Choosing a faith

quote:

---

I left this site some time back as IMHO name calling and put down too often took the place of reasoned discussion

---

I will simply note that your failure to engage in reasoned discussion was a major part of the problem.

quote:

---

Firstly, I contend that there is only one cosmic intelligence that is responsible for our existence. It doesn’t matter what name you give that deity, it might be god, allah or zeuss. What matters is the characteristics or nature of the deity

---

I will note that that is your opinion.

quote:

---

My point is that it isn’t about choosing which deity that we choose to worship, but the nature of whatever deity we choose.

---

The question here is why should it be a matter of choice. If there is a real deity - as you claim - it is the way it is. Your choice won’t change that.

quote:

---

Do people have to agree with you to make it a reasoned discussion?

---

Thank you for that example of the problem - by resorting to false insinuations rather than addressing the issue,It is not agreement but the ability to engage in reason which is the issue. If you make an obviously false assertion and if your arguments fail to support it and if you do not address the counter arguments - you are not engaging in reasoned discussion.

quote:

---

True enough, but it does help me form my world view and let me know why it is important.

---

Then it seems to me that you don’t need an actual cosmic intelligence. An imaginary one will work just as well for you.

quote:

---

You made the insinuation that my posts weren't reasoned and yet I have yet to see anyone, including you, tell me why the things that I posted in this thread weren't reasoned

---

Since I was talking about your supposed reasons for leaving it would hardly be about this thread.And of course we have your insinuation - which I regard as a personal attack: That certainly does not count as “reasoned”. And if you are “called to spread God’s love as embodied by Jesus into the world” that sort of hostility is counter-productive,

quote:

---

I agree and apologise. I felt that I was responding in kind and that is not justification

---

It was not even responding in kind. Be glad that I chose not to continue the escalation that you had started.

quote:

---

I would think that you yourself should be glad. It proves that an atheist can be self-correcting and take the high road.

---

That would be better directed at GDR since he made a partial self-correction, while I simply stayed (relatively) civil instead of retaliating.

quote:

---

The anthropic principle is a product of science and mathematical research.

---

The Weak Anthropic Principle certainly is not. It’s an observation and one that is obviously true - the fact that we exist means that it must be possible for us to exist,

quote:

---

Science then proposes the multi-verse. That proposal is no more scientific than God did it.

---

This is also false. Proposing more of something known to exist would be more scientific than inventing a completely ad hoc creator. But it’s better than that - the multiverse is actually a consequence of some physical theories - which have yet to be confirmed - but even so it is a long way from being purely ad hoc,

quote:

---

Sure science discovered it the principle but still can't explain the incredible mathematical odds of it being that way. Sure it's what makes it possible but how is that relevant?

---

The odds are, in fact, completely unknown. We do not know what constraints are on the physical constants, nor which combinations might permit something we could call life. To talk of “astronomical odds” without very strong caveats is misleading at best.

quote:

---

But the multiverse isn't known to exist.

---

And? I said as much. Your creator isn’t known to exist either. We do know that the.multiverse could exist - and we don’t even know that for your creator. Indeed we can go further say that it is quite likely that the multiverse does exist.

quote:

---

This is just another case of science of the gaps.

---

That is an admission that you are using a “god of the gaps” argument. Moreover it is false. The claim is not that the multiverse DOES exist, the claim is that it is more scientific than your creator. That can be true even if the multiverse is only held as a scientific hypothesis that potentially explains “fine tuning”.I would also point out that obvious double standards are hardly conducive to reasoned discussion.

quote:

---

If it is ok I don't see a point in carrying on in this vein. Stile and Ringo have gone back to the point that I wanted to make when I started this thread.

---

Well, if you want reasoned discussion you do need to do rather better than parroting low-grade apologetics and making lame excuses to dismiss points made in response.

quote:

---

I find the belief in a world with only materialistic roots to be unfathomable where as you and AZPaul3 hold the very opposite view and as Percy says we have covered this ground before.

---

I’d point to the old saw about fact being stranger than fiction. Reality isn’t governed by a need to fit into our ideas of what makes sense. There is much we don’t know but I don’t see resorting to fantasies as an answer.Then again, what you call “a world with only materialistic roots” makes more sense than you allow. On the origins of morality, for instance it seems far better than the strange question-begging approach you prefer.

quote:

---

We are what we are through an evolutionary process which is about the survival of the fittest. Certainly co-operation can exist within the process and should be expected as there can be strength in numbers. However it is still about looking out for number one. We know though that we can rise above that and there has to be a reason for that. I don't see materialistic reasons for it.

---

It really isn’t. You’ve just reminded me of your misrepresentation of Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene - trying to pass it off as something like Original Sin. But understanding that idea would be a good starting point. And then you have culture on top of that.

quote:

---

I think you’ve misconstrued my point.

---

I don’t think so.

quote:

---

I don’t see a god meme in that light at all.

---

I didn’t say or quote anything about a “god meme”. The misconstrual is obviously yours.

quote:

---

However, I do see raw evolutionary forces, defined as survival of the fittest as something like original sin.

---

My point was that in past discussion you represented the idea of the selfish gene as being like original sin. But that that was a gross misrepresentation and in fact it is part of the basis for morality - or even altruism. And that that is in complete contradiction to your idea that evolution is simply about “survival of the fittest” - as you construe it.

quote:

---

I don’t believe that I have said that there isn’t an explanation, or that it can’t be explained. I do contend though that the explanations aren’t scientific.

---

There are certainly scientific elements there, even if you discount the cultural factors.

quote:

---

The point I’m trying to make in this thread is that altruistic behaviour comes from cosmic intelligence

---

And where does this cosmic intelligence get it’s morality from? Or doesn’t it have one?Regardless, I think we would want rather better evidence than your refusal to understand the alternatives.

quote:

---

Let’s look at Occam’s Razor. You contend that a nearly infinite number of mindless processes essentially by chance has evolved into conscious sentient life. I contend that there is one creative intelligence, not restricted by the one dimension of time as we know it, that alone is responsible for our existence. Which is the simplest explanation

---

The “nearly infinite” is something you made up in an attempt to rig the argument. In reality, by Occam’s Razor known natural processes should be preferred over any number of assumed entities.

quote:

---

What are they?

---

Kin selection for a start, as well as the evolutionary advantages of cooperation in a social species. You might want to consider how worker bees or ants fit into your understanding of evolution, for a start.

quote:

---

Well obviously I contend that it does. We have a sense of morality and deep down we know that the loving thing to do is the right thing to do, It would make sense that if this intelligence does exist then it should be consistent with that.

---

If we have to get it from this “cosmic intelligence” it doesn’t obviously make sense that the “cosmic intelligence” would just happen to have a sense of morality at all. If we took your argument seriously shouldn’t we be arguing that it would need to get it from a greater “cosmic intelligence” ?

quote:

---

The question of where does this intelligence get its morality from is the equivalent question of why is there something instead of nothing

---

It’s more like asking if your argument makes sense. And the answer is “no”. So I am going to stick with the answer that does make sense, even if you can’ t bring yourself to understand it.

quote:

---

I think I do understand the alternatives but I only see the alternatives as a partial explanation

---

Looks to me as if you just want to shoehorn your “cosmic intelligence” in there, despite the fact that it doesn’t help at all.

quote:

---

But it is the same for the atheistic position

---

It is? You really think that what you call the “atheistic position” is just bald assertions? I think this explains your problem. You can’t tell reasoned discussion from baldly making assertions.The science-based understanding of morality points to an explanation that makes sense, based on observation. You reject that out of hand - but you don’t have an explanation for morality at all.Why should any rational person agree with you?

Edited by PaulK, .

quote:

---

That is an explanation of how we see it happening by observation which I have no problem with. It doesn't explain why it happens nor does it negate other inputs.

---

First, it IS an explanation of why. Second, there is no way to “negate” other inputs. Bu it is up to you to sho that these inputs are necessary.

quote:

---

We all agree that a child brought up in a loving home is more likely to be a loving parent from a home where he/she was abused.

---

That has nothing to do with Kim selection.

quote:

---

Maybe, but we have to remember that we live in the 4 dimensional world that we perceive. We have 1 dimension of time even though I have read that in the mathematical world time is symmetrical and can go backwards. Maybe in another dimension time might be different and maybe without entropy. More than a tad esoteric but i's one way of considering it.

---

That seems to be apologetic gobbledygook which doesn’t really help you at all. You are supposed to be making your case, but so far it seems to be nothing more than your failure to understand evolution.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense. It does. We can observe how ideas, moral and immoral, can be spread between individuals and even cultures.

---

That’s ignoring the important part, the explanations of the origins of morality. Completely ignoring it.

quote:

---

But how do we know what is moral and immoral.

---

A combination of social instincts and socialisation. That’s pretty basic.Again. Morality is built on the basis of the instincts of a social species, instincts which are evolutionarily successful. We have elaborated them through culture and labelled them as morality.