Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Underlying Presuppositions
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostBill Maher. There was once a time when I liked his humour. I can't understand why. And then when he started getting into HIV denial, anti-vaccine flirtations and anti-GMO nonsense I think I just filed him under crank.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAnd yet in 2009 Maher received the Richard Dawkins award from the Atheist Alliance for his contributions to an increased scientific knowledge even though they were well aware of his anti-germ theory, anti-vaccination positions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostHe has?Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostChristopher Hitchens I haven't read any of, and most people seem to find him the most objectionable of the 4, as he apparently had (dead now) quite an acerbic writing style that pulled no punches and he tended to go further in the direction of ad hominems than was perhaps helpful.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostThat's odd, because you and he have similar styles.
Hitchens had the disadvantages of having first-hand experience, and being knowledgeable, direct, focussed and critical."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostEasily, the Quantum World of our universe.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostSince evolution is blind to the truth or falsehood of our beliefs, us having generally true beliefs would be entirely incidental. And where a false belief leads to actions that increase our survival, evolution would select for that.
(This is where you agree, and point to Christianity as an example. )
That we can also be wrong is evident in things like implicit bias and the denial of climate change
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostEver seen the movie "the Truman Show"? Or realized that someone you know is a persistent liar?
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostAll of your reasoning above is also beliefs that fall into the same problem. We have no way of knowing which (if any) are true, so we can't use the true ones to help us find and eliminate the false ones. Our belief-forming apparatus is not directed to forming true beliefs, but rather ones that increase the chances of our survival. Since all of our beliefs are formed thus way, none are trustworthy, including such beliefs as 'Beliefs that we believe comport with reality are true'
And, again, the fact that it is that accurate is evident in the computer you are using to hold this conversation, which cannot exist if the humans working on it cannot perceive reality accurately; reason on its make-up accurately; conceive of experimentation and process outcomes accurately; etc. etc.
You folks are very much like the philosopher arguing that the walls are insubstantial, and then leaving the room by way of the door. Only, in this case, you are claiming we cannot know that our beliefs are accurate/true, and making that claim on a device connected to a network that would be impossible if our beliefs/reasoning were not accurate/true.
It's actually rather amazing....The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI did not claim it did. There is much of "how" that we don't understand. We don't understand how gravitation actually works. That does not lead us to deny that it does - we see the effects all around us. We don't really know how evolution can produce complex systems. That does not lead us to deny that it does - we see the effcts all around us. That I cannot explain "how" does not mean that I reject the entire principle.
No - I am not assuming it. I am saying that the evidence suggests to me that it does. I conclude it. You are the one assuming, Seer, that it must be from a god. Why? Because you have things you cannot answer and you seem to be predisposed to replacing "I don't know" with "god did it." I do not make that assumption.
So I will repeat the breakdown of the logical flaw:
- Claim: Upper body strength provides a survival advantage and makes it possible to lift heavy objects bought at WalMart into a van
- Response: Animals do not need to lift heavy objects into a van, so upper body strength is clearly not key to survival.
I have to believe you can see the logical problem with this response, right? Now applying it to this argument:
- Claim: Accurate perception and accurate processing of those perceptions provides survival advantages, and also provides the basis for consciousness and correct processing of abstract thought
- Reponse: Animals do not have consciousness nor do they process abstract thought and they survive quite well, so accurate perception/processing is not key to survival.
We can see that accurate perception and the ability to process those perceptions accurately does indeed provide survival advantage. I presume you do not dispute this. We can also see that the reasoning ability of humanity exceeds that of any other species, and we dominate any niche which we seek to occupy. So clearly reasoning abstractly also provides survival advantage. It helps us build tools, and engineer our environment. If we can perceive correctly, and reason correctly, then it fololws that "correctness" will follow in other reasoning activities. Consciousness is part of that - and is evident not only in humanity, but to lesser degrees in other species, which have been shown to use language, and show an ability ot recognize "self."
Again, it is a matter of degree not kind. Our ancestors, nearly all creatures, even most primates, do not need self-awareness to survive. Period. So yes, we have the ability change our environment more than them that however does not mean that we have more survivability than a primate without it or even the common bacteria.
EDITED to add: Something just clicked for me, and perhaps it is the basis for this disagreement. When an evolutionist talks about "survival advantage," it is not just about "helping them survive." It is, more specifically, about "helping them survive at a higher rate than those without X." That is what causes the advantage to perpetuate at a greater rate than other attributes. I do not need consciousness "to survive." But if consciousness makes it possible for me to survive at a higher rate than those without it, then that attribute will perpetuate itself in the species. I think you have limited yourself to "survive" and left out the "advantage" part.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOriginally posted by shunyadragonOriginally posted by carpedm9587So, just to clarify, you can conceive of a universe in which a thing can be true and not true at the same time, in the same place, in the same way? Or that a thing can be other than itself? Or that 1 is unequal to 1?
There aren't logical contradictions in quantum mechanics, and any so-called retro-causality have far simpler interpretations, even for the Delayed Choice experiment. You have to have a pre-commitment to the Copenhagen School of interpretation to have that, and too much an attachment to Feynmann diagrams.
I wish laypeople had never heard of the word quantum. It has become so completely mystified, and goobledigooklified by the popular science press who seem to have only one story to tell about it "quantum is weird and anything is possible". Its used to justify anything that doesn't make sense. A magic word that dispells all worries about ordinary reasoning. How does Chi in Chinese Traditionel medicine work? Quantum. How can a ghost exist without disappitating. Quantum. In what way do we have ESP. Quantum stuff doing quantum things.
Its linear algebra, probability calculus and differential equations for crying out loud.
At no point in these theories is it asserted that 1 is unequal to 1, in the same way, at the same time. That would be a logical contradiction. An actual logical contradiction - not merely a Shröedinger Cat Paradox which have various interpretations - But a straight up, old fashioned, "I always lie" self-contradiction.
Logical contradictions are impossible, and impossible things cannot exist*.
* Bonus points if you get the reference.Last edited by Leonhard; 02-13-2018, 07:18 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostExcept consciousness is on a different level, perhaps a different quality altogether. And Harris makes it clear that it is not like anything else we find in nature.
https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAs far as I can tell, typically when people are referring to presuppositional belief in God's existence, they actually do mean a belief that wasn't arrived at. So, for instance, Alvin Plantinga argues that some people may have a properly basic belief that God exists that does not rely on deductive reasoning. He further argues that this sort of belief may be rational, warranted and justified. This would be a presuppositional view of God. I think Plantinga's work on this subject is fascinating, and agree with WL Craig that it's a great counter to evidentialism. However, I think it has limited application in evangelism if your purpose is to get others to believe in the God you believe in. Furthermore, those who practice presuppositional apologetics typically avoid Classical apologetics (and don't seem to know Plantinga), and act as though all they need to do is throw Bible verses at a skeptic, and that somehow, through some sort of arcane mysticism, the skeptic will read the right combination of words, and something will just click in their head; Will make them want to accept the Holy Spirit. In my experience, that almost never ever happens in real life unless the individual in question already accepts some of evangelist's presuppositions. There's a few people on this forum who use this tact all the time, and it backfires on them just about every time.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI know of no Islamic foundations based on Christianity. I do know Islam reveres Jesus as a prophet, but I do not believe it is the basis for Islam. I know of no Christian basis for Buddhism. I know little about Zoroastrianism.
I know "existence" seems to be fairly foundational for you - it keeps arrising as a theme. I guess "existence" is foundational for all of us. Without it, we wouldn't....umm....exist!. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAnimals are conscious too. It is not us being aware, or self-aware, that sets us apart from animals, but our ability to reason and communicate. Sam Harris has made it clear he considers some animals to have awareness as well.
https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness/
Many readers of my previous essay did not understand why the emergence of consciousness should pose a special problem to science. Every feature of the human mind and body emerges over the course development: Why is consciousness more perplexing than language or digestion? The problem, however, is that the distance between unconsciousness and consciousness must be traversed in a single stride, if traversed at all. Just as the appearance of something out of nothing cannot be explained by our saying that the first something was “very small,” the birth of consciousness is rendered no less mysterious by saying that the simplest minds have only a glimmer of it...
...But couldn’t a mature neuroscience nevertheless offer a proper explanation of human consciousness in terms of its underlying brain processes? We have reasons to believe that reductions of this sort are neither possible nor conceptually coherent. Nothing about a brain, studied at any scale (spatial or temporal), even suggests that it might harbor consciousness. Nothing about human behavior, or language, or culture, demonstrates that these products are mediated by subjectivity. We simply know that they are—a fact that we appreciate in ourselves directly and in others by analogy.
Here is where the distinction between studying consciousness and studying its contents becomes paramount. It is easy to see how the contents of consciousness might be understood at the level of the brain. Consider, for instance, our experience of seeing an object—its color, contours, apparent motion, location in space, etc. arise in consciousness as a seamless unity, even though this information is processed by many separate systems in the brain. Thus when a golfer prepares to hit a shot, he does not first see the ball’s roundness, then its whiteness, and only then its position on the tee. Rather, he enjoys a unified perception of a ball. Many neuroscientists believe that this phenomenon of “binding” can be explained by disparate groups of neurons firing in synchrony. Whether or not this theory is true, it is perfectly intelligible—and it suggests, as many other findings in neuroscience do, that the character of our experience can often be explained in terms of its underlying neurophysiology. However, when we ask why it should be “like something” to see in the first place, we are returned to the mystery of consciousness in full.
https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/Last edited by seer; 02-13-2018, 08:57 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, if you read both of Harris' links he explains why consciousness is not like other things we find in nature.
Originally posted by seer View PostThere is a difference. Where do you find consciousness in the brain?
Originally posted by seer View PostCan you look at my brain and deduce my favorite color?
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course not, but why not? Why is that information not open to science?
Originally posted by seer View PostExcept consciousness is on a different level, perhaps a different quality altogether. And Harris makes it clear that it is not like anything else we find in nature. BTW - I did not quote mine, I did not take his words out of context and I linked both papers.
BTW, if you know the history of computing, you will see a parallel with how the computer evolved. The first computers were hard-wired to perform a specific task. If you wanted a different task, you built a different computer. Then came the idea of having a "general purpose" processor that could have instructions fed to it as data and then act on those instructions to perform tasks. Suddenly the computer gained in flexibility. Likewise, in nature, an animal that has the ability to process input in a manner more sophisticated than hard-wired instinct has survival advantages. That would be selected for, continually enhancing the development of that species (or those species).
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain, it is a matter of degree not kind. Our ancestors, nearly all creatures, even most primates, do not need self-awareness to survive. Period. So yes, we have the ability change our environment more than them that however does not mean that we have more survivability than a primate without it or even the common bacteria.
At this point, I've responded to this comment frequently enough. If you repeat it yet again, I'll just point you to the many places where I have already responded to this. Continually asserting this argument does not make it correct.
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no idea if consciousness is necessary to survive at a higher rate, or if we with self-awareness survive better than those who do not have it.
1) Which species is currently at the top of the food chain in virtually all niches.
2) Within the species, which members are more likely to succeed/thrive: those with accurate perception/reasoning capabilities, or those who lack it?
The answers should help you see what I am saying.Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-13-2018, 09:25 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
18 responses
82 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 08:10 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
148 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
103 responses
559 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,017 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment