|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,427 Year: 3,684/9,624 Month: 555/974 Week: 168/276 Day: 8/34 Hour: 1/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: The conclusion that humans will invent agency to explain those things which they find baffling or significant is not a subjective conclusion. Your conclusion that an unevidenced intelligent agent is responsible for the things that you personally find baffling and significant (morality, altruism, love etc.) very much is. The two conclusions are NOT equally subjective.
But they are two different types of conclusions. I claim that there is an intelligent agency for things like intelligence, morality, love etc. You claim that there is a natural non-intelligent agency for intelligence, morality, love etc. Those are the two conclusions we are comparing. I agree that the two conclusions are NOT equally subjective but I'm pretty sure we don't agree on which one the objective evidence favours. 
Straggler writes: Do ideas cause brain activity or does brain activity cause ideas? Not relevant. I'm just saying that an idea is non-material yet it is something. My only point is that the fact that there is more than just the material world that we can perceive with our 5 senses.
Straggler writes: I already mentioned autism as an example of those who might lack normal levels of agency detection. Interestingly schizophrenics arguably have the opposite problem. They see agency and intent to a degree that is mentally debilitating. Everything has meaning and intent, nothing is random or co-incidental and conspiracy theories result in paranoia and psychosis. Unsurprisingly Schizophrenics are particularly prone to supernatural/paranormal beliefs. The fact that such symptoms are treatable with drugs suggest that there is a definite physical cause for such beliefs. Furthermore experiments involving the manipulation of dopamine levels in believers and skeptics suggest that people's perception of pattern and meaning can be directly affected. It seems that the physical brain is the cause, not the effect, of beliefs and ideas. Of course there are brain diseases that mean that our ideas can be scrambled. No one will question that but so what? It’s like a computer, and even if there is physical cause for some of the things we believe, it tells us nothing about the whether or not that physical cause exists because of an intelligent agency or not.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
RAZD writes: Perhaps you misunderstood me here, I wasn't making an analogy but citing an example of what I consider one of the worst instances of a rush to judgment in modern history. Here is what you had posted earlier.
quote: I agree with your assessment on Iraq, and I even question the thought that it would have been the thing to do even if they had found WMD's. I do see you though as drawing a parallel between that rush to judgement and coming to a conclusion on either theism or atheism. Did I get that wrong?
RAZD writes: Note that there seems to be an implicit need to reach a decision here on all these concepts, that you somehow MUST choose existence or non-existence. I think I made the same point in my reply to Panda.
RAZD writes: So you form an opinion based on your world view, just as Straggler, Panda, et al, do. The point is that any such decision is necessarily based on opinion, and needs to be recognized as such. There may be a large degree of consilience of opinions regarding certain topics, such as the easter bunny, but that does not change the fact that such decisions are necessarily based on opinions. There are questions that science cannot answer -- some because we do not have the means to test them, and some because they are untestable. That's a fact of life, and trying to force people into making decisions (or calling them irrational because they don't make your decision) doesn't alter that fact either.
We are singing from the same hymn book.
RAZD writes: Excluding the deep convictions of straggler? ...  Now play nice. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Without our physical senses we can experience only that which is inside our own minds. With our physical senses we can only detect that which physically exists. How can it possibly be otherwise? We know ideas exists but I don't think we can say they physically exist as we discussed before. It certainly appears that a moral code exists but it isn't physical. It seems evident that there is more than that which exists physically, at least with our understanding of what is physical.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Modulous writes: According to whom or evidenced by what? My understanding was that the scientific consensus is that the medium for morality is brain matter, which is certainly physical. Do you know of some some non-physical medium which makes it appear otherwise? Brain matter no doubt is the medium for all of our thoughts but where does an original thought come from? I'm just saying that we inherently seem to have a moral code or a sense of right and wrong as part of our nature. Sure we can overcome it for cultural or selfish reasons but it still appears to exist as something that exists regardless of human brain activity. It's just possible you will disagree. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Harris concedes that consciousness or mind might be separate from the brain, and that maybe even science can eventually discover more about that if indeed it is correct. He then goes on to say that brain damage can scramble what comes out of the brain and then questions how consciousness can then continue intact after death.
I think that is a very weak argument. If I take a perfectly serviceable DVD and put into a malfunctioning computer then what I get on the screen and in the speakers can be scrambled. That doesn't mean that the DVD can't be removed from my computer and put into another one where it will function perfectly.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Chuck77 writes: First it's all about Jesus and NOW it's all about US? Which is it man? It's about how we respond to His love.
Chuck77 writes: Are we saved by works, which you imply above or what Jesus did on the Cross? That's the problem with your take on Christianity. It is all about me and my salvation. It becomes a matter of believing the right doctrine and you get to go to heaven. That isn't what the Bible says. Here is a quote from Romans 2 with my highlights.
quote: It is about our hearts. What is it that we love. How about this from Mark 2:
quote: This is from Matthew 25:
quote: Nothing in here about your doctrine. It is all about loving unselfishly. When you go around talking about being saved or not being saved just go back to the first few verses in Romans 2 that I quoted. It isn't up to you to judge. When it is suggested to people that if they just buy into the idea that if they accept Jesus as their saviour they will have eternal life is turning Christianity right on its ear. You are asking people to accept Christ for selfish reasons. How about telling people that they have this wonderful saviour that you can follow by giving up themselves and living for others.
Chuck77 writes: So, fate then? We play no part in where we end up? That not what the subjective Bible teaches. Of course we play a part. C S Lewis puts it best in his book "The Great Divorce", and so I'll just requote it.
quote: As Micah says what God wants us is to humbly love kindness and do justice. Again, it isn’t about doctrine, it’s about the heart. AbE My apologies to admin and Straggler. I've been involved in a few threads today and after posting this I noticed that this is right off topic for this thread. I will desist but seeing as how I took the time to write it I'll just leave it if that's ok. Edited by GDR, : Last paraEverybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: But invoking some baselessly conceived entity as an explanation for such things does nothing to actually explain them. It simply pushes the question back a further notch in order create a gap in which to insert psychologically appealing beliefs. In your post you acknowledge that there is a basis for acknowledging the possibility of mathematical and even moral truths that exist in some sense apart from physical brains. I'd like to assume, for the sake of argument, that what you suggest as a possibility is actually factual. It would seem to make sense that as the mathematical truths are necessary for the existence of the universe this intelligence must have pre-dated, (I know someone like cavediver would say that is meaningless but hopefully you get my drift ) the material universe. As we seem to be able to comprehend at some level these mathematical truths it would follow that our intelligence is derived from this pre-existing intelligence. As this intelligence exists in some way outside of time as we know it then I don't think it is a major leap in logic to believe that this intelligence is responsible for our existence, and to go even further, likely the totality of the material universe. At this point based on the assumption that we made, all we can know of this intelligence is that it is highly intelligent, it is highly creative and it has a sense of morality. If I were to put myself in the place of that intelligence, (I realize that is a bit of a stretch ), I would be inclined to have more than just a passing interest in that which I had created. One of the things I would want to see happen is that they would share my moral code. I would have to be subtle in introducing it because if goodness is chosen for reward then it ceases to be goodness. Also of course, once we understand that there is intelligence apart from the material world it also opens up the possibility of our intelligence existing apart from the material world. As thought is something that isn't tangible materially it appears that likely our intelligence exists apart from the material in some way beyond what we currently understand, which of course opens up the likelihood of our intelligence carrying on in some form or another. So when you say that a case can be made for things like "objective mathematical truths" or even conceivably "some aspect of zero sum based morality" that exist apart from our physical brains, then by extension I think I have demonstrated that the same likelihood applies to theism.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
IamJoseph writes: With regard to our thoughts after we pass away, it will be cruel to have humans retain their memories of this realm, while being sent to another totally different one: it serves no purpose. It is more plausible we go back where we came from, rather than to another place. We won't need our bodies or minds because we originally never had one and won't need them where we came from: can a sperm or egg cell contain bodies?A wise man said, 'When we die, all our thoughts die with us' [King Solomon]. Just for the record IaJ. I don't believe that it is about going some place else. Read the last couple of chapters of Isaiah on the New Heavens and New Earth. It is about a recreation of our present world. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi IaJ
We have an agreement. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
In the beginning - God.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Straggler writes: So this thing you call "god" you think exists in the same sort of abstract Platonic sense that a perfect circle or the number pi can be said to objectively exist? No, my point is that we seem to agree in some sense that it is quite possible that there is something that exists that is other than that which is part of our material world.
Straggler writes: In a Platonic sense - Yes. And be clear here that non-zero sum morality is a result of the maths rather than something in and of itself. In this little conjecture of ours morality is essentially just an inevitable by-product of maths. Nothing more. Fair enough, but it still denotes a pre-existent truth from a human perspective.
Straggler writes: What intelligence? If my conjecture is correct then intelligence itself would be a result of the blind mindless logic from which all else follows. If your conjecture is correct then you can call it mindless logic, but logic itself denotes intelligence. How would this logic or intelligence exist without some form of sentience that would be able to retain that logic, whether it was we know as mind or not?
Straggler writes: What intelligence? All we started with was blind mindless logic. You have added intelligence, creativity and a sense of morality. In effect you have anthropomorphicised the idea in a way that is utterly typical of humans displaying the psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency at every opportunity in exactly the way we have been discussing. Not really. I'm not trying to claim any absolutes. I'm just trying to build a reasonable subjective case for a creative intelligence. It is just that if there is logic or intelligence that exists apart from our material existence it seems to me that quite possibly that intelligence very well might have something to do with us being here. With circular reasoning based on that assumption I tried to make a case for it.
Straggler writes: Your inability to consider any question without inserting a human-like intelligent agent into it is kinda proving my psychological point isn't it? But isn't that what you would expect? We are discussing "Subjective Evidence, (we should probably think Conclusions rather than evidence based on previous discussion), of Gods". You are supporting your position which is essentially that everything including intelligence has come from non-intelligent source and I'm supporting my belief that my intelligent conclusion has come from a pre-existing intelligent source. (My particular bias might be showing in that last statement. ) I'm not intending a human like intelligence necessarily, I'm just speaking of an intelligence in whatever form it might exist. Mind you, other than dog, human intelligence is all I know so maybe we should go with that.
Straggler writes: What you have done here is what you have done throughout this thread. What you have done is show that if you assume that your notion of god exists then you can explain everything in that paradigm and create a huge wheel of circular reasoning. But in a discussion like this that is inevitable. We both do it. The only direct evidence we have, such as the Bible, science, philosophy all require subjective conclusions as to how to they should be interpreted to come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of god(s).
Straggler writes: If you assume god exists as part of the premise then you will inevitably conclude that god exists. And - before you say it - No I haven't assumed that god doesn't exist. I have assumed nothing but some form of Platonic mathematical abstract existence that can meaningfully be called "objective". From this you can conceivably derive non-zero sum morality. But some supreme, creative intelligence with a sense of morality of it's own is entirely your own addition. You say that you haven't assumed that god doesn’t exist. I don't buy that. You have only assumed that some form of "objectivity" exists external to our material world. You then assume that "objectivity" is mindless, or to put it another way godless. I'm just contending that it isn't illogical to consider that just possibly that objectivity" is part of a creative intelligence. Once again, we are both employing circular logic but there isn't really another avenue to go down in this discussion.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: To do this is simply a demonstration of the sort of flawed human psychological proclivities to anthropomorphicise everything in exactly the way we have been discusiing here and elsewhere. That's fine, but if there is truth that exists, regardless of whether or not this universe exists, then I still maintain that truth, be it Platonic, mathematical or moral requires some form of intelligence. Do you suggest that truth or knowledge of any kind can exist in a mental vacuum? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Straggler writes: And intuitively I agree. As did all those ancient invokers of Sun gods and the like. All of those who concluded that some intelligent presence must lay behind the things that they couldn't comprehend. Because I, they and you are all human and all subject to this same intuitive need to explain everything in terms of some sort of vaguely human-like intelligent agent. But where you seem to think that this intuitive thinking is a reasonable basis for drawing the conclusion that some sort of intelligent agent must be present I recognise that this is the same flawed human thinking that has resulted in everything from false gods, to conspiracy theories via imaginary friends and the imbuement of human-mind-like properties to inanimate objects and aspects of nature.
We agree that intelligence is part of our existence. We also agree that there is some kind of intelligence, whether it is just information or anything else you want to call it that exists whether or not our universe exists. There either is an intelligent agent or there isn't. Your subjective belief based on what you know objectively is that that our Earthly intelligence evolved from a non-intelligent source. My subjective belief based on what I objectively know is that it is from an intelligent source. I suggest that my conclusion is more intuitive because frankly it makes more sense. As I have said before that just because we have a human tendency to explain things not understood tells us nothing about whether or not a non-specific intelligent agent is behind our existence. It just isn't relevant.
Straggler writes:
That would be your conclusion based on your intuition. So I don't trust this intuitive thinking. Because the evidence suggests it isn't a reliable mathod of drawing conclusions.
GDR writes: Do you suggest that truth or knowledge of any kind can exist in a mental vacuum?Straggler writes: I have absolutely no idea what is required for "truth" to exist. This is just a rehashing of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" isn't it? Isn't truth something?
Straggler writes: And to that I would say that there are all sorts of philosophically conceivable answers and very possibly some answers that aren't even able to be conceived by humans. But of the vast array of possible answers "God" is just one rather limited and very human one That is based on the circular reasoning that God doesn't exist.
Straggler writes: It is an answer that almost certainly says more about the psychology of man than it does the truth of existence. Once again that is based on the same circular reasoning. In your mind there is no god(s) so that becomes the only possible conclusion.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: For example, scientists have already looked at the DNA "code" in all living creatures and concluded that it was produced by an unintelligent process. This means that if you are going to take "what scientists already use" as your "clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence", you must conclude that it was not in fact produced by intelligence. If you want to conclude the opposite, you must in fact do the opposite of what scientists have already done. This just isn't correct. Scientists have looked at the DNA code and found natural processes at work, which tells us nothing about whether or not it was intelligently produced or not. It is like gravity or intelligence - they exist but is it a result of an intelligent or non-intelligent first cause. Francis Collins the head of the "Human Genome Project" calls DNA the language of God.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Stragger writes:
Not necessarily. We exist in a world of only one dimension so we talk about things existing or not existing. It's highly speculative, but if God's existence has more than one time dimension, (back, forward and maybe through), non-existence wouldn't have any meaning.
Which is why it boils down to asking why there is something rather than nothing. And even if there is this eternal God that you believe in he will necessarily be fruitlessly asking himself that very same question. "Why is it that I, rather than nothing at all, exist?" Straggler writes: How can it be based on the conclusion that God doesn't exist when God remains as one of the multitude of possible answers? Your assertion doesn't make sense at all. But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about god(s), (essentially a prime mover), existing or not existing. There are only two possible answers we are considering.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)