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
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Nonsense!

    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.
    I have to admit to being a quantum rookie. I did not think logical impossibilities could exist at the quantum level (e.g., 1 not equalling 1, or a thing not equalling itself), but I was under impression that, at the quantum level, many of the physical laws we observe at our macro level showed signs of breaking down (e.g., effect preceding cause, a thing existing simultaneously in two states, etc.). If that is incorrect, then I have to bow to your obviously greater degree of expertise. I am indeed a lay person with respect to quantum mechanics.

    I would have attributed the reference to Aristotle - but somehow I suspect that is not what you were looking for.
    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 37818 View Post
      The sayings of the Quran make reference to Jesus and being born of His mother without a human father - that has its origin from Christianity. As for Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, it is my understanding, their oral traditions were not written down until after 1st century (post Christian).
      Yes, I am aware of this reference. Indeed, Jesus is revered as a prophet in the Islamic religion. But I do not know of any aspects of the religion that are BASED on Christianity.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      The Apostle Paul argued saying about God, ". . . though He be not far from every one of us: For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." (Acts 17:27-28.) The concept of God being omnipresent. God's Hebrew Name has been understood to mean the "self Existent." And logically only an uncaused Existence is truly self existent.
      I'll leave you to this. I do not base my beliefs on what is written in the christian bible.
      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 Post
        First, this is not true. There are signs of consciousness in other animals with sufficiently developed brains. It is not as advanced as ours, but it is demonstrable. If by "nature" you mean "nonliving nature" then I have to say, "so?" We don't see vision in nonliving nature either. We don't see hearing in nonliving nature. We don't see many of the attributes we associate with "life" in nonliving nature.
        What I said is true - I'm speaking of consciousness at any level. Saying that we find it in more basic forms does not change the point, to quote Harris again:

        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...
        https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/

        Not yet.
        Not ever, that is the problem with subjectivity. When you scan my brain all one sees is meat and chemicals. Where do you locate my favorite color? How do you even know that the color red looks the same to me as it does to you? You don't. This is beyond science, if you say, well some day it won't be, I ask how - even in principle. They only way you could know my favorite color is for me to tell you...

        Did you ever read "What is it like to be a Bat." https://organizations.utep.edu/Porta.../nagel_bat.pdf

        You may find it enlightening, the reductionism that you are suggesting may not be possible...
        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 Post
          What I said is true - I'm speaking of consciousness at any level. Saying that we find it in more basic forms does not change the point, to quote Harris again:
          And I repeat, Harris is wrong. This is a variation on the "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution. Throughout the animal kingdom (and some would even argue the plant kingdom), we see gradations in reasoning/consciousness from the purely instinctual responses of the amoeba to the high processing function of the human. We see degrees of self-awareness in other primates, dolphins, some whales, and several other species. You are creating a "single leap" that is simply not justified. Just as we see gradations in vision, hearing, touch, etc. You are singling out consciousness for reasons, I assume, are associated with your worldview - but other than asserting that we have to trat consciousness separately, you have not shown why I must do so.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Not ever, that is the problem with subjectivity. When you scan my brain all one sees is meat and chemicals. Where do you locate my favorite color?
          Since thought is clearly linked to neural activity, and memory is linked to various areas of the brain that function as storage, it is not beyond the pale to find, eventually, that your "favorite color" will translate to a specific storage pattern in the brain, and you thinking about or experiencing your "favorite color" will likewise appear as a specific, recognizable pattern. We will be able to see when you think it or feel it, and distinguish between the pattern for "black is my favorite color" and "white is my favorite color." We will not be able to "experience" your experience of your favorite color, but then again, I cannot "experience" the browser on my laptop. I can find it in the circuitry of my computer, however.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          How do you even know that the color red looks the same to me as it does to you? You don't.
          That is correct - I do not. Indeed, I presume it probably is slightly different.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          This is beyond science, if you say, well some day it won't be, I ask how - even in principle.
          I do not know what science will render possible in the future. Could my synaptic patterns be overlaid on a new brain? Possibly. Could we have computers so sophisticated that we could reproduce with 100% fidelity, the neural patterns of another mind? I have no idea. I'm also not entirely sure why you are even going down this road. What does my inability to exactly experience consciousness or sensory input the way you do have to do with any of this discussion about the accuracy of perception/reasoning?

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          They only way you could know my favorite color is for me to tell you...
          Today - with today's technology - yes. In the future, it is possible we will have other ways of determining these things.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Did you ever read "What is it like to be a Bat." https://organizations.utep.edu/Porta.../nagel_bat.pdf

          You may find it enlightening, the reductionism that you are suggesting may not be possible...
          Added to the seemingly endless reading list.
          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 Post
            Yes, I am aware of this reference. Indeed, Jesus is revered as a prophet in the Islamic religion. But I do not know of any aspects of the religion that are BASED on Christianity.
            OK. My point being, without Christianity, there would not be those teachings in Islam. Such as the denial, God has no Son. The claim made that the Quran is a revelation from God. (note Proverbs 30:4-6).


            I'll leave you to this. I do not base my beliefs on what is written in the christian bible.
            I believe this is understood. I am attempting to conveying my understanding as to God's real identity. That does not mean your or anyone else will accept my understanding of who God is.
            . . . 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 37818 View Post
              OK. My point being, without Christianity, there would not be those teachings in Islam. Such as the denial, God has no Son. The claim made that the Quran is a revelation from God. (note Proverbs 30:4-6).
              Yes, without Christianity - there would be no reference to Jesus in the Quran. That would appear to be true.

              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              I believe this is understood. I am attempting to conveying my understanding as to God's real identity. That does not mean your or anyone else will accept my understanding of who God is.
              Fair enough.
              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 Post
                Since thought is clearly linked to neural activity, and memory is linked to various areas of the brain that function as storage, it is not beyond the pale to find, eventually, that your "favorite color" will translate to a specific storage pattern in the brain, and you thinking about or experiencing your "favorite color" will likewise appear as a specific, recognizable pattern. We will be able to see when you think it or feel it, and distinguish between the pattern for "black is my favorite color" and "white is my favorite color." We will not be able to "experience" your experience of your favorite color, but then again, I cannot "experience" the browser on my laptop. I can find it in the circuitry of my computer, however.
                Nonsense, that could not happen. If you see the neural pattern in my brain when I'm think of my favorite color that pattern does not tell you what the color is. Or in turn, I could lie to you and tell you I'm thinking of my favorite color so the neural pattern would not correspond to my favorite color. It is a black box...


                That is correct - I do not. Indeed, I presume it probably is slightly different.
                Right and you could never know, neither can science because it is beyond science. These two simple examples of subjectivity is why consciousness does not lend itself to reductionism.


                Today - with today's technology - yes. In the future, it is possible we will have other ways of determining these things.
                There is no reason to think that is so. If you see neural patterns lighting up in my brain, the only way you would know whether I'm thinking of my dear departed mother or a different loved one is if I reported that fact. I would first have to self-report then you could have some clue that when this set of neurons fires I'm thinking of mom. Until then all you see is activity, that is all you will ever see, no correspondence...

                Added to the seemingly endless reading list.
                All the links were rather short, and to the point.
                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 Post
                  Nonsense, that could not happen. If you see the neural pattern in my brain when I'm think of my favorite color that pattern does not tell you what the color is. Or in turn, I could lie to you and tell you I'm thinking of my favorite color so the neural pattern would not correspond to my favorite color. It is a black box...
                  Someone else cannot experience your experience of color - your experience of color. We eventually will (I believe) be able to associate your experience of color with specific neural activity. The same is true of sight, hearing, touch, etc. No being can experience the sensory input of another being as they experience. I'm not sure why this is relevant to you, or what it has to do with our discussion. It appears to be a tangent.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Right and you could never know, neither can science because it is beyond science. These two simple examples of subjectivity is why consciousness does not lend itself to reductionism.
                  Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "lend itself to reductionism." Yes - one being cannot experience what is experienced by anothe rbeing exactly as it is experienced by that other person. The point of this observation is....?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  There is no reason to think that is so. If you see neural patterns lighting up in my brain, the only way you would know whether I'm thinking of my dear departed mother or a different loved one is if I reported that fact. I would first have to self-report then you could have some clue that when this set of neurons fires I'm thinking of mom. Until then all you see is activity, that is all you will ever see, no correspondence...
                  Same question.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  All the links were rather short, and to the point.
                  I have read through every link you've sent me thus far, Seer. I still have not seen anything to convince me to reverse my observations thus far:

                  1) consciousness/reasoning show a progression in nature from the simplest forms to the more complex forms.
                  2) both provide a survival advantage to the possessor to the degree to which they are present and accurate
                  3) ergo, nature selects for accurate perception/reasoning

                  That is not to say that people cannot be wrong - it is simply to note that, for the most part, we can count on the information from our senses and our ability to reason on that information. Our success as a species, as well as the incredibly complex technological world we have built on the basis of that perception/reasoning ability is a testament to that reality.

                  Beings with life, consciousness, and reasoning abilities are constructed of the same materials we find all around us in nature, differing primarily in arrangement and complexity. Ergo, it follows that these elements have the potential to form a conscious being, and only require a force for their arrangement. Evolution is a viable candidate for providing that force. We see a similar dynamic in modern computer systems which, as their complexity increases, begin to show nondeterministic properties, yet they too are constructed from the self-same inert materials. The "force" creating that complexity is humanity, seeking to duplicate some of the functions of the human brain.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-13-2018, 11:56 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


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    If you see the neural pattern in my brain when I'm think of my favorite color that pattern does not tell you what the color is.
                    Your neural pattern isn't supposed to tell me anything. It only needs to tell you what color you're thinking of.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      You are just playing word games. A creator outside of creation (I seem to be stuck with that word) is not a part of that creation. Because there is no word for all of "creation" that does not assume a creator you ignore what I have said.
                      A creator outside of creation is not a part of that creation, yes, but it is still part of all that exists. It’s not a wordgame; if a creator exists, creation is simply not synonymous with all that exists. How can something exist outside all that exists?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                        Your neural pattern isn't supposed to tell me anything. It only needs to tell you what color you're thinking of.
                        Right, and that is why subjective experience is beyond science or reductionism...
                        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 Post
                          Someone else cannot experience your experience of color - your experience of color. We eventually will (I believe) be able to associate your experience of color with specific neural activity. The same is true of sight, hearing, touch, etc. No being can experience the sensory input of another being as they experience. I'm not sure why this is relevant to you, or what it has to do with our discussion. It appears to be a tangent.

                          Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "lend itself to reductionism." Yes - one being cannot experience what is experienced by anothe rbeing exactly as it is experienced by that other person. The point of this observation is....?

                          Same question.
                          It is simple, somethings are beyond science, and can not be known by science - this is why some see first person experience as an intractable problem or mystery as Harris states. And Harris explained why this is different than sight for instance in one of the links I posted. You can certainly know which part of my brain is experiencing color, but that can not, nor will it ever, tell you what color is my favorite or if I see the color red the same way as you do.
                          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 Post
                            It is simple, somethings are beyond science, and can not be known by science - this is why some see first person experience as an intractable problem or mystery as Harris states. And Harris explained why this is different than sight for instance in one of the links I posted. You can certainly know which part of my brain is experiencing color,
                            Correct

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            but that can not, nor will it ever, tell you what color is my favorite
                            Potentially incorrect. If we can determine that there is an association between certain visible light frequencies and how they are stored, and a specific place where "favorite color" is stored, then we could reach a time when we can say, "this person's favorite color has the specific frequency X," just by reading their brain.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            or if I see the color red the same way as you do.
                            This is likely correct. The experience of color is, as best we can tell, an internal experience. Even if we can find that two people have exactly the same neural signature related to "favorite color," there is no way that I know of to determine if the subjective experience is the same. We can probably come close - but never know exactly. At least, not in any way I can conceive today.

                            And what ANY of this has to do with the subject we were discussing is beyond me. We seem to be way out on a tangent.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-13-2018, 01:35 PM.
                            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 Post

                              Potentially incorrect. If we can determine that there is an association between certain visible light frequencies and how they are stored, and a specific place where "favorite color" is stored, then we could reach a time when we can say, "this person's favorite color has the specific frequency X," just by reading their brain.
                              OK, so you know where my favorite color is stored (this may in fact not be possible since it may be too diffuse). And you could possibly say that my favorite color has a specific frequency of X - but what color does X represent? If I don't self-report how could you know?


                              This is likely correct. The experience of color is, as best we can tell, an internal experience. Even if we can find that two people have exactly the same neural signature related to "favorite color," there is no way that I know of to determine if the subjective experience is the same. We can probably come close - but never know exactly. At least, not in any way I can conceive today.

                              And what ANY of this has to do with the subject we were discussing is beyond me. We seem to be way out on a tangent.
                              It matters for the reason I stated. It demonstrates that some things are beyond science, but how can that be possible if materialism is true.
                              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 Roy View Post
                                He has been very critical of certain atheists (Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Bill Maher), and of atheists who support and agree with them. See e.g. https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...acts-straight/. His general approach is that atheism is not an indicator of integrity.
                                Good to know. I used to regularly peruse his blog Pharyngula but after several rants about how much he hates libertarians and Theistic Evolutionists[1] I pretty much quit.











                                1. For example his statement that "I think Intelligent Design creationism is just as strained, just as ludicrous, just as fallacious as Tzortzis’s Muslim creationism, or Ken Ham’s fundamentalist creationism, or Hugh Ross’s old earth creationism, or Biologos’s theistic evolution. I despise you all equally."

                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X