 June 1958.

Age 27, from Patti, Sicily. Tuberculous osteoarthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right leg. Her cure was recognised on 26 May 1965.

Juliette Tamburini

Visited Lourdes: 17 July 1959.

Age 22, from Marseilles, France. Femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years. Her cure was recognised on 11 May 1965.

Vittorio Micheli

Visited Lourdes: 1 June 1963.

Age 23, from Scurelle, Italy. Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. His cure was recognized on 26 May 1976.

Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa

Visited Lourdes: 24 December 1976.

Age 12, from Paterno, Sicily. Ewing's sarcoma of right knee. Offered amputation by her doctors, her mother refused and took her to Lourdes instead. On returning to Italy, her tumour rapidly regressed until no remaining evidence existed, although it left her tibia angulated, which required an operation (osteotomy) to correct. Her cure was recognised on 28 June 1989. She went on to become a nurse.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

Thanks for the replies Guys.

I sort of wanted to come at this from a different angle though, not the God doesn't cure amputees therefore God does not exist line. But PDN closed the thread and forced me to put the question here.:rolleyes:

Indeed I did, and Zombrex's post has confirmed my belief that I was correct to do so. Now, we can continue to discuss it here, or you can start moaning about moderating decisions inthread in which case your ass will be banned.

I was wondering how people with strong faith and missing limbs accept that will not be cured (no go to Lourdes with one arm and come back with two moment) by God no matter how much they pray. How can they, when faced with this, still hold on to their faith?

Miracles, by their very nature, are things that happen rarely. I don't know any Christian (other than a certifiable lunatic) who thinks God should serve up miracles on demand.

Doubtless we find it easier to believe for some things rather than others, and this goes beyond healing. It's easier to believe for God to answer a prayer for €10 than it is for a million euro. And faith, to some degree, is linked to answered prayer.

But I, for one, don't find it hard to hold on to my faith, even when I don't see my prayers answered. My faith is not in a God who meets my every want like a heavenly sugar daddy. My faith is in a God who loved me so much that he sent His Son to die for me and made it possible for me to be saved - and that remains true whether I get healed or not.

Twin-go

Thanks for the replies Guys.

I sort of wanted to come at this from a different angle though, not the God doesn't cure amputees therefore God does not exist line. But PDN closed the thread and forced me to put the question here.:rolleyes:

I was wondering how people with strong faith and missing limbs accept that will not be cured (no go to Lourdes with one arm and come back with two moment) by God no matter how much they pray. How can they, when faced with this, still hold on to their faith?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

In the end they will believe or they wont and no amount of amputees growing limbs will convince them if they don't believe.

How about you start with one amputee growing back his limbs, and we will take it from there

God only cures people in ways that could equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers. Odd that

JimiTime

Twin-go wrote: »

You often here religious people say they prayed to God and he cured their illness. He is credited with curing every thing from the common cold through to thermal cancer. They feel their faith and prayers have been answered and that's great. What did God do to cure these people? Did he reward them for being faithful? did he simply answer their prayers?

As a Christian, this is a topic that has me ask the same questions tbh. I am often confused about the pulpit preaching of the power of prayer, and seeing congregations go into 'speaking in tongues' etc. (i don't deny this phenomena, but its still an area where I'm skeptical), and tbh, I can see why such a preaching is made. Jesus told us in Matt 7:

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Funnily enough, these same preachers will roundly condemn the parents of the diabetic who died, after her parents prayed to God for healing instead of seeking medical care. Christianity IMO, is very confusing in this area. We are told that faith the size of a mustard seed can give you the power through the Holy Spirit to literally tell a mountain to move. So is it that such faith does not exist anymore, or is it that the context was that these things were spoken to and for the Apostles? Or do they only apply in the context of Gods work. An interesting note, is that there were levels of power it seemed. Yet, there is one Holy Spirit. Honestly, I don't know if we truly know how it all works, but simply assert that we do. Ok, I'm starting to just think aloud here at the moment, so it probably reads as a stream of conciousness:)

But take somebody equally faithful. Somebody that prays every day for Gods help. They too need his help but he does not answer their prayers. He does not "cure" them.

I think its a good and valid question. Honestly, I don't know. One thing that seems clear to me though, is that its not as straight forward as what Jesus tells us in Matthew, and the only reason I see that it is not that simple, is that we don't get the context with regards to who he was talking to (the assumption often made is that it applies to anyone), or what he was talking in relation to I.E. Was he saying, ask for what you need and it will be given, or was it, your needs will be given to you, in relation to the Kingdom.

Again, this is all me thinking out loud, and is a bit rambling.

Why doesn't God cure amputees?

I don't know that he doesn't tbh.

My own personal musing at this point in time, is that before Armageddon, there will be prophets sent of God, and they will come with the power of God. They will probably be hated by not only the obvious enemies of God, but also by much of Christendom. My position on this is speculative btw, its just something that can explain the seemingly lack of Godly power in the world today (Though I have seen many trustworthy reports of powerful workings within the realms of Christian circles. Though, it SEEMS signs have not been granted to the masses like in Apostolic times) I.E. When it does come, there will be no denying where it came from. I think at this time, the honest atheist/muslim/hindu and even Christian with misplaced loyalties etc (those who truly can't see reason to believe in the Living God or believe in some pseudo version of him) may actually be granted open eyes. While the dishonest ones (those who's hearts are simply set against God) will be left blind.

Revelation 11

I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

11 But after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.

ISAW

Twin-go wrote: »

You often here religious people say they prayed to God and he cured their illness. He is credited with curing every thing from the common cold through to thermal cancer. They feel their faith and prayers have been answered and that's great. What did God do to cure these people? Did he reward them for being faithful? did he simply answer their prayers?

But take somebody equally faithful. Somebody that prays every day for Gods help. They too need his help but he does not answer their prays. He does not "cure" them.

Why doesn't God cure amputees?

Aha! Given your "how do we know he does" beginning...How do you know he doesn't?

Anyway, this issue is a form of the "only True Scotsman" fallacy. Take Lourdes for example. Atheists might say "where is the evidence of a miracle cure" and they are shown one and they say "but that isn't a true miracle a true miracle would be..." then when they are shown that another example is added. Teh operative question is this suppose an amputee did got cured and it could not be explained by science. Would they accept that this is a miracle or say "but what about a double amputee" or some other "whatabout" only true Scotsman?

In the end they will believe or they wont and no amount of amputees growing limbs will convince them if they don't believe.

By the way Lourdes is not a conditional obligatory belief for Catholics or Christians.

Twin-go

You often here religious people say they prayed to God and he cured their illness. He is credited with curing every thing from the common cold through to thermal cancer. They feel their faith and prayers have been answered and that's great. What did God do to cure these people? Did he reward them for being faithful? did he simply answer their prayers?

But take somebody equally faithful. Somebody that prays every day for Gods help. They too need his help but he does not answer their prays. He does not "cure" them.

Why doesn't God cure amputees?

PDN

pts wrote: »

It has been a month since the last post in this thread so hopefully I will be permitted to change the angle slightly without being accused of derailing the vibrant discussion

I propose that we don't discuss/debate an abstract, I'll defined creator but instead narrow our discussion to a God which has falsifiable attributes and actions.

I'd like to start with the post I started in the "i am looking for honest views on this" thread before I was informed that it was a resurrected thread.

The Youtube user Evid3nc3 has a great series of videos detailing his loss of faith in Christianity and subsequent move towards atheism. All his videos are very well produced and thoughtful, but I'd like to look at one in particular. In 3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) he discusses the evolution of the Bible, based on the book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

I think that if most claims made in that book are true, then it would be a devastating revelation to Christians. I would be very interested in hearing peoples opinions the areas touched upon in this video and Karen Armstrong's book.

Any chance you could summarise the claims rather than me having to watch a 15 minute video?

pts

It has been a month since the last post in this thread so hopefully I will be permitted to change the angle slightly without being accused of derailing the vibrant discussion

I propose that we don't discuss/debate an abstract, I'll defined creator but instead narrow our discussion to a God which has falsifiable attributes and actions.

I'd like to start with the post I started in the "i am looking for honest views on this" thread before I was informed that it was a resurrected thread.

The Youtube user Evid3nc3 has a great series of videos detailing his loss of faith in Christianity and subsequent move towards atheism. All his videos are very well produced and thoughtful, but I'd like to look at one in particular. In 3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1) he discusses the evolution of the Bible, based on the book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

I think that if most claims made in that book are true, then it would be a devastating revelation to Christians. I would be very interested in hearing peoples opinions the areas touched upon in this video and Karen Armstrong's book.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Are you aware of what I wrote. someone cited what they claimed were several logical disproofs of God. I pointed out that logical reasoning itself or any formal system is inconsistent or incomplete and that is formally proved. As regards the non formal or consistent parts of mathematics - what have they to do with supporting claims about logical arguments showing God can't exist?
Cherry picking out other sub fields which may be internally consistent do not show most philosophers are atheist or do not show that God does not exist.

Nobody has contradicted the sentence in bold. I am not claiming "non-euclidean geometry is complete, and can prove its own consistency, therefore disproofs of God are valid." Logical disproofs of God are attempts to demonstrate that the idea of God is an incoherent one (I do not believe they are successful in doing so). Incompleteness theorems are actually irrelevant to the issue. I was simply correcting a simple mistake in one of your posts. You cannot say Mathematics is inconsistent any more than you can say religion is belief in Thor. There exists a set of religious beliefs involving Thor, and there exists abstract mathematical systems that are incomplete or inconsistent.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Are you deliberately ignoring what I am saying? Mathematics is not a formal system. This is an incredinly simple point.

Are you aware of what I wrote. someone cited what they claimed were several logical disproofs of God. I pointed out that logical reasoning itself or any formal system is inconsistent or incomplete and that is formally proved. As regards the non formal or consistent parts of mathematics - what have they to do with supporting claims about logical arguments showing God can't exist?
Cherry picking out other sub fields which may be internally consistent do not show most philosophers are atheist or do not show that God does not exist.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Science is entirely different to mathematics as it is a process of induction as opposed to deduction. The incompleteness theorem doesn't apply. But yes, a theory is effectively a set of assumptions about some general physical process or relationship.

...

I was referring to your cherry picking comment in post #581.

Wher you don't actually refer to the message from which you quote me?

But which refers to me previously saying

The context was I think the use of logic (by Cerebral) to disprove God etc. and the idea that science is sufficient for society and everything can be broken down by science and explained away

I was accusing him of cherrying picking elements a survey but I applied the same to you for cherry picking part of mathematics and saying parts are consistent/complete when i claimed maths as a whole was not. I also claimed science was not sufficient and the comment about "I have already shown" was I believe in relation to maths/logic as a special case of not being consistent/complete by its own definition where I applied the "sufficiency" criterion to science.

I think the point is quite clear.

Sorry I have to stop this answering now

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Any formal system capable of expressing the basis rules of logic such as Mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. This may not be true of parts of mathematics but so what? Gödel's theorems are usually studied in the context of classical logic and in this discussion the logical proof/ disproof of God is what brought me in.

Are you deliberately ignoring what I am saying? Mathematics is not a formal system. This is an incredinly simple point.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I was referring to your cherry picking comment in post #581.

Any formal system capable of expressing the basis rules of logic such as Mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. This may not be true of parts of mathematics but so what? Gödel's theorems are usually studied in the context of classical logic and in this discussion the logical proof/ disproof of God is what brought me in.

CerebralCortex

And for anyone interested in the p-zombies here is a good article on why I don't think it's a problem for materialists.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

In fact is it not true to say mathematics can prove there are a subset of propositions which are true but when mathematics can not prove true? For example, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable.

In a sense yes. For a given set of axioms capable of simulating the natural number system, there will be statements which can be formulated, but cannot be proven by the set. It is possible, however, to prove such statements by appending axioms to the set, but this will result in new unprovable statements. You can get around this by adding an infinite number of new axioms with some systematic process, but this process, in turn will result in new unprovable statements.

so you are saying maths physics science etc. takes some things as a given i.e. we believe it to be true.

Science is entirely different to mathematics as it is a process of induction as opposed to deduction. The incompleteness theorem doesn't apply. But yes, a theory is effectively a set of assumptions about some general physical process or relationship.

The "cherry picking" comment was related to a claim that "most philosophers are atheist"
A survey was produced and of all the hundreds of ways of matching groups up the group with the highest percentage of atheism of all the respondent groups was picked out. I'd call that "cherry picking" wouldn't you?

By the way i already produced counter evidence as to whether this survey represents what people actually think. And I used the most representative sample possible i.e. the entire population of the world. I am then ironically accused of "argument ad populum" Go figure!

I was referring to your cherry picking comment in post #581.

There are philosophical problems with this in the theory of artificial intelligence as well though. I am thinking about the Turing Test and the Chinese room in particular.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

also the model of the human on computers e.g. long term memory short term memory processing input/output and vice versa may have some benefits and helpful analogies but isn't necessarily a one to one relationship. things may exist in the human domain without an analogue in the computer co domain and vice versa.

The thought experiment is good for highlighting problems with the behaviouristic notion of intelligence (if it acts intelligent, it is intelligent), but it's scope isn't wide enough to tackle the issue of whether or not the mind is computational. This is because semantics and "understanding" only makes sense in the context of a learning algorithm, and such an algorithm is never postulated in this thought experiment. In other words, if we consider response c, the "brain simulator response", a materialist like myself would claim that a sufficiently elaborate system of water pipes, capable of having neural plasticity and efficacy (and hence learning), would indeed be capable of understanding.

The larger philosophical issue related to the disconnect between the language of brains and minds is known as the p-zombie problem. While it poses interesting questions for materialists, it also poses interesting questions for theists, due to syndromes like alien hand syndrom, where a will exists without a mind.

CerebralCortex

Here we go.

ISAW wrote: »

So? Everything dies.

That doesn't say we can't do anything about aging which causes suffering, we know causes disease and is something that can be tackled. Certainly an interstellar race would have made inroads into nanotechnology, actually to suggest that they didn't have nanotech before space travel on the scale of Star Trek is absurd. Keeping things relevant, it's another reason I think Star Trek is sh!t.

ISAW wrote: »

The universe will one day end. All life will one day end.

There's a bit of straw manning going on here. I never made any comments about the end of the universe, or the destiny of life. I said that to consider something like aging which damages and inevitably kills the person as being the best part of being human was insane.

ISAW wrote: »

How is it insane to consider that natural?

Natural does not equal good I hope you realise? Tooth ache is natural, you hardly enjoy for that reason do you? Ever hear of this?

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

There are philosophical problems with this in the theory of artificial intelligence as well though. I am thinking about the Turing Test and the Chinese room in particular.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

also the model of the human on computers e.g. long term memory short term memory processing input/output and vice versa may have some benefits and helpful analogies but isn't necessarily a one to one relationship. things may exist in the human domain without an analogue in the computer co domain and vice versa.

You've lost me. Care to explain to me how the Turing Test and the the Chinese room would indicate that my brain isn't a computer?

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I exclaimed it because you just declared that the process of progressive degeneration of the human body was the best thing about being human. That's insanity! You do realise that aging is what kills most people right?

So? Everything dies. The universe will one day end. All life will one day end. How is it insane to consider that natural?

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Just think of your mind as a computer.

There are philosophical problems with this in the theory of artificial intelligence as well though. I am thinking about the Turing Test and the Chinese room in particular.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

also the model of the human on computers e.g. long term memory short term memory processing input/output and vice versa may have some benefits and helpful analogies but isn't necessarily a one to one relationship. things may exist in the human domain without an analogue in the computer co domain and vice versa.

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

Did you have to 'exclaim' it? That is shockingly inconsiderate of you..:)

Why am I deficient now?

I exclaimed it because you just declared that the process of progressive degeneration of the human body was the best thing about being human. That's insanity! You do realise that aging is what kills most people right?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Mathematics is about constructing suppositions, and exploring their implications. Sometimes these systems of suppositions are complete and consistent. Sometimes they aren't. But my point is, just as theists can have faith in a particular subset of all religious belief, mathematicians can assume a subset of all possible suppositions are true, without being accused of "cherry picking"

In fact is it not true to say mathematics can prove there are a subset of propositions which are true but when mathematics can not prove true? For example, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable.

so you are saying maths physics science etc. takes some things as a given i.e. we believe it to be true.

The "cherry picking" comment was related to a claim that "most philosophers are atheist"
A survey was produced and of all the hundreds of ways of matching groups up the group with the highest percentage of atheism of all the respondent groups was picked out. I'd call that "cherry picking" wouldn't you?

By the way i already produced counter evidence as to whether this survey represents what people actually think. And I used the most representative sample possible i.e. the entire population of the world. I am then ironically accused of "argument ad populum"

Go figure!

lmaopml

Did you have to 'exclaim' it? That is shockingly inconsiderate of you..:)

Why am I deficient now?

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes. You took it right

Ageing is one of the best things about being human in my opinion. Old people - I hope to be among them at some stage in the medium to far off future, who wants to live forever?....preferably able to look after myself and be independant, and have a good family, plenty of love, and a laptop with fingers that can type at the speed of light = Happy.

Old people are beginning to use mobile phones these days - Viva the revolution!! The future will look different for us when we are old.....hopefully.

Anyways, freewill.....Atheism/Existence of God...this will probably be a mega mega thread....:)

You're insane!

lmaopml

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well I took it that all you had left was the option to laugh.

Yes. You took it right

Well the Borg is one of many things I hate about Star Trek. A future where they still haven't figured out a cure for aging yet have an artificial intelligence in the form of Data, who at the same time wants to be human. Absolute nonsense!

Ageing is one of the best things about being human in my opinion. Old people - I hope to be among them at some stage in the medium to far off future, who wants to live forever?....preferably able to look after myself and be independant, and have a good family, plenty of love, and a laptop with fingers that can type at the speed of light = Happy.

Old people are beginning to use mobile phones these days - Viva the revolution!! The future will look different for us when we are old.....hopefully.

Anyways, freewill.....Atheism/Existence of God...this will probably be a mega mega thread....:)

CerebralCortex

lmaopml wrote: »

Sorry, Cerebral I was in giddy form just having a laugh and being light hearted. I didn't mean to offend you at all...words on a screen sometimes don't convey things in the proper context

Well I took it that all you had left was the option to laugh.

lmaopml wrote: »

Sin! How? Does not compute.....

Well the Borg is one of many things I hate about Star Trek. A future where they still haven't figured out a cure for aging yet have an artificial intelligence in the form of Data, who at the same time wants to be human. Absolute nonsense!

lmaopml

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Offensive to say the least.

Sorry, Cerebral I was in giddy form just having a laugh and being light hearted. I didn't mean to offend you at all...words on a screen sometimes don't convey things in the proper context

I hate Star Trek!

Sin! How? Does not compute.....

Morbert

gvn wrote: »

To bring the argument down a different route.

What are peoples' thoughts on revelation and prophesy in relation to free will? If you manage to define a consistent system of God, omniscience and free will (which Morbert appears to have done) then how do the aforementioned factor into it?

Are revelation and prophesy violations of the free will God has supposedly given?

I myself can't seem to reconcile either with free will.

If an individual foretells an event that is to happen in the future, how can the interim between the prophesy and the event occuring not be defined (or predestined, whatever word you'd like to use)?

Likewise, wouldn't a direct communication between God and a human be inconsistent in the system that has been defined over the past few pages?

Prophecies are something I would be less willing to defend. I haven't thought about them enough to form an opinion.