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.
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.
Ultimately everyone chooses between selfish love and unselfish love whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic or atheist. I'd suggest that an atheist who sends anonymously $100 to the third world is much closer to the heart of God than the Christian who sends the $100 with the idea that it has put God on His side.
First it's all about Jesus and NOW it's all about US? Which is it man?
Are we saved by works, which you imply above or what Jesus did on the Cross?
Frankly I’m not going to worry about who winds up where. The next life will look after itself, and whatever happens happens.
So, fate then? We play no part in where we end up? That not what the subjective Bible teaches
I just thought I'd add this. My God is a good God and a just God. In the end, not that I have much a choice , I have faith that true justice will be served.
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:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done."7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.11 For God does not show favoritism.12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
It is about our hearts. What is it that we love.
How about this from Mark 2:
quote:On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
This is from Matthew 25:
quote:34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
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:"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. "
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.
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Chuck77 writes:
Im a #1. It's unreasonable but that's what I am.
But you aren't #1 in regard to other gods - just your chosen version of the christian god, yes? I expect you to be a #7 in relation to other gods. To paraphrase: You know there is no other God. Unreasonable, indeed.
Chuck77 writes:
Where are you on the Dawkins scale Panda? and why?
#6.99999
quote:De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Why? Because I have seen no evidence for any gods - but I realise that it is theoretically possible for some evidence to be found, sometime in the future.
Chuck77 writes:
Do you think there is more or less evidence for gods?
Compared to?
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
it still appears to exist as something that exists regardless of human brain activity.
You appear to be saying that people have the same moral capacity regardless of brain activity. It is shown, with evidence, that people behave differently when physical harm is done to their physical brain.
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.
That analogy doesn't follow. What YOU seem to be implying is that you can put a non-functioning dvd (brain damage) into a non-functioning dvd player (damage to the body) and still get a picture. When in reality, it is shown that as soon as the dvd is scratched, the picture quality (mind) degrades.
If you have hard evidence that says otherwise, I'm willing to listen.
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
GDR writes:
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.
A case can be made for the existence of things like objective mathematical truths that exist in some sense apart from physical brains. Things that can be discovered by, and which will be the same for, any intelligent being that exists anywhere or at any time in our universe. Things like the value of Pi for example.
I would even go so far as to acknowledge that it is conceivable that some aspect of zero sum based morality can be described as "objectively true" in this platonic mathematical sense. Possibly.
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.
Maybe a universe simply cannot exist unless it has some logical/mathematical structure to it? Maybe zero sum morality is simply a product of the innately necessary maths that allows something rather than nothing? Maybe there is some explanation for all of this that no human has ever yet conceived of? The fact is that I don't know and I don't claim to know. I hope one day we can work it out. But I also accept that we may never be able to.
But I do know that when humans start invoking undetectable intelligent agents as explanations for the phenomena that they find baffling and/or significant the evidence strongly suggests that they are going to be wrong in their conclusions.
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
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.
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Panda writes:
But you aren't #1 in regard to other gods - just your chosen version of the christian god, yes?
Yes.
I expect you to be a #7 in relation to other gods. To paraphrase: You know there is no other God. Unreasonable, indeed.
How so? Is it unreasonable to assume that im not going to get a ticket for driving in the opposite direction on a one way street EVEN if I assume it doesnt' matter? Truth is not relative. All way don't lead to the truth. One truth, One God.
Why? Because I have seen no evidence for any gods - but I realise that it is theoretically possible for some evidence to be found, sometime in the future.
Wonderful. You can start by picking up a Bible (some subjective evidence for god(s) and test it out.
Also there are many books written by wonderful christians that know this truth. Pick a few up. Prayer is good too. Some books will help you pray in a way that is like you were talking to your parents. It's easy. Church too, that's a good place for subjective evidence. Lot's of people to validate this truth.
You have your hands full for the weekend. SONday find a good morning service and let me know what the Pastor talked about.
Chuck writes:
Do you think there is more or less evidence for gods?
Compared to?
Umm, compared to no god(s)?
You can't see that im asking if you think there is more/less evidence for god(s)? Subjective evidence, do you feel there is a good amount of subjective evidence for god(s) that you could invest time in that would someday lead you to a realization that a god exists?
Do you even care to? Are you here to shoot down all ideas and evidence or are you willing to investigate claims people have actually made? Peoples testimony is evidence of God even if you don't agree with it.
Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Chuck77 writes:
Wonderful. You can start by picking up a Bible (some subjective evidence for god(s) and test it out.
Also there are many books written by wonderful christians that know this truth. Pick a few up. Prayer is good too. Some books will help you pray in a way that is like you were talking to your parents. It's easy. Church too, that's a good place for subjective evidence. Lot's of people to validate this truth.
You have your hands full for the weekend. SONday find a good morning service and let me know what the Pastor talked about.
Muslim down the street writes:
Wonderful. You can start by picking up a Qu'ran (some subjective evidence for god(s) and test it out.
Also there are many books written by wonderful Muslims that know this truth. Pick a few up. Prayer is good too. Some books will help you pray in a way that is like you were talking to your parents. It's easy. Mosque too, that's a good place for subjective evidence. Lot's of people to validate this truth.
You have your hands full for the weekend. SOMEday find a good morning service and let me know what the Imam talked about.
quote: Brain matter no doubt is the medium for all of our thoughts but where does an original thought come from?
That is the prickly thorn for humanity, affecting science and all other faculties. To be more precise, we do not know the origins of anything whatsoever: how far back can we go to trace a pineapple's original source? I do not think the problem is with the human mind's abilities, but that if there is another source out there, it is fastidiously and intentionally barred to us; it cannot be a mere impossibly difficult thing to do, but more a shut off. Every path and angle leads to a fire wall - which means it cannot be accidental or a random situation.
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].
™ Version 4.2
(1)