Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can Atheism Account For Rationality

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

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    What i meant by "illusion" is the qualia, the phenomenal representations of reality in the black as night cavity wherein resides the brain. The qualia are a production of the brain, or as you put it, the highly complex synaptic firings, which somehow represent in our brains the sense data processed therein. I agree we don't understand how that works, no one does. Indeed, that is the issue at hand. So, I think we are basically in agreement as to what we mean by "illusion," and I don't know about Sam Harris, but I think that he probably means the same thing.
    So - no. What you are describing is "business as usual" for the brain: we don't perceive all of reality and how we perceive it is as electrochemical inputs. Perhaps "electrochemical simulation" would be a better choice of words. "Illusion" (as it is commonly used) implies seeing something that is essentially not there - it is a figment. I think you and Harris are misusing the word. I understand what you are saying - I just don't think it adds any clarity.
    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
      What do you consider many? Only about ten species that we know of pass the mirror test for self awareness. And you don't know if their subjective experience (qualia) is anything like ours.
      We don’t even know if our children’s subjective experience are anything like ours, but it is reasonable to assume, based upon observation and personal experience, that it is very similar. And so, with other sentient creatures such as chimpanzees.

      Even if the immaterial mind is dependent on the physical brain, it is still immaterial and beyond science.
      No more “immaterial” than the light coming from a light bulb. Turn off the electricity and the light ceases. In short, the “immaterial” is dependent upon the “material” …something science understands perfectly well.

      But the immaterial mind is really different from the physical: One is material one is not. So it is not an illusion.
      See above.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        No more “immaterial” than the light coming from a light bulb. Turn off the electricity and the light ceases. In short, the “immaterial” is dependent upon the “material” …something science understands perfectly well.
        So, with this I disagree. It is different. The light coming from a light bulb is still a physical thing: it is waves of electromagnetic energy that can be measured and quantified. We can measure and quantify similar electromagnet readings from the human skull - but how they relate to "mind" and how "mind" emerges from brain is still not known. As with Jim, you seem to be skating as far to the material extreme as Seer and Chrawnus want to skate to the immaterial extreme.

        At the end of the day, we do not really understand how mind emerges, only THAT it does. And there is something ineffable about it. Will we ever understand? I hope so. But right now "I don't know" is pretty much the best we can do.
        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 Tassman View Post
          We don’t even know if our children’s subjective experience are anything like ours, but it is reasonable to assume, based upon observation and personal experience, that it is very similar. And so, with other sentient creatures such as chimpanzees.
          Except we know from personal experience how our mind process the subjective, we have no idea with Chimps.


          No more “immaterial” than the light coming from a light bulb. Turn off the electricity and the light ceases. In short, the “immaterial” is dependent upon the “material” …something science understands perfectly well.

          Light is made up by physical particles, there is no evidence that the mind is made up of particles. And if I'm not mistaken light keeps traveling even after the source has been shut off. That we still see the light from long dead stars.
          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
            You are welcome to your doubts, but they don't really have much of a basis, IMO, except to serve your pre-existing worldview. Right now, all we know is "there's a relationship" and "there is a feedback mechanism" and "mind appears to arise from brain." We don't know how. BUt then we don't know how a LOT of things happen, so
            And your pre-existing worldview doesn't color your position? Why should I believe we that science can figure everything out?

            I don't "know" the mind is not supernatural any more than I "know" there is no god. As noted, the supernatural is not amenable to scientific investigation, so it lies beyond the reach of "knowledge" and is more a matter of religious faith. Since the available evidence suggests to me that the so-called "supernatural" lies in the realm of human mythology, I have no reason to consider the human mind anything other than natural. When/if there is compelling evidence for the supernatural being more than myth, then I'll probably give it more serious consideration.
            See I don't agree with this, I think some supernatural things may be beyond scientific investigation, but then again I think this universe is supernatural and is open to investigation - to degrees.


            Basically, Seer, the "supernatural" can be pretty much anything - which makes it a little hard to have any meaningful discussion about it. Even Harry Potter's world had rules and repeatable behavior. It takes a bit more than that to make something "real."
            I have no idea what you mean, obviously this supernatural universe functions on logical laws, repeatable behavior, is intelligible and rational.
            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
              So - no. What you are describing is "business as usual" for the brain: we don't perceive all of reality and how we perceive it is as electrochemical inputs. Perhaps "electrochemical simulation" would be a better choice of words. "Illusion" (as it is commonly used) implies seeing something that is essentially not there - it is a figment. I think you and Harris are misusing the word. I understand what you are saying - I just don't think it adds any clarity.
              Okay, I get what you're saying, the term "illusion" may be the wrong term to use, but other than that we are in agreement. As far as Sam Harris goes, the Illusion he spoke of, was the illusion of the self, the illusion of the ghost in the machine that had the subjective experiences. I don't think that he concluded that the subjective experiences themselves were illusion's either.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
                Great, then I can dismiss your claim about the evidence pointing towards the brain giving rise to the mind.

                But seriously, this is a great way of avoiding having to deal with the arguments. If any sort of dualism is true then the mind would inevitably be outside of the purview of scientific scrutiny, and we could never have the kind of evidence (scientific) that I'm suspecting that you want presented. So any non-scientific evidence would simply be rejected as "not good enough".



                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I agree with your adjustment - the mind can only be "self-reported." Since we lack any means of getting "self-reports" from fetuses and newborns, we get no first-hand evidence and have to work with what we have: behavior. But that is evidence, Chrawnus, that we accept in may other disciplines. No one has ever seen a quark. No one has even seen a black hole. There are things the human senses simply cannot see or experience because they exist outside the range of our senses. We regularly use the "effects" or "behavior" these things manifest to hypothesize on the thing itself, and then seek ways to confirm the hypotheses. You are putting "mind" in a completely separate class, immune to such examinations, which I do not find to be justified.
                Self-reports of mental states aren't even first-hand evidence (imo the only first-hand evidence when it comes to the mind are your own mental states and experiences), but I'm digressing.

                I think quarks and black holes are such disparate entities from a thing like the mind that you're essentially comparing apples and motorcycles. In the case of the mind it's not just that the human senses cannot see or experience it, but rather that it would be a case of the "experiencer" trying to turn itself inside out in order to study itself.

                That being said, I never said that we cannot use the behaviors of people (specifically newborns and fetuses in this case) to hypothesize on the mind, my claim was that the maturing behavior of a newborn is not evidence of the mind being caused by the developing brain.

                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                You are correct - it doesn't. It provides simple insight into what CAN trigger such an event, and eliminates the "it must be the soul/mind" existing independently as a sole possible explanation. And since we have no evidence that the soul/mind exist independently...there is no reason that I can see, at present, to cling to that view, unless it is somehow already driven by the "mind-before-brain" pre-existing view.
                It's not that we have no evidence, but more that the requirements you set for what is acceptable evidence would conveniently eliminate any kind of possible evidence we could have for the soul/mind existing independently from consideration.


                I suspect you are layering too much on what I am saying. So here's what I see:

                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Brain-before-mind worldview: a large and growing body of evidence that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. No single piece of evidence eliminates the reality that mind-before-brain is possible. The entirety makes a fairly compelling portrait.

                Mind-before-brain worldview: not a shred of confirmable evidence that this view is real. It cannot be eliminated as a possibility, but there is simply no supporting evidence that mind can/does exist separately from brain and either pre-exists or post-exists it.

                Looking at the picture, the more likely reality, IMO, is that brain gives rise to mind. I cannot see a justification for holding the opposing worldview, outside of a religiously driven one.
                From my perspective, the "Brain-before-mind"-worldview is in the exact same situation that you're claiming the "Mind-before-brain"-worldview is in with regards to evidence. There is simply no justification to interpret the data/evidence we have as pointing towards the mind being an emergent property of the brain, outside of a philosophically driven one. You're allowing your bias and philosophical worldview to color your view of what the evidence is saying just as much as I am.



                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                You are saying: thought is more associated with mind than brain. (please correct if I have this wrong)
                I am saying: thought IS mind - you are creating a distinction where none exists. Hence there is no different between thought/brain and mind/brain - they have the same relationship because they are the same thing.

                In other words, what you are saying is "mind is closer to mind than it is to brain." Agreed - and tautologically true, so not very meaningful.

                Well, if mind actually was just a collection of thoughts then I'd agree that it was a tautology. Seeing as there is no good reason to accept this definition of mind however, I see no reason to accept your assertion that it is a tautology. But even if I accept your definition for arguments sake it's still the case that you're making my case for me. A thing is always more closely associated with itself than anything that is not itself. So if I accepted your definition of mind then I would have even stronger justification for saying that thoughts are more closely associated with the mind than they are with the brain.


                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                So, I have never "decided" anything without thought. I have a feeling you have not either. Focus/concentration is more interesting. If we use a camera as an analogy, you are attempting to distinguish the ability of the camera to collect images, with the specific orientation of the camera which determines which pictures it is taking. Again, I fin myself sitting here, trying to conceive of any decision to "focus" or "concentrate" on something that does not take the form of a thought. I'm finding myself unable to. I understand the distinction you are trying to make, and we certainy have different categories of thought, and different aspects of "mind." But they are all aspects of the same thing.

                I have never decided anything without thought either. That doesn't mean my will is identical to the thoughts, rather, the thoughts are the objects of my will. And same goes for our focus/concentration. The thoughts that you're focusing/concentrating on is not your focus/concentration, but the objects of that focus/concentration.


                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Then try imagining engaging your will or focusing/concentrating without thought.
                By your logic I would have to conclude that a gun is actually a bullet because it's impossible to use it without ammunition.

                Obviously the fact that I cannot engage my will or focus/concentrate on something without thought doesn't say the first thing about whether or not my will and focus are simply "different categories of thought".


                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                My body has a collection of input devices we call "senses." They furnish my brain with the basic data on which thought operates. The data is just data. The ability of the brain to to process that data to form images, smells, textures seems to me to be the brain's equivalent of basic firmware. It happens at a level more akin to the brain managing autonomic physiology - although in a different domain. "Mind" is the software that operates on that data - consciously and unconsciously.
                Your experiences (visual, aural, kinetic etc.) of the outside world exist in your mind however, not in your brain. The brain activity that gives rise to these experience might exist in the brain, but the brain activity is not identical to these experiences. So it follows that the mind contains something other than just thoughts, namely sensory experiences.

                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Really? Try this experiment: try to imagine something that has absolutely no relationship to anything you have ever experienced: no attribute that is associated with your own experiences. Imagination, it turns out, is nothing more than the ability of the mind to recombine attributes of disparate things in our experience to form new combinations. You cannot even begin to imagine an attribute unrelated to any attribute you have ever experienced.
                I have a hard time seeing how this is a counter towards my claim that imagination is an aspect of the mind that is something other than thought.


                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                You have their name tags swapped...


                (this last part is perhaps the most fun of the whole exchange...!)
                Unlike you I don't trust the name tags. I ask them for their names instead, so there's no chance of a mix up on my part.

                (I agree... )

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Except we know from personal experience how our mind process the subjective, we have no idea with Chimps.
                  No, we do NOT understand how the mind processes life-time memories or to what degree it has been are programmed by genes and environmental pressures. But based upon observation and personal experience, we can reasonable assume that our children and fellow sentient creatures like chimpanzees react similarly to similar stimuli.

                  Light is made up by physical particles, there is no evidence that the mind is made up of particles.
                  In fact, they both emit radiation, but my purpose was an analogy between light and mind both requiring an active source to survive.

                  And if I'm not mistaken light keeps traveling even after the source has been shut off. That we still see the light from long dead stars.
                  The stars being “long dead” being the point. Like the mind, they no longer generate energy.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And your pre-existing worldview doesn't color your position?
                    Color? Yes. Always. It is impossible to avoid that. Which is why we have to constantly be on the look-out for things we believe/assert/accept without adequate evidence, solely because they align with our worldview.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Why should I believe we that science can figure everything out?
                    Where did I say "science can figure everything out?" Some things are beyond science. I doubt science will ever tell me what to get my wife for her birthday, or how to handle my son's current mental state, or how to advise my other son on what to do about his hyper-catholic girlfriend.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    See I don't agree with this, I think some supernatural things may be beyond scientific investigation, but then again I think this universe is supernatural and is open to investigation - to degrees.
                    I have no basis for believing the supernatural even exists, so I don't see how science can investigate what does not exist. If/when I have cause to think the supernatural exists, then I guess I'll have to figure out if science can explore it.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I have no idea what you mean, obviously this supernatural universe functions on logical laws, repeatable behavior, is intelligible and rational.
                    Obviously this universe operates on predictable/intelligible/repeatable principles which we can study and explore. I see no reason to posit the existence of a "supernatural" in the conventional 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
                      Okay, I get what you're saying, the term "illusion" may be the wrong term to use, but other than that we are in agreement. As far as Sam Harris goes, the Illusion he spoke of, was the illusion of the self, the illusion of the ghost in the machine that had the subjective experiences. I don't think that he concluded that the subjective experiences themselves were illusion's either.
                      I don't think the "self" is an illusion either. It is a pervasive experience of all humans I know of. It is an existent reality, albeit one we do not understand. Illusion is about perceiving something that is not there and is not real - it is not about material/immaterial.
                      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 Chrawnus View Post
                        Great, then I can dismiss your claim about the evidence pointing towards the brain giving rise to the mind.
                        You can if you wish, but that was not presented without evidence. You disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, and I understand that. I simply do not see an evidentiary basis for that disagreement. It appears to arise from your worldview, as best I can tell.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        But seriously, this is a great way of avoiding having to deal with the arguments. If any sort of dualism is true then the mind would inevitably be outside of the purview of scientific scrutiny, and we could never have the kind of evidence (scientific) that I'm suspecting that you want presented. So any non-scientific evidence would simply be rejected as "not good enough".
                        So your argument is, "it's supernatural - so I don't need to provide evidence?"

                        Chrawnus, if that works for you, then so be it. But it is exactly that kind of thinking that began my journey out of theism. I grew dissatisfied with "it's god's mystery" and all of it's variants.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Self-reports of mental states aren't even first-hand evidence (imo the only first-hand evidence when it comes to the mind are your own mental states and experiences), but I'm digressing.
                        You should re-read that sentence. I think it refutes itself.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I think quarks and black holes are such disparate entities from a thing like the mind that you're essentially comparing apples and motorcycles. In the case of the mind it's not just that the human senses cannot see or experience it, but rather that it would be a case of the "experiencer" trying to turn itself inside out in order to study itself.
                        Agreed. The point was that we often have to study what we cannot "see," not "they are the same."

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        That being said, I never said that we cannot use the behaviors of people (specifically newborns and fetuses in this case) to hypothesize on the mind, my claim was that the maturing behavior of a newborn is not evidence of the mind being caused by the developing brain.
                        Evidence - yes. Proof - no. I think people regularly confuse those two concepts.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        It's not that we have no evidence, but more that the requirements you set for what is acceptable evidence would conveniently eliminate any kind of possible evidence we could have for the soul/mind existing independently from consideration.
                        If the mind is real, I don't see why that follows.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I suspect you are layering too much on what I am saying. So here's what I see:

                        From my perspective, the "Brain-before-mind"-worldview is in the exact same situation that you're claiming the "Mind-before-brain"-worldview is in with regards to evidence. There is simply no justification to interpret the data/evidence we have as pointing towards the mind being an emergent property of the brain, outside of a philosophically driven one. You're allowing your bias and philosophical worldview to color your view of what the evidence is saying just as much as I am.
                        You keep repeating that - but without any real substantiation. The evidence I have outlined exists - is real - and tells a story. It doesn't "prove." It does strongly indicate. Why you do not see that, I am not sure.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Well, if mind actually was just a collection of thoughts then I'd agree that it was a tautology. Seeing as there is no good reason to accept this definition of mind however, I see no reason to accept your assertion that it is a tautology. But even if I accept your definition for arguments sake it's still the case that you're making my case for me. A thing is always more closely associated with itself than anything that is not itself. So if I accepted your definition of mind then I would have even stronger justification for saying that thoughts are more closely associated with the mind than they are with the brain.
                        And all you would be doing is affirming the principle of identity, which I presume we both already know to be true. You wouldn't be saying anything about mind/brain.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I have never decided anything without thought either. That doesn't mean my will is identical to the thoughts, rather, the thoughts are the objects of my will. And same goes for our focus/concentration. The thoughts that you're focusing/concentrating on is not your focus/concentration, but the objects of that focus/concentration.
                        So now you have affirmed that I am having thoughts about my thoughts. Chrawnus, we can have thoughts about water, thoughts about thoughts, thoughts about philosophy, thoughts about concentrating, thoughts about....well...pretty much anything. But they are simply different thoughts - maybe different kinds of thoughts - but thought is mind and mind is thought. Why you need to create this distinction of yours is not clear to me.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        By your logic I would have to conclude that a gun is actually a bullet because it's impossible to use it without ammunition.
                        No - because a gun and a bullet are distinct things with distinct roles. If we are using your gun analogy, you are separating out the pointing of the gun from the gun as a separate thing. In the material world - it is. The gun is an object - and the will/focus of the wielder points it. But that will/focus is in the thoughts of the wielder. Now you are trying to do the same thing with thoughts themselves - or with the mind - or perhaps with the brain? I have no idea. The separation makes no sense to me.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Obviously the fact that I cannot engage my will or focus/concentrate on something without thought doesn't say the first thing about whether or not my will and focus are simply "different categories of thought".
                        Perhaps this is obvious to you. Your argument is not very obvious to me.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Your experiences (visual, aural, kinetic etc.) of the outside world exist in your mind however, not in your brain. The brain activity that gives rise to these experience might exist in the brain, but the brain activity is not identical to these experiences. So it follows that the mind contains something other than just thoughts, namely sensory experiences.
                        As best I can tell, they exist in both. They exist in the brain as neural activity that can be measured and quantified. They exist in the mind as "vision" and "smell" and so forth that the "I" can see/hear, etc. As I noted - they are input - as with any other computer.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I have a hard time seeing how this is a counter towards my claim that imagination is an aspect of the mind that is something other than thought.
                        As with the rest of the things you want to separate from "mind," imagination is nothing more than the mind/brain combining pre-existing memory/experience in different combinations. It's is simply yet another example of "thought."

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Unlike you I don't trust the name tags. I ask them for their names instead, so there's no chance of a mix up on my part.

                        (I agree... )
                        Ahh...I see...unfortunately, the one you are counting on pretty regularly deceives. The other one is known for her honesty. Sorting them out can be a challenge, but it can be done.
                        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
                          I have no basis for believing the supernatural even exists, so I don't see how science can investigate what does not exist. If/when I have cause to think the supernatural exists, then I guess I'll have to figure out if science can explore it.
                          What makes you think anything, you, life or the universe is natural, what does that mean? Sure you may be following accepted definitions, but what makes you think that those definitions are correct? Those are assumptions without evidence.
                          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 makes you think anything, you, life or the universe is natural, what does that mean?
                            I mean "part of the universe and operating on predictable, intelligible, repeatable principles."

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Sure you may be following accepted definitions, but what makes you think that those definitions are correct?
                            I try to use dictionary definitions wherever possible. In the case of "natural," the definition is not all that helpful. It generally refers to "not made by human hands." So I tend to use it as above.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Those are assumptions without evidence.
                            I have no idea what assumptions you are referring to.
                            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
                              I mean "part of the universe and operating on predictable, intelligible, repeatable principles."
                              And why is that a property of a natural universe as opposed to a property of a supernatural universe?

                              I have no idea what assumptions you are referring to.
                              You assumption above of what constitutes a natural universe as opposed to a supernatural universe. Assumption without evidence.
                              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
                                And why is that a property of a natural universe as opposed to a property of a supernatural universe?
                                Supernatural is defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

                                Since I have no basis for believing such things exist outside of the mythology and imagination of the human mind, it is not something that I spend a great deal of time on (anymore).

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                You assumption above of what constitutes a natural universe as opposed to a supernatural universe. Assumption without evidence.
                                Since I have no evidence for a "supernatural" I do not have a corresponding belief in a supernatural. Since the evidence of a "natural" universe is all around me, I have more than adequate basis for belief in a "natural" universe. That seems fairly simple, evidence-based beliefs to me. I'm not sure where the confusion lay.
                                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 shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                513 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X