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 carpedm9587 View Post
    Indeed - the problem is largely in the world on religious beliefs, Seer. You see, abstract beliefs that are related to science and nature have a mechanism for testing them and verifying their accuracy. As a result, they produce working output that further provides a testament to their accuracy. Indeed, the fact that we are not perfect perceivers/reasoners is a reality that the world of science has a means for addressing.

    But religious beliefs lack this capability. There is no way to sort out "incorrect" beliefs from "correct ones" in the religious sphere. This is the reason, I believe, that religions tend to fragmentation rather than unification.
    This makes no sense. I believe we were created by a rational Creator who generally aims us towards true beliefs. You believe that the non-rational forces of nature, that care nothing about true beliefs, except by accidential correspondence, created our cognitive abilities. Why is your belief more plausible?
    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 Jedidiah View Post
      It is difficult to deal with the concept of what is the universe. I say all that exists to include multiverse concepts, etc.
      All that exists would encompass, well, everything that exists. Thus if the universe(s) had a cause or even a creator, that cause would also be part of ‘all that exists’.


      A caused existence may not be a problem for you personally. It does leave open the question of what that cause might be.
      Exactly. So it need not be a creator (as in 'wilful causer'). Then your earlier at some level there is something that does not have a cause. You either choose the universe or a creator is a false dilemma.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        This makes no sense. I believe we were created by a rational Creator who generally aims us towards true beliefs.
        Yes - you do. And the belief is inviolate, because when you posit an omnisicent, omnipotent, eternal creator god, that god can do anything (except the logically impossible). Ergo your beliefs are indeed internally consistent. They also cannot be shown to be untrue because you have declared this belief a fundamental assumption. This means you have an ironclad belief system immune to questioning. If the belief is true, you're in great shape. If it is not, you will stay trapped in it, unable to actually determine if it is true or untrue or escape it. Ultimately, that probably does not matter a great deal. If the beliefs lead you to a good life and good choices for yourself and the society around you, whether or not they are true only matters if truth actually matters to you.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        You believe that the non-rational forces of nature, that care nothing about true beliefs, except by accidential correspondence, created our cognitive abilities. Why is your belief more plausible?
        My belief is not intrinsically more plausible. It is more plausible to me because it a) defines the mechanism by which this occurs, b) aligns with the reality we see around us, and c) is testable/verifiable - so it can be shown to be wrong if it is, indeed, wrong.

        You see, Seer, you have apparently (arbitrarily) decided that consciousness must come from consciousness, life from life, etc. I do not make those assumptions. I look for the evidence around me, and follow it where it takes me. My fundamental assumptions do not include things like gods and creations. I look at the foundational assumptions I DO have, and then reason to the presence/absence of such beings. It is possible I am wrong. If I am, hopefully I will find other evidence, or hear another argument that will show me that I am wrong, and my beliefs will change.
        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 - you do. And the belief is inviolate, because when you posit an omnisicent, omnipotent, eternal creator god, that god can do anything (except the logically impossible). Ergo your beliefs are indeed internally consistent. They also cannot be shown to be untrue because you have declared this belief a fundamental assumption. This means you have an ironclad belief system immune to questioning. If the belief is true, you're in great shape. If it is not, you will stay trapped in it, unable to actually determine if it is true or untrue or escape it. Ultimately, that probably does not matter a great deal. If the beliefs lead you to a good life and good choices for yourself and the society around you, whether or not they are true only matters if truth actually matters to you.
          I'm not sure how that is relevant to my point.



          My belief is not intrinsically more plausible. It is more plausible to me because it a) defines the mechanism by which this occurs, b) aligns with the reality we see around us, and c) is testable/verifiable - so it can be shown to be wrong if it is, indeed, wrong.
          But that is begging the question, which is why is life rational. We both agree that it is. You have no idea that unguided natural forces created rationality as we know it, you weren't there when it happened and neither was I. What you are testing is what is already here not how it got that way. For instance, we have no idea how or where self awareness popped up or why.


          You see, Seer, you have apparently (arbitrarily) decided that consciousness must come from consciousness, life from life, etc. I do not make those assumptions. I look for the evidence around me, and follow it where it takes me. My fundamental assumptions do not include things like gods and creations. I look at the foundational assumptions I DO have, and then reason to the presence/absence of such beings. It is possible I am wrong. If I am, hopefully I will find other evidence, or hear another argument that will show me that I am wrong, and my beliefs will change.
          But you are assuming that non-ration and non-conscious forces created consciousness and rationality (whether you admit it or not). Yet you can not go back in history and tell us where or how.
          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
            I'm not sure how that is relevant to my point.
            It is relevant insofar as it identifies the nature of your belief.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            But that is begging the question, which is why is life rational. We both agree that it is. You have no idea that unguided natural forces created rationality as we know it, you weren't there when it happened and neither was I. What you are testing is what is already here not how it got that way. For instance, we have no idea how or where self awareness popped up or why.
            Actually, we are all there all the time to witness evolution, since it is ongoing. But you are correct that none of us was present at the moment it appeared. However, that is not how the theory of evolution is normally tested. It is tested by examining the process in species with very short lifespans, where thousands of generations can be monitored and tracked in very short periods. So we know that evolution is true, and we know some of its mechamisms (natural selection being the key one to this discussion). What remains is to determine if "accurate perception" and "acccurate reasoning" have survival value. That seems pretty obvious on the face of it, but we can see it in opperation all the time in nature, when we see an individual that is born without accurate perception (i.e., missing skewed, etc.). A species that is blind, has poor vision, or has skewed vision is at a survival disadvantage. The same is true for hearing, etc.

            All of these are testable things. If perception/reasoning provide a survival value, we know nature will select for them because we know that's how evolution works.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            But you are assuming that non-ration and non-conscious forces created consciousness and rationality (whether you admit it or not). Yet you can not go back in history and tell us where or how.
            No. I am not assuming it. Indeed, the one making assumptions here is you: you are assuming your god exists and created everything, and have acknowledged that these are unprovable foundational assumptions you accept a priori.

            Evolution and natural selection are not part of my "foundational assumptions." Evolution and natural selection are derived truths BASED on foundational assumptions coupled with a great deal of perception and reasoning. They are conclusions I have reasoned to. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the evidence suggests that accurate reasoning and perception are characteristics that would be selected for by evolution.

            I also cannot go back in hostory and tell you where and how humanity first used fire, began creating art, or domesticated the first animal. I cannot tell you where and how the first creature developed color vision (or any vision, for that matter), or became bipedal, or developed lungs. That does not make it impossible for me to know these things happened, and that evolution is the force that led to their occuring. So why would you take "reasoning" out of the set of human characteristics that can be explained by evolution and treat it differently?

            Unless you're a creationist and I don't know it...?
            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 Jedidiah View Post
              Gibberish.
              I understood it just fine. Do you fail to grasp the difference between meaninglessness and incorrectness, or are you just unfamiliar with the longer words?
              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 Jedidiah View Post
                Word tickling just means you are playing with words but made no response to anything I wrote. I used "creation" because you objected when I used "everything that exists." You keep quibbling with words and ignoring the fact that the choice of whether to accept a creator beyond the existing system is one of personal incredulity. I find it personally incredulous that the detectable universe is self existent. You find it personally incredulous that it is not.
                In general, I hold a belief because I find it credulous, not because I am incredulous at the alternative. Also, at no point did I say the universe we occupy is "self-existent." I was pretty clear that my response is "I don't know." I DO believe that the concept of a creator-god is a human construct, so I cannot accept that it is the source of this universe or any other. But how this universe came to be, whether it is self-existent, dependent on soke other existence I do not know about, I have no clue.

                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                Oh, and the Law of Parsimony is not truly a law, but a rule of thumb when dealing with testable scientific issues. When you are dealing with competing answers, the one requiring the fewest assumptions is more likely, nothing more. It can not apply as a test of the truth of a creator beyond the creation.
                I assume this is in response to one of my "fundamental assumptions?" I hold that assumption because it's opposite seems so clearly ridiculous. When explaining X, the explanation should include only what is strictly necessary to explain X. That doesn't mean that other things I might include in the explanation are not true - it means they are not necessary to explain X.

                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                I get my physics from simplified popular treatments. I have not read any new ones for a year or so, but the "something from nothing" question, as adrift pointed out, has been clearly rejected.
                I did not see Adrift's post. When I get a sec, I'll look for it. (Just did - he essentially said what I had already noted in an earlier post)
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 12:30 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

                  No. I am not assuming it. Indeed, the one making assumptions here is you: you are assuming your god exists and created everything, and have acknowledged that these are unprovable foundational assumptions you accept a priori.
                  Of course you are. Tell me how, where and why nature created self-awareness. Especially in light of the fact that self-awareness is not necessary for survival. Most creature do not have it and survive just fine.

                  I also cannot go back in hostory and tell you where and how humanity first used fire, began creating art, or domesticated the first animal. I cannot tell you where and how the first creature developed color vision (or any vision, for that matter), or became bipedal, or developed lungs. That does not make it impossible for me to know these things happened, and that evolution is the force that led to their occuring. So why would you take "reasoning" out of the set of human characteristics that can be explained by evolution and treat it differently?
                  But when it comes to self-awareness - nature must have did it..

                  Unless you're a creationist and I don't know it...?
                  All Christians are creationists...
                  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
                    Of course you are. Tell me here how, where and why nature created self-awareness. Especially in light of the fact that self-awareness is not necessary for survival. Most creature do not have it and survive just fine.
                    I have already addressed all of this, including the logical fallacy of your last sentence. Since I am wordy as is, I'll refer you to my previous posts.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    But when it comes to self-awareness - nature must have did it.
                    Yes, I conclude that reason/perception are results of an evolutionary process. That is a conclusion based on the available evidence - not an assumption. All other attributes of our being are derived via evolution, so I see no reason to separate this one out and treat it differently.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    All Christians are creationists...
                    Yes - but some are "pure" creationists (no evolution - god created us as is) and some recognize the scientific validity of evolution and simply push god's creative activity to "creating the process." I use the term "creationist," as I think most people do, in the first sense.
                    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 JimL View Post
                      I'm merely trying to explain to Adrift the difference between the concept of a multiverse and that of an absolute nothingness. The former has a scientific basis, the latter does not.
                      No you're not, you were objecting to him using that concept in order to point out the obvious: A quantum vacuum with all its strange pontentias is not nothing. It goes down to a simple axiom of metaphysical reasoning. From nothing, nothing comes. It is at the center of our understanding of causality. Some would argue, I being one of them, that it is the same as saying "Every effect has an explanation."

                      Saying that the universe came from a special false vacuum state, and bubbled out into this state (as in chaotic inflation theory), not the same as saying "The universe came from nothing."

                      You might as well say to a farmer who wished he had two horses instead of two cows "Well what if you just called them horses?"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        I understood it just fine. Do you fail to grasp the difference between meaninglessness and incorrectness, or are you just unfamiliar with the longer words?
                        I understood it even better, and that's worse than not understanding it. It was like nails running down a blackboard to me. The less said about it the better.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Yes, I conclude that reason/perception are results of an evolutionary process. That is a conclusion based on the available evidence - not an assumption. All other attributes of our being are derived via evolution, so I see no reason to separate this one out and treat it differently.
                          Yet there is no evidence on how or where or even why the process created self-awareness, especially in light of the fact that, given what we know, it is not necessary for survival. So yes, you are working on an assumption, that because the process seems to do certain things it must have done this also.

                          Yes - but some are "pure" creationists (no evolution - god created us as is) and some recognize the scientific validity of evolution and simply push god's creative activity to "creating the process." I use the term "creationist," as I think most people do, in the first sense.
                          And Christians fall in on all points in between - but all remained creationists...
                          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
                            Yet there is no evidence on how or where or even why the process created self-awareness, especially in light of the fact that, given what we know, it is not necessary for survival. So yes, you are working on an assumption, that because the process seems to do certain things it must have done this also.
                            Of course there is. We have an enormous body of evidence about how evolution works. We have an enormous body of evidence about the relationship between mind and brain. We have an enormous body of evidence about the cognitive differences between different species and their links to brain complexity. What I fail to see is why we should isolate out "reasoning" and "consciousness" from all of our other attributes as somehow separately derived. Since all other attributes we possess are derived via evolution, someone would need to make the case for why this one should be treated differently*.

                            And you continue to make the same logical error, somehow just assuming that because abstract beliefs are not necessary for survival, they do not benefit from the same accuracy of perception and reasoning that IS linked to survival. I gave you an analogy to show how your logic here fails. If you did not see it or understand it, I can repeat it and explain if you wish.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            And Christians fall in on all points in between - but all remained creationists...
                            I'm not going to get sidetracked by this issue. I used the term "creationist" to refer to those who reject the proposition that evolution is real and how species develop. My question was intended to determine if you reject evolution, because THAT could be the source of our disconnect. If you believe evolution is not a real phenomenon, then this discussion is mostly pointless.



                            *Edited to Add: coincidentally, I happen to be listening to a podcast where they discuss that modern Artifical Intelligence systems are beginning to produce non-deterministic results, and there is even evidence of a form of "dreaming" in these systems. Indeed, they are having to insert program elements to eliminate these things from the desired output of the system, because they are a form of "distraction" for the computer. As computing power increases, and program complexity increases with it, it is becoming increasinly likely that consciousness will emerge from a system comprised entirely of non-organic elements. That would significantly change this discussion.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 01:54 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
                              Of course there is. We have an enormous body of evidence about how evolution works. We have an enormous body of evidence about the relationship between mind and brain. We have an enormous body of evidence about the cognitive differences between different species and their links to brain complexity. What I fail to see is why we should isolate out "reasoning" and "consciousness" from all of our other attributes as somehow separately derived. Since all other attributes we possess are derived via evolution, someone would need to make the case for why this one should be treated differently*.
                              Again, that is still an assumption. And consciousness is different in the sense that it not necessary for survival. Let me quote Sam Harris whom I linked earlier:

                              The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view....

                              Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

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

                              https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii/
                              And you continue to make the same logical error, somehow just assuming that because abstract beliefs are not necessary for survival, they do not benefit from the same accuracy of perception and reasoning that IS linked to survival. I gave you an analogy to show how your logic here fails. If you did not see it or understand it, I can repeat it and explain if you wish.
                              I'm speaking of consciousness here, not necessarily abstract beliefs. And remember the rest of the animal kingdom survives just fine without abstract beliefs, so even those are not necessary for survival.

                              *Edited to Add: coincidentally, I happen to be listening to a podcast where they discuss that modern Artifical Intelligence systems are beginning to produce non-deterministic results, and there is even evidence of a form of "dreaming" in these systems. Indeed, they are having to insert program elements to eliminate these things from the desired output of the system, because they are a form of "distraction" for the computer. As computing power increases, and program complexity increases with it, it is becoming increasinly likely that consciousness will emerge from a system comprised entirely of non-organic elements. That would significantly change this discussion.
                              Right, intelligence creating intelligence...
                              Last edited by seer; 02-12-2018, 02:43 PM.
                              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
                                Again, that is still an assumption. And consciousness is different in the sense that it not necessary for survival. Let me quote Sam Harris whom I linked earlier:
                                If you don't know this yet about me, I don't really think much of quote mining. An argument from authority is meaningless if the authority is wrong and/or biased. So his statement, "the only thing like consciousness is consciousness itself" is true, but it makes the same logical mistake you made earlier: it says nothing about the possibility of consciousness from nonconscious elements. There are things made up of X elements that are not conscious, and things made up of exactly those same elements that are. The difference between the two sets of things is a) their organization in a form that is living, and b) the degree of their complexity. It is a groundless assumption that consciousness cannot arise from these basic elements when there are distinct diffences in the arrangement of these elements. You would first need to rule out that this arrangement is not somehow tied to consciousness - but when you try to do that, you find immediately that if you compromise the arrangement of these elements you likewise compromise consciousness and reasoning. The reasonable conclusion is that the two are related. We do not know how, but we DO know that they are. So all that remains is a force to create the arrangement. Clearly, evolution can create complex systems, and is responsible for all of our other attributes, so there is no justification for isolating this one and treating it diffferently.

                                We also see signs of reasoning/consciousness in other beings than humans - and the degree to which these are developed is directly related to the comlexity of their brains. I do not see how anyone can ignore this body of evidence. I certainly will not.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                I'm speaking of consciousness here, not necessarily abstract beliefs. And remember the rest of the animal kingdom survives just fine without abstract beliefs, so even those are not necessary for survival.
                                Many members of the animal AND plant kingdoms survive quite well without consciousness or even an ability to reason, surviving only on instinct and accurate perception (of some sort). I have no idea what you think you are proving by continually re-asserting this. I have previously shown the logical flaw, if you are saying what I think you are saying.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Right, intelligence creating intelligence...
                                Why did I know you were going to say that?

                                The point of my comment was to note that it appears that intelligence CAN arise from base materials that are not intelligent in a different configuration. Unless you are suggesting that a human being can somehow imbue these materials with a property they do not have (other than their arrangement)? So unless you are proposing that humans are adding something other than arrangement - then it logically follows that anything that can provide for that kind of complexity can result in consciousness emerging. I submit that evolution is a process that canproduce increasing degrees of complexity, hence it is capable of producing consciousness IF consciousness benefits the being in terms of survival. Given that consciousness and reasoning, together with bipedalism and opposing thumbs, are the primary drivers for our ability to manipulate the environment, resulting in things as complex as the tools we use today, and we now dominate every environmental niche we enter, it clearly has survival value.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 03:26 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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                142 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
                                80 responses
                                425 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