Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Pragmatic,
What is wrong with you? You are the one showing a sophomoric disposition. I simply stated that you can call it what you will, but I am the only one in this discussion that has offered something for consideration. You haven't, and you still won't produce any suggestions that would rival mine. As I mentioned, you keep making outlandish statements like this to DIVERT the real issue from your unwillingness and inability to produce a counter suggestion.
Your statement "I'm not trying to defeat you or win an argument" is simply false. When two people discuss differences, there are always three possibilities: (1) Someone is right, (2) Someone is wrong, or (3) We're both wrong. This is why we bandy ideas to see which is the more logical and reasonable. And it is possible that we both can be wrong. But in order for this to be accomplished the other side must produce a cogent and reasonable counter position, which you haven't, and according to you, never will. Why? Because according to you, you are too sedentary to investigate and put forth an effort to come up with a counter argument. Or maybe, this is all a ruse to cover up the truth that you have no real and substantial argument to counter mine. Why? Because none can be given to an argument that makes so much sense.
And then you go on this tirade - " I have disproved your own statements with your own words several times now....", which is farther from the truth. I have given the logical steps which support my conclusion. As I mentioned, you're so biased and myopic that what I say is automatically discounted, even though, all of what I've said is supported my reality and experience. I will show this once again in my next post where you talk about logic.
I am so confused by you and probably the real reason why you don't get it, because you are a confused person. The reason why you are arguing with me is because you don't believe that a MIND is responsible for our reality. You attribute our existence to Big Bang cosmology and tenets of Evolution. That's what you said. And you glorify the Four Horsemen, because that is what they believe. So your TACIT conclusion is, I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT NO MIND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS UNIVERSE! The positions and people you admire are MATERIALISTS, which means they believe that something physical has always existed and is what is responsible for our universe. So quit playing this game with me and act like you're not tacitly arguing for this position.
You don't need a couter-position to attack a position.
Translation:
I don't have one that can rival yours, so I'll just attack yours, (with the response, I'm only asking questions!"), knowing that I really don't have anything worthwhile to say.
An attack means to go on the offensive, and when someone goes on the offensive this means that they believe their idea or position is the better one. So yes, you are wrong. You need to show your idea or position as the better one, than the old tired idea of "I don't know!"
Plus, Pragmatic is doing fine on his own. He can answer for himself and doesn't help from the peanut gallery.
@ Gabriel
- "I don't have one that can rival yours, so I'll just attack yours, (with the response, I'm only asking questions!"), knowing that I really don't have anything worthwhile to say."
So you're saying that "asking questions" is something that not worthwhile?
- "An attack means to.."
You are the one talking about an attack, I'm not. So your defending your own claim about me, that is not supported by evidence.
- "You need to show your idea or position as the better one, than the old tired idea of "I don't know!""
No, "you" don't. Why would one need to?
You keep creating false dilemmas from your narrow world view. Everything might not be as black & white as you see it. Nyarlathotep is perfectly correct, just as I have previously explained: One does not need a counter position to question (or even disprove) an argument.
- "He can answer for himself and doesn't help from the peanut gallery."
There you go, showing your true colors again. Can't you at least try to keep this out of the sandbox?
@ Gabriel
- "What is wrong with you?"
ad hominem, who would have thought? Please, restrain yourself.
- "I am the only one in this discussion that has offered something for consideration. You haven't..."
Yes, my questions can't possibly be "something for consideration". Is that's why you wont answer them?
- "...you keep making outlandish statements like this to DIVERT the real issue..."
What YOU consider to be "the real issue" perhaps. But I consider your basic argument to be the only issue in this discussion. That you give your desired discussion of a counter argument some sort of "super priority" is your problem, not mine. I haven't even addressed that part.
Your entire last paragraph is a big misrepresentation of me.
- "...you glorify the Four Horsemen..."
No, I don't. I used your own phrasing against you, but switched the topic to the opposite. But even though I have explained it again afterwards you still don't seem to understand. All I said (by using your phrasing) was that unless you have actually explored the opposition, how can you make an informed decision.
This was not so much an argument to actually do so, instead I was trying to show you that your own argumentation works just as well in the opposite direction.
- "So your TACIT conclusion is, I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT NO MIND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS UNIVERSE!"
No, absolutely not! Can you please try to make an effort to stop putting words in other peoples mouths!? I don't know how to say it any more clearly than I already have: I DON'T KNOW.
To claim that "I know for a fact" would be hypocritical and dishonest, not only towards others but towards myself. Because, I don't know!. So I'm not claiming to know and I'm not claiming ANYTHING except that your argument and answers does not make sense. You keep inserting things I'm claiming though. But that is you interpreting through your filter.
I think your main argument is extremely unlikely so I ask questions about it. Where you have gotten the fixed idea that I'm partaking in your desired discussion about "counter arguments" I have no idea.
- "So quit playing this game with me and act like you're not tacitly arguing for this position."
I'm not, I never have been. I don't get where you got that from.
@ Gabriel
I have to thank you, since you actually got me interested in starting to look into the subject of Logic.
The argument:
1. We find properties in nature (i.e., order, synergy, fine-tuning, laws, etc).
2. the properties of nature are consistent with processes of mind
3. Therefore, an eternal mind is what is responsible for our universe and all things therein.
Point 1:
I'll give you that we find properties in the sense of the fundamental physical constants and the basic laws like for example gravity and electromagnetism. The rest is still fleeting undefined assumptions.
Point 2:
Highly doubtful to be correct. Especially since you have not answered anything about what "processes of mind" are, or how they are similar to the properties in nature.
Point 3:
Why it would have to be Eternal is still a gigantic mystery. And what does responsible mean? I'm assuming you mean "created".
Lets substitute the different components with letters to show the logic form of the argument.
N = "properties in nature"
P = "processes of mind"
M = "mind"
U = "our universe and all things therein"
In it's logic form:
1. We find N.
2. N is consistent with P.
3. Therefore, M is responsible for U.
There is nothing even remotely to connect point 1 and 2 with point 3. So how does point 1 and point 2 actually lead to point 3?
Pragmatic,
Your welcome!
Point 1:
We can only draw conclusions with things that are consistent with our reality. Meaning, what we experience in life is true and factual. In everything, we first begin with human beings who are intellectual, imaginative (creative), and inquisitive. With these properties of mind, they have taken the material world and manipulated it for their enjoyment and success (advancement). What we have learned from this process is, whatever humans have done and accomplished has shown to be orderly, complex, synergistic, created rules and laws, etc. For example, architect, roads, governments, engineering, medicine, law and order, etc. are products of the use of mind and intellect. Now, since humans are inquisitive, the discipline of science evolved, and is the reason why we have made advancements in certain areas. And what did these scientists discover? That matter was governed by rules and laws, brining about the order and synergy needed for life to exist. What they found was, matter is finely-tune to an extent so precise that many of the fathers of physics, such as Max Planck concluded that there must be a Greater Spirit or Mind responsible for our universe.
(Now because of false claims made by false religions, many of which I agree are ridiculous, a new idea has emerged in trying to get rid of religions, that these are missing the bigger picture. That the problem is not with religion, namely true religion, the problem is with fallacious ideas and actions of false religions that are causing many modern-day scientists and physicists to disprove the concept of God. Instead of attacking what needs to be attacked, the foolish ideas and actions of men in the name of religion, many are now attacking the only conclusion warranted by reality, that an Intelligence is responsible for our universe. And as I asked before, if not, then give an alternative.)
Point 2:
Your statement "Highly doubtful to be correct" suggests that something else could be responsible for the properties of nature. I'm still waiting on your suggestion. Show how organic matter has the wherewithal to organize itself in a precise manner for life to exist. And if this was the case, then why don't we see the universe teeming with life?
Let's simplify this...
The definition of order is a logical and comprehensible arrangement of separate elements. The definition of complexity is the quality of being intricate and compounded. The definition of synergy is things working together. The definition of law/rule is a principle regulating an action. And fine-tuning is defined as precision.
Every property of nature reveals the process of mind. Is not mind logical and comprehensible (order)? Does not mind give us intricate details and compound items (complexity)? When things work together, doesn't this suggest that a mind caused things to work together (synergy)? How does a constant rule or law form, if not for the process of mind? And precision of matters, is always the result of mind (fine-tuning)? Are you really going to say that there is something else responsible for these things? Then let me hear it.
Point 3:
If matter is known to be created, then that means the matter is not eternal and is Someone or Something is responsible for it. The only logical conclusion would be Someone or Something greater than it, but not its equal. Hence, if matter is shown to have had a beginning, then logically we can conclude that this entity is beyond matter, time, space, and is eternal. There is no mystery here, rather a deduction of ideas leading to a sound conclusion.
This is why I've already shown you that today's physicists have already admitted that everything is made up of fields (energy), which is non-material. Sean Carroll said that this field of energy "miraculously" gives rise to particles. The science confirms the reality of a mind behind it all, but they quickly dismiss any claim of God because they are biased against false religious ideas and actions.
I've shown how N is consistent with P; therefore, M is responsible for U. Why don't you give a syllogism of what you are advocating for? Let me see if I can do it for you.
1. In the void of nothingness, energy spontaneously appeared and erupted, giving rise to matter.
2. Over billions of years, this matter expanded with great precision, and from simplicity (a single cell) gave rise to the complexity of our universe.
3. Therefore, we are the only life here by chance and luck with no purpose, but to eat, drink, sleep, have sex, and die.
Yup, that is real logical. I think I'll jump on board with this argument, It gives me hope!
So again I ask my question: What is more ordered? A room with a new deck of cards (in a new deck of cards, the cards are in order) sitting in the corner, or the same room with the cards scattered about the room? And how much more ordered is the answer to the question above than the other choice?
-------------------------
which of the previous room has more complexity and how much more complex is it (than the other room)?
-------------------------
Again, which room has more synergy, and how much more does it have?
-------------------------
Which room has more fine-tuning and how much more?
-------------------------
Fields are physical quantities.
-------------------------
Those 2 are strawmen.
-------------------------
I hate to sound like a broken record, but this quickly leads to the question: how much precision is required to demand that a mind is responsible? And what are the dimensions/units this precision is measured in?
@ Gabriel
- "We can only draw conclusions with things that are consistent with our reality. Meaning, what we experience in life is true and factual."
What you call "consistent with our reality", seems to be pure subjective interpretation. Our experiences are interpreted, and the human mind has many known weaknesses.
To be sure about being correct about something, personal interpretation is by no means reliable. Outside corroboration is needed, hence the scientific method and peer review.
- "In everything, we first begin with human beings who are intellectual, imaginative (creative), and inquisitive."
This is a point that needs further explanation.
To study a specific phenomena and figure out how or why things work the way they do, we only include humans if they are a part of that phenomena. And there is certainly no need for the human to be the starting point, unless it's specifically observation of human behavior that is examined (and probably not even then).
Why would non-human issues have to include and start with humans or the human intellect?
To conclude that the universe is "fine-tuned" because it has specific properties that seem to be fixed, is only a limitation of the human mind.
The term "fine-tuned" implies a "tuner", just like talking about how the universe was "created" implies a creator. This is just disingenuous use of words.
If the universe came into existence with a specific set of properties and rules that are fixed, there is nothing that implies a mind behind it. Wouldn't it be much more probable that there was another set of properties and rules that led to the creation of the Universe?
To use words that imply the conclusion one wants to reach is begging the question.
- "...true religion..."
You keep giving yourself a free pass. You have "the true religion" and every other theist has a false religion, and atheists are just fooled by the other, obviously "false" religions. You are not the only one to make such claims, you know. It's horribly arrogant to assume that you alone know the truth. If you claimed that God had shown himself to you and that he showed you all the answers to every question you had, I would understand that you would claim to be the only one who knows the truth. I would think you were deluded, but I would understand your personal justification for making such a massively arrogant claim.
- "I asked before, if not, then give an alternative."
You also said you asked for the last time. Please, honor your own statements (I won't repeat this in your continuous begging for the same thing in the rest of your post, that would be redundant).
Conclusion of your answers to point 1:
You reiterate your assumptions that are not warranted by anything else than personal subjective interpretation. No added explanation.
---
- "The definition of order is a logical and comprehensible arrangement of separate elements. The definition of complexity is the quality of being intricate and compounded. The definition of synergy is things working together. The definition of law/rule is a principle regulating an action. And fine-tuning is defined as precision."
You are adding subjective qualities to the definition of order: "comprehensible". Does this mean that order is subjective value?
In any case, these definitions does nothing to add anything from your previous statements. How are they "consistent with processes of mind"?
What does the word "consistent" actually mean here?
What are the processes of mind?
How are these properties "consistent" with the processes of mind?
- "Is not mind logical and comprehensible (order)?"
Comprehensible is a subjective quality. "Logical" and "order" are not the same thing, so I don't get the question. A mind can be utterly illogical, whimsical and scattered. It can even be even in conflict with itself.
- "Does not mind give us intricate details and compound items (complexity)?"
Give us, how, where, what?
If you mean that our mind can help us create details and compound items, then yes. But a created item and the mind that was behind creating it, are not the same and I don't know how you could claim that they are consistent.
- "When things work together, doesn't this suggest that a mind caused things to work together (synergy)?"
When "things work together"? In what way? What do you mean?
- "How does a constant rule or law form, if not for the process of mind?"
I don't know. But how can you justify inserting a god in the gap, when it is unknown?
- "And precision of matters, is always the result of mind (fine-tuning)?"
Is this a question or a statement?
What does "Precision of matters" mean? On what basis can you assert that it is always "the result of mind"?
Conclusion of your answers to point 2:
Raises more questions. No added explanation.
---
- "If matter is known to be created, then that means the matter is not eternal and is Someone or Something is responsible for it."
No, this is the god of the gaps argument. The part "Something or Someone is responsible for it" is plucked out of thin air and is unrelated to matter.
- "The only logical conclusion would be Someone or Something greater than it, but not its equal."
Do you have conclusive proof that your above statement is correct? No? Do you have accumulated supporting evidence? No? Then it is unknown.
If it is unknown, there is a vast array of possible answers. Choosing a specific alternative that you included in the premise, then declaring that it is the only logical conclusion, is begging the question.
Personal opinion and wild speculation is not a basis for logical conclusion.
- "There is no mystery here, rather a deduction of ideas leading to a sound conclusion."
You are overcompensating again, only revealing the insecurity in your statements. You call it a "sound" conclusion, when it is everything but. It is based on well documented logical fallacies.
- "This is why I've already shown you that today's physicists have already admitted that everything is made up of fields (energy), which is non-material."
It is a scientific finding and you are adding your specific set of subjective interpretation to it. On top of that, you are injecting dishonesty into it by adding another loaded word: "admitted"
Just what are you implying? Conspiracy?
Conclusion of your answers to point 3:
Asserting that "there is no mystery", when there are multiple clearly illustrated gaps, is not valid logic and explains nothing.
---
- "I've shown how N is consistent with P; therefore, M is responsible for U."
No, not by a long shot. If anything, I just have more questions. The logical leaps are just as wide as before. Saying "I've shown...", when you have done no such thing is very presumptuous.
Pragmatic,
I don't really think you know what you're saying and are highly confused. Let's address your illogical inconsistencies.
(1) If (as you say) "Our experiences are interpreted, and the human mind has many known weaknesses.To be sure about being correct about something, personal interpretation is by no means reliable. Outside corroboration is needed, hence the scientific method and peer review," then what makes your position and those who you label as outside corroboration as accurate? Is it possible that your and scientists and peer reviewers interpreted experiences and mind have many known weaknesses as well? If so, why should you and their conclusions have more validity than mine? The best you can claim making this argument is, it is a moot point to discuss anything, because we can't really know anything.
(2) Your next statement is just as perplexing. You said, "to study a specific phenomena and figure out how or why things work the way they do, we only include humans if they are a part of that phenomena. And there is certainly no need for the human to be the starting point, unless it's specifically observation of human behavior that is examined (and probably not even then). Why would non-human issues have to include and start with humans or the human intellect?" The reason why it begins with us is because we are the only creatures capable of intellect, and through this blessed intellect, we've been able to accomplish great things in this world. Even to have this discussion can only happen because we are humans, the only creatures to reason and think about such profound issues. Apes and monkeys can't do this. Therefore, through human activity everything is measured by these lenses.
(3) You said, "If the universe came into existence with a specific set of properties and rules that are fixed, there is nothing that implies a mind behind it. Wouldn't it be much more probable that there was another set of properties and rules that led to the creation of the Universe? To use words that imply the conclusion one wants to reach is begging the question." Then what does it imply? Where did the rules and set of properties come from? Your answer is another set of properties and rules may have produced it, but this doesn't address or bring closure to anything, because I could then say where did those initial set of properties and rules come from? It's your same argument, who created the Creator? If you look at this statement with great scrutiny, it is you my friend that brings up more questions, while I've maintained a logical explanation - there is always a First in a series, where the buck must stop, the beginning.
(4) You said, "you keep giving yourself a free pass. You have "the true religion" and every other theist has a false religion, and atheists are just fooled by the other, obviously "false" religions. You are not the only one to make such claims, you know. It's horribly arrogant to assume that you alone know the truth. If you claimed that God had shown himself to you and that he showed you all the answers to every question you had, I would understand that you would claim to be the only one who knows the truth. I would think you were deluded, but I would understand your personal justification for making such a massively arrogant claim." The difference between true and false religion is what is logical, reasonable, and filled with common sense. This has nothing to do with arrogance. The Bible teaches that there is only one true religion and many false religions (Matt. 7:15-23; Eph. 4:4; Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). The way one knows true religion is by comparing and contrasting claims made by any given religion and holding it under the scrutiny of logic, reason, and common sense. If it doesn't jive with rational thinking, then it must be discarded. I have never said that I believe my religion to ve true because God personally revealed it to me, (this could never be falsified), rather through the use of intellect, one can determine whether a religion is true and accurate.
(5) How in the world am I adding subjective meanings to the words order, precision, complexity, synergy, rules and laws, and fine-tuning? I gave text book definitions to all of these words. Any elementary age child knows what these terms mean. But as I noted, you want to re-write and re-define these words to fit your model of thinking. Let me interject this example here. If scientists working for the SETI project found a signal that contained order, complexity, and rules and laws, (based on our experiences and reality), would they and we not conclude that "intelligent life" was found someplace else. But according to your thinking, we can't, because everything is subjective. We know what order looks like. We know what it means to have precision. What know what complexity looks like. We know what it means for things to work together in perfect harmony. And we know what it means to fine-tune something. All these requiring intellect to make it happen. Quit trying to explain this to something else, which you never ever say.
(6) My argument is not a god of the gaps. I'm simply following the logical conclusions warranted by the evidence. I could easily say that your argument is Big Bang/Evolution of the gaps, because you haven't proven anything as well. No evidence has been given, because none can be given since no one was there in the beginning. You have speculations as I do, but the point is, which argument is more logical and reasonable. You say, matter just suddenly appeared with no cause and created this great complex world we live in, giving rise to consciousness and intelligence. While I, on the other hand, am saying, a mind is responsible for matter and its properties. And as I have mentioned, quantum physics proves my position, not yours.
(7) I never said I had evidence to support my claim, as neither do you. I've always maintained that our fight is a logical one. Which position is more logical and reasonable. Your claim is unknown and my claim is unknown based on a physical evidence standpoint, so now we are attempting to reason back from the known to the unknown and see which is the more sane response.
@ Gabriel
- "I don't really think you know what you're saying and are highly confused. Let's address your illogical inconsistencies."
Oh, the irony!
(1) Of course every single mind is prone to errors and interpretation! Scientists, me, you. Everyone is at risk of having unreliable memory and a biased interpretation. We are all at risk of denial, dissociation, confabulation, compartmentalization, projection, repression, displacement, rationalization and more.
That's the whole purpose of peer review. So multiple other people review the observations, the interpretations, the hypothesis and especially the results/conclusions! This drastically reduces the risk of the subjectivity of a single person to skew findings and conclusions.
The concept of the scientific method seems to completely elude you. Please, google "unreliable human mind", then read countless articles about confirmation bias, unreliable memory, etc.
(2) - "The reason why it begins with us is because we are the only creatures capable of intellect, and through this blessed intellect, we've been able to accomplish great things in this world."
That's not a reason to start with the human intellect. Most of the great accomplishments are due to the scientific method or just massive amounts of trial and error. The area of studying the human mind is one of the least developed of all areas of research, largely because of it's subjectivity, it's unpredictability and volatile nature.
- "Even to have this discussion can only happen because we are humans"
Right, but you would also not be able to do it without the progress that the scientific method has led to. Without that, we would still be in the dark ages.
(3) - "Your answer is another set of properties and rules may have produced it, but this doesn't address or bring closure to anything"
It's just a suggested alternate possibility, that's all. It does address the question, but as you say, it does not bring closure. But, where did you get the notion that you must produce the answer that brings closure? Who says that would even be possible?
- "It's your same argument, who created the Creator?"
Exactly right.
But, I'm not claiming to give you the ultimate answer. I'm saying that there is no supporting evidence or even logical reasoning for the "eternal mind". It's much more likely to be an answer that only raises new questions. History has shown us this countless times. As soon as we make a discovery, several new questions pop up.
- "I've maintained a logical explanation - there is always a First in a series, where the buck must stop, the beginning."
Sorry but it's not logical at all. If you can somehow show that "The buck must stop somewhere" in the particular case of your argument, then perhaps there would be a reason to start speculating that it would be the case.
(4) - "The difference between true and false religion is what is logical, reasonable, and filled with common sense."
But what you call "logical, reasonable, and filled with common sense" is everything but logical. My simple example of putting your argumentation in logical form shows that very clearly. There are large gaps between the different parts of the argument and you fill those gaps with confirmation bias, not logic. You call it logic, but it's clear as day that it is not.
- "The Bible teaches that there is only one true religion and many false religions"
But your argument has NOTHING to do with the Bible. You're grasping for straws to force your conclusions to make sense.
- "The way one knows true religion..."
Again, this has noting to do with the argument. But I would like to urge you to spend some time researching others that make the same claim: That they know that they have the true religion. There is an abundance of them, and some make very similar claims to what you are saying, but for other religions, like Islam for instance.
(5) - "How in the world am I adding subjective meanings to the words order, precision, complexity, synergy, rules and laws, and fine-tuning"
I said "order" and I explained how:
"You are adding subjective qualities to the definition of order: "comprehensible""
What makes something comprehensible? It's highly subjective.
"fine-tune" implies a "tuner", so that begs the question. Properties seem fixed at specific values, there is no need to insert a word that implies your conclusion.
- "you want to re-write and re-define these words to fit your model of thinking."
No. These are your claims so stop trying to put this on me.
I want you to make a clear enough definition for anyone to understand, not make loose definitions that can give room for subjective interpretation.
- "But according to your thinking, we can't"
Thank you for telling me what I'm thinking.
But that is not at all what I said. And your example certainly depends on you to first define "order" a lot better. We do receive signals that repeat, and for a short while it was suspected to be an intelligent signal, but turned out to be pulses from a rotating neutron star.
- "...All these requiring intellect to make it happen."
You claim that order first requires intelligence, with no further explanation. You just make a blind assumption that intelligence must come first.
I can just as whimsically claim that intelligence first requires order to arise. It holds up just as well as an argument and there is no way for you to disprove it.
You give nothing to show that your assumption is correct, but your confirmation bias.
(6) - "I'm simply following the logical conclusions warranted by the evidence."
But again, what you call logical is not even close to logical. In the logical form example I gave you, I showed you the problems. You say you connected the points, but your answers to that was riddled with confirmation bias and logic fallacies.
Your assumption of an intelligence required for the properties you speak of, closely resembles this type of logical fallacy (Affirming the consequent):
1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
2. Bill Gates is rich.
3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
There could be any number of other explanations for why Bill Gates would be rich, apart from him owning Fort Knox. Similarly, there could be any number of other explanations for the properties in nature, apart from an assumption of the intelligence you need to fit into your Bible interpretations.
(7) - "Your claim is unknown and my claim is unknown"
I don't know that I made a claim?
Pragmatic,
I really believe you don't know the ramifications of your statement that the mind is prone to errors and interpretation. While I would agree with this statement in light of these examples: biases, perception (relativity), magic (deception), and a lack of understanding in how things function scientifically giving rise to naturalistic phenomena, you're amalgamation with concrete and known natural properties and rules doesn't fit here. When we study nature through the scientific process, after many trials and testing, their outcomes reveal concrete and consistent properties and rules. For example, the law of gravity, the law of mathematics, and the inner workings of a cell just to name a few. While, yes, the mind is prone to errors and misinterpretation, when one studies a thing over and over again and it reveals the same outcomes, then cannot a person make a conclusion as to how a thing works? And yes, while we must keep an open mind at all times, we know there are just some things that are final (e.g., two plus two equals four; E = MC2; a tree is made of bark and leaves; and, water is H20). No one would dispute these things. Likewise, no one would dispute the definitions of what order, complexity, synergy, rules/laws, and fine-tuning are. These words and concepts have been written in stone and cannot be changed. Order is always 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8..... Complexity is always the quality of being intricate and elaborate, like the inner workings of a watch. Synergy is the process by which things work together in great unity, like male and female (procreation), trees and oxygen and carbon dioxide, plants, nuts, and herbs carry vitamins that the body needs, and the sun gives the body Vitamin D. Rules and laws are always known actions that cannot be changed, like if a body drops from a 12 story building, the ground will stop the body from falling further (law of gravity), and weight and force determines velocity and speed. Fine-tuning always means that everything is where it needs to be in order for life to exist. .Now you may attempt to re-write and re-define experience and reality, but anyone reading this with common sense knowns that these words and concepts are indisputable.
Now, I have asked you several times, since you don't accept that the only known entity to give us order, complexity..... is mind, elaborate or give a logical explanation as to how "mindless organic matter" just so happened to get it right. The reason you haven't done this is because it would be absurd to explain the properties of nature as occurring by pure chance. The odds of your belief in the process of chance getting "everything right" are extremely astronomical and highly unlikely (1 out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). While I do believe in time and chance as its relates to accidents and minor incidents of life, but to say that the ENTIRE universe some how "magically appeared" (from the atom to the grand level) and knew how to organize itself with great precision is simply disingenuous and lacks logic and common sense.
Next, when studying the properties of nature, why even, if our minds are prone to error and misunderstanding, study nature at all? Why should we even care how things function? Why should we even care about cosmology? Why should we even spend billions of dollars studying physics or any other thing? You may suggest for our advancement and benefit, but if we're just material here by luck, why should any of this matter, if all I'm going to do is die into oblivion? Further, Why should I be moral? Why should I love? Why should want to create a family? I hope that you see, your answers and "I don't know" statement just leads to utter skepticism and fatalism. According to you, we really can't know anything (nihilism). Hey, are you real? Are these words in the computer screen real?
And finally, your example of a logical fallacy doesn't even mirror what I've been advocating for. I've asked you to give alternative suggestions to how the properties of nature came about, and I that would be willing to listen and consider them, but you haven't given anything. I stated that the only known entity (reality and experience) to give us the properties of nature is mind. Unless something is given that rivals my conclusion and is logical, rational, and makes sense, then I can't proceed further in meditating upon something else. Give me something and let me chew on it, but to give me "I don't know" is never going to get us further in this discussion.
@ Gabriel
I'm going to keep this very short, because it's way to time consuming writing these gigantic posts.
- "when one studies a thing over and over again and it reveals the same outcomes, then cannot a person make a conclusion as to how a thing works?"
Of course they could! Many have done so.
But if that person were to interpret that result filtered through their personal belief of lets say, Islam, and conclude that it was caused by a Djinn. Would you consider the conclusion correct?
- "Order is always 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8"
So, your saying that "2, 4, 6, 8, 10" is not order?
How about "6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1"?
Is "1" order?
How about ""?
It's quite clear you're not a mathematician. I'll leave others to rip these statements about your "undisputable" definitions to shreds.
- "...but to say that the ENTIRE universe some how "magically appeared"..."
Seriously? Where did I say that?
On the contrary, I'm specifically questioning the "magic" parts of your argument, i.e. a supernatural, eternal, all powerful being that somehow magically created the Universe.
- "if our minds are prone to error and misunderstanding, study nature at all? Why should we even care how things function?"
Why not? We are curious creatures.
- "if we're just material here by luck, why should any of this matter, if all I'm going to do is die into oblivion? Further, Why should I be moral? Why should I love? Why should want to create a family?"
Quite the opposite.
Not believing in an eternal life after death, makes me want to live my life all the more. Why would that reduce curiosity?
- "According to you, we really can't know anything"
No, you're over-interpreting again. I have said no such thing.
- "And finally, your example of a logical fallacy doesn't even mirror what I've been advocating for."
So you claim. I think it absolutely does.
- "I've asked you to give alternative suggestions"
In absurdum, yes. An I have explained my position, in absurdum.
You also said that you asked for the last time, a few times ago.
- "Give me something and let me chew on it, but to give me "I don't know""
Read your own words back aloud. You're asking me to invent answers, just because you want me to satisfy your debating hunger.
I have asked you to explain your main argument. You have not even come close to doing so.
Instead you keep asking for a completely different discussion.
As I have said, multiple times: To do so you would have to explain your main argument.
But I have also said that I have no interest what so ever to spend countless hours debating that. Time I could use for much better things.
Pragmatic,
Don't confuse the issues. Stay on point. The conclusion warranted by the trial and error of the scientific process is that constants and immutable properties of nature do exist. These properties are not disputable, such as the examples I gave earlier. The question has been, how did these constant and immutable properties come to exist? There are only two plausible answers being discussed here by you and me; either Someone or Something with greater intelligence gave rise to matter and its properties, or matter somehow spontaneously erupted from nothingness and possessed the wherewithal to organize itself with great precision in order that life could exist. This has nothing to do with one's interpretation or personal beliefs, but has everything to do with making a logical conclusion based on what nature reveals.
Once we can wrap this part up and honestly ascribe to what is logical and reasonable in cosmology, then we can move towards which religious Creator is consistent with our world through a study of their holy books. I agree. Anyone can make a claim that their God (god) is responsible for this world, but that claim, made from their holy books, must be scrutinized and analyzed with logic, reason, and common sense. Just because someone says something doesn't automatically make it so.
Unbeknownst to you, you just proved my point on order. Thanks! All of your examples are orderly. Each example you gave has a comprehensible arrangement of separate elements (the definition of order). My only point was order is arrangement, a series, a sequence. Now the real question is, how did order appear within the natural world? If properties of nature possess order, how did they receive this order? Once again, only two answers are given here; either Someone or Something with intelligence imbued nature with order, or organic matter possessed the wherewithal to organize things in a systematic way (orderly way) so that life could exist. Which is the logical position? Not biased, but the position that makes sense?
Let's see which position upholds a whimsical and magical imagination:
- You said you believe in Big Bang cosmology and Evolution, each of which ascribe to "material" as being the end all, be all, to our existence. From this position one is taught that somehow matter just spontaneously appeared from the void of nothingness and possessed the wherewithal to compose itself, after billions of years (why would "intelligent" matter have to take this long to begin with anyway), and formed itself with precise properties in order for life to exist. And why would "matter" even care about creating life to begin with? Did matter created life for funsies? And if matter is our god, then how can we ever argue for objective moral rules and laws? And if all that I am destined to do is die into oblivion, then what prevents me from doing whatever I want, like raping women and children, attacking the elderly, stealing from my neighbors, etc.?
- I have said that based on the properties of nature, working from the known to the unknown, the only logical, rational, and experiential position known to give order, complexity, synergy, immutable rules/laws, and fine-tuning is mind (intelligence). Based on what we know about the properties of matter (entropy principle), then we know that matter CANNOT be the end all, be all, to our existence; hence, the only rational conclusion would be that Someone or Something caused matter to exist and gave it its properties. If matter is finite, then what created it must be infinite/eternal. This Creator created life for a purpose and that purpose is to live as this Being has commanded, which is to love Him and do good unto your fellowman.
Your terse answers to some of my questions, shows lack of depth and knowledge, and it also shows arguing just for the sake of arguing and no real contemplation. I asked, If our minds are prone to error and misunderstanding, why study nature at all? And your million dollar answer was, Why not? We are curious creatures. Seriously! You just advocated for nihilism, insinuating that minds are prone to error and misunderstanding, so why in the world would anyone ever attempt to know anything? How can we know that the scientist or physicist's mind isn't in error as they interpret the data? I truly believe you don't what your saying in this regard. Think.
So "not believing in eternal life after death makes me to want to live my life all the more?" But what if someone chooses to live his life merely to satisfy his urges and passions at the expense of other people's happiness? While you may choose to do what is right, your view lends to the idea that there are no real consequences to anything. Now I know you'll counter with, that's why there is the justice system, courts, and prisons for such persons, but what about the person that never gets caught? One that has murdered, cheated, robbed, and caused other people to suffer, what happens to him or her? According to your view, they simply die into oblivion. I guess it was their curiosity? Huh?
Pragmatic, I am not asking you to invent answers, all I want is a counter argument to my eternal mind argument. Remember this quest is a logical discussion, since no one was there in the beginning. We then are make assumptions that should hold up to the scrutiny of logic and reason to determine its validity. If my logical deduction is not accurate, show me where. Explain to me logically and cogently how organic matter (particles, atoms) had the ability to possess precise properties so that life could exist. At the point you always hide behind, scientists and physicists are still attempting to discover it, but here is a real good question: What if they never find something while you are alive and then after you have passed away, they discover something that supports a supernatural Creator, I guess you were just unfortunate, huh? I submit that physicists have already discovered things that support a supernatural entity (Higg's field and dark energy), but they are so bent towards validating material as their god. Why? Because God forbid, a Creator is validated!
@ Gabriel
- "Just because someone says something doesn't automatically make it so."
Quite right. But then you also say:
- "Once again, only two answers are given here; either Someone or Something with intelligence imbued nature with order, or organic matter possessed the wherewithal to organize things in a systematic way (orderly way) so that life could exist."
There are not only 2 answers, there may be several other strictly scientific answers and any number of metaphysical claims could be invented. Just because you say there is only 2 answers, that does not make it true. It's a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy.
- "Unbeknownst to you, you just proved my point on order. Thanks!"
Really? Your definition was: "Order is always 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8....."
I gave several examples that you now say is ordered, but isn't according to your definition.
- "Now the real question is, how did order appear within the natural world?"
Well, when you find the numbers "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8" or more, in sequence in nature, please show us. In short: Your definition of order and what "we find in nature" is not the same.
- "You said you believe in Big Bang cosmology and Evolution"
- "From this position one is taught that somehow matter just spontaneously appeared from the void of nothingness and possessed the wherewithal to compose itself..."
No, your over interpreting again and putting words in my mouth. I'll quote myself to show this:
"I offer nothing for you but questions, because there is absolutely no point in telling you that I believe in The Big Bang Theory because it is the most proven theory, that I am very confident in The Theory of Evolution because it has such a massive amount of supporting evidence that it would be laughable to deny it (unless one is completely unaware about the evidence), that I believe that the most plausible answer to how life began is Abiogenesis because even if it's still somewhat lacking in evidence there is nothing even close to being a more likely explanation, that regarding the questions "what caused the Big Bang" or "what was before the Big Bang", the answer is simply: I don't know, I'm not even sure those are valid questions."
The Big Bang Theory, does as far as I know NOT explain what initiated the "Big Bang". It only explains what happened after the expansion had begun. But I'm probably to poorly educated to understand?
This is the same type of common mistake many also do regarding The Theory of Evolution, where they mistakenly think evolution explains the origin of life. Most often they seem to think that Abiogenesis is included in The Theory of Evolution.
In any case: I specifically explained that as far as what caused the Big Bang, I don't know. I don't hold any specific beliefs about it, since there is no convincing evidence for any such belief. But you continue to misinterpret, over interpret or just read/hear what you want.
If you doubt my explanation:
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
- "why would "intelligent" matter have..."
- "And why would "matter" even care about creating life to begin with?"
Classic anthropomorphism, ascribing human qualities to elementary particles where there are none. That's not my cup of tea so I really don't have any answers for that.
Again you insert a false dichotomy: Either matter is intelligent and has feelings/motives, or inanimate things like laws of physics somehow "logically" leads you to an intelligence.
These are not the only two options.
- "...then what prevents me from doing whatever I want, like raping women and children, attacking the elderly, stealing from my neighbors, etc.?"
If you completely lack empathy, you don't fear remorse, you don't fear retaliation from others and don't fear spending life in prison, nothing much is stopping you.
- "Based on what we know about the properties of matter (entropy principle), then we know that matter CANNOT be the end all, be all, to our existence"
I don't agree with your conclusion an all. Just how do we "know that matter CANNOT be the end all", based on properties in nature? Who is even claiming that matter is the end all?
- "You just advocated for nihilism..."
Sigh... More of your tiresome habit of "putting words in the oppositions mouth". I haven't advocated for Nihilism, so please stop.
- "...insinuating that minds are prone to error and misunderstanding"
How you from that somehow draw a conclusion that I'm "advocating for Nihilism", is beyond me. And, I wasn't insinuating. As far as I'm aware of, that is a fact.
- "I truly believe you don't what your saying in this regard. Think."
I think you need to go to a library and borrow some books on psychology. Please!
- "But what if someone chooses to live his life merely to satisfy his urges and passions at the expense of other people's happiness?"
Have you looked around in the world you live in lately? It's happening all the time. Religious or not.
- "...your view lends to the idea that there are no real consequences to anything."
No, that's not what I have said. That's you, over interpreting and putting words in my mouth again. Every action has consequences.
- "...but what about the person that never gets caught?"
I'm getting an eerie vibe from you of a person with antisocial personality disorder, like a sociopath, with complete lack of empathy. If so, I would understand your argumentation here. But then I would also urge you to seek professional help.
Why do you remove empathy from all of these arguments?
People can also feel guilt for things they have done, many times suffering from it but trying to deny it to themselves. And a theistic view is no argument for being moral anyway. This is an interesting document to read, especially the examples from their interviews:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Volkan_Topalli/publication/25819210...
- "If my logical deduction is not accurate, show me where."
I did already, to no avail.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/43454
- "What if they never find something while you are alive and then after you have passed away, they discover something that supports a supernatural Creator, I guess you were just unfortunate, huh?"
And if they would find that, but it wasn't Christianity that was the correct religion?
- "Pragmatic, I am not asking you to invent answers, all I want is a counter argument to my eternal mind argument. Remember this quest is a logical discussion"
Thank you, but no thank you.
My intention is not to be impolite, but I'm quite fed up with this "debate".
I've had enough of listening to reiteration of the same sentences instead of explanations for your argument. I've had enough of listening to your claims that your position is "super logical" when your arguments clearly fit the description of fallacious logic. I've had enough of your incessant demands of debating counter arguments to your argument, even though I've repeatedly explained my disinterest in such a debate with you.
But most of all, I've had enough of you misrepresenting me, over interpreting everything I write and your adverse insinuations about me.
Let's call it a day.
Some positive feedback: I'm a bit surprised by your progress in restraining eruptions of frustration and keeping a polite tone. Much appreciated.
Pragmatic,
If that's what you want, then we'll suspend discussions. No where in this discussion have I misrepresented you, but only took what you wrote and deduced certain conclusions, like any good listener should do. Let's recap for the audience.
(1) I maintain that because of the properties of nature (order, complexity, synergy, rules/laws, and fine-tuning), the only logical, practical, and common sense conclusion is, an intelligence (mind) is responsible for it. No where in life, experience, and reality does it teach us that life comes from non-life (abiogenesis), nor does order, complexity, synergy, rules/laws, and fine-tuninng just arises from organic matter itself. And contrary to what you say and believe, there is no evidence that things merely happened by chance, because none has ever been witnessed and experienced in our present world, and the evidence you claim are mere assumptions of scientists and physicists, seeing that no one was there in the beginning to witness claims of Big Bang cosmology and evolution. As I have maintained in this discussion, our argument is a logical one, meaning, which position we ascribe to must be logical and make sense.
(2) I maintain my definition of order as being logical and right- an arrangement or sequences of things. What you showed is what I said order was, and we find order - an arrangement or sequence of things - all over this universe. But let's take the human body. The human body is made up of 10 trillion cells and cells are the basic units of life. Cells in our bodies work together (synergy) to form structures called tissues, and tissues is what makes up our different organs and functional material in our bodies. Each cell is composed of many smaller units called organelles and an organelle includes: the plasma membrane, cytoplasm, cytoskeleton, golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, lysosomes, ribosomes, and the nucleus. Each of these organelles perform different functions to keep the cell alive and healthy. This is order and synergy at work. But the most important organelle is the nucleus, which is the "brain" of a cell. Why? Because it controls all actions that the cell undertakes and it does this because of DNA, which is the genetic and informational blueprint for cells to live, grow, reproduce, and die. DNA is inherited from the cell's parent and is passed down to the daughter cell when it reproduces. DNA is a double stranded helix made up of four repeating (order) nucleotides, which from a code (information) that tells the cell to produce of necessary proteins.
After reading all of this and seeing the complexity, order, rules/laws, that are needed in order for a cell to function, we're going to say that this all just happened by chance and that organic matter knew the wherewithal to organize itself in a precise manner. Any rational person would see the absurdity of this and know that a cell could not exist unless an intelligence created it and ordered it.
(3) I maintain that your "I don't know" position is tenuous and is an excuse to not be honest with the information and conclude the obvious. It is stubbornness and a bias against "false religions" that prevents you from seeing the clear truth in this matter. As I mentioned before, we need to cosmology right in order to get our morality right. If we are mere creatures of matter, then what prevents me from acting only in interests that serve me? Your answers to my questions/dilemmas in this area were sophomoric and evading. Really? Empathy was your response. If we're just creatures of matter, who cares about empathy. What is empathy in a world where we are products of chance and randomness? I believe you see my logic in this, but your pride prevents you from acknowledging the obvious.
(4) I maintain, as has been proved by scientists and physicists, that matter is created by energy fields, which is immaterial. Also, these energy fields have been discovered to be on a mathematical grid. Matter is not the end all, be all. Matter was created and through its properties, the only logical conclusion is, Someone or Something with intelligence created it.
People reading this with an open and honest mind will see that I am the one that offered a logical position and you offered nothing in return in this discussion. I will always be reading to engage you anytime you wish, private message me and I'll give you my personal email for the future. Good speaking with you.
you know i been reading all your post for the last 30 minutes and i believe it is still not determined how we got here.we may never know, it could be by random chance, or there very well may be a mind behind all of this.it is decided by the persons involved in the debate.you both gave good arguments for your positions.but it still went no where.
the only way i have a relationship with god is by reading the bible and that is unconclusive to people who don`t follow the bible.its true that i find if i didn`t see a church or read the bible i never would know what god stood for.rather it was the old testament or the new.a person can choose which argument makes sense, it it purely subjective reasoning.that`s why i never speak about religion anymore to people.there is an old saying that you never talk religion or politcs because this leads to quarrels and strife.paul the apostle lost his head james the brother of jesus was stoned to death.people today are maligned and all kinds of cruel torture was afflicted upon them.so please respect one another.because in the long run it really doesn`t matter and i think that you may find it quite a challenge to try to change someones mind.
@ skeptical christian
You make some really god points, and I agree with you.
I'm doing my best to be non-confrontational. But some people make it hard not to get too emotionally involved in the discussion.
The reason I'm trying to pose questions to people of faith, is that religion should be personal. But even if people of faith have a mostly personal relationship with god and keep their beliefs in their personal life, it spills over into issues in such a way that their personal beliefs are used to tell others how they should and/or must live their lives.
If personal beliefs are based on some form of supporting evidence, it's fine to use it as a guide for how "we should live". But if personal beliefs are not based on supporting evidence, they are subjective and even arbitrary and can conflict with any number of other personal beliefs.
As an example, earlier when I was asking you about your beliefs and others got involved when the subject of abortion was mentioned, you got very upset when others did not agree with your interpretation of how things should be.
I admit that abortion is a bad example, since it is one of those subjects that are heated no matter what. But when opinions are based on supporting evidence, they tend to converge in a much more harmonic way.
For example, I don't understand why so many Christians are extremely opposed to abortion, but care so little about the children once they are born.
For example: "About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes." - http://www.unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html
Still, Catholic Doctrine is against abortion and against contraception.
From a humanist perspective, it would be far worse to let a child be born and start to grow up and become a self aware human being only to let it starve to death, instead of aborting an unwanted child before it has become self aware. Even worse than that, to continue to deny contraceptives, when that could reduce unwanted pregnancies before conception and also stop the spread of deceases and stop both abortions and untold suffering and death.
I'm opposed to when beliefs are subjective and motivate thinking that is causing suffering and death. I don't understand why Catholics all over the world don't oppose such insane Catholic doctrine. Instead they protest, try to defund and threaten people who work at abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood. This, in a world that is overpopulated to a point where people are dying like flies already.
I do not understand this.
All humans are interconnected; therefore, what we think, feel, say, and do will at one point interact with others. If this is the case, then it should and does matter how people live and conduct themselves. In other words, there must be an objective standard for all men to live by, or else we live by the mantra, the survival of the fittest and baddest, and hence, our lives are affected in a negative way. Ergo, there must a mantra that makes perfect sense, like love your neighbor as yourself and do unto other as you would have them do to you. While certainly these can fall into subjectivism, but if looked at carefully, both teach that human courtesy and decency toward all men. Why? Could it be that we were all made from the same Creator and thus, we are part of the human family that must care, love, and help each other.
The example of abortion is a good one, because the person in the womb of the mother should be protected and cared for, and not be subject to the choice of the woman and/or man who decided to engage in loose sexual conduct, and thus created another human being. The child in the womb must be protected and loved. If the woman and man didn't want to create life then they should have never had sex to begin with, or at the very least protected themselves from becoming pregnant.
Your confusion as to why Christians are duplicitists on abortion and child safety is accurate, but this has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with a person's behavior and actions. A true Christian would treat each subject as equal.
Catholicism is a man made religion that teaches many things against the Bible, logic, reason, and common sense. No where in the Bible does it teach that God is against contraception (preventing pregnancy), but only the killing of a baby in the mother's womb (abortion). I agree, in many cases it would be wise to prevent pregnancy, by first abstinence, and second, through contraceptives. But remember, true religion fights against subjective rules and things that cause suffering and death, but it does uphold things that we must truly fight for, and in this case, the sanctity and preciousness of all life - in the womb and without.
The very first thing I'd ask is what does it mean for a signal to contain order or complexity. Then I'd ask what units order and complexity are measured in. Then I'd ask how much order and complexity was contained in the signal in question and how much is in unrelated signals so I could get some sense of what was discovered. Basically the same exact questions I've been asking you for weeks but you have refused to answer.
------------------
Another quantum mystic!
------------------
You literally just told us that it was proved by quantum mechanics! (see above!)
Wait wait wait. Not that long ago you told us that everything in existance is equally ordered. Now it seems you are saying that some things are ordered and other things are not. The best part is you continue to claim that no one can dispute the defination of order, WHILE you are in the process of changing it!
--------------------
The weight of an object does not determine it's velocity.
--------------------
Could you show the math you preformed to get this result? Or did you just make it up?
Good evening!
Is what you are referring to as Grandiose Delusion, really delusions of grandeur? This is a psychiatric issue, which allows a person to think of themselves more highly than they ought to. There is also grandiose delusions which are characterized usually by those with a schizophrenia diagnosis.
I would also like to suggest that any relationship is subjective data. We cannot prove whether or not ANY relationship is real. We can prove that people are real, but not our feelings for them. Whether or not God exists, doesn't exclude people to have feelings attributed to him and for him.
@ wifeofawonderfulman
Hi, and welcome.
I fully agree that a relationship is subjective and that no relationship can be conclusively proven.
But in the case of relationships between physical individuals, there are actions and behavior to give supporting evidence for that subjective relationship. Even though we try to mask it or don't even understand our own feelings, our actions and behavior can be a clear indicator.
In the case of a relationship towards a god, there is only one party to be observed in that relationship. And since there are multiple different incompatible gods to have such a relationship with, we can be sure that most people with such relationships are delusional. Meaning that their relationship itself might be real or at least their perception of it, but the other party in the relationship is not real.
Would you agree that everyone with relationships with different incompatible gods can't all be right?
If some people with personal relationships with their god are delusional and some are not, how is it possible to know which ones are delusional and which ones are not?
Hello wife of a wonderful man,
The Bible teaches that in order to believe in something, we must have proof (evidence) for it (Heb. 11:1). The God of the Bible has never expected us to believe in something that could not be established with evidence. For example, during the days when God worked miraculously, others who claimed to be followers of "false gods" and cited either signs, wonders, or commands as coming from their gods, God commanded His people to "test" them to see whether they could produce true signs and/or wonders, thus confirming their legitimacy (Deut. 13; 18:15-22). Elijah, the prophet of God, encountered this situation in 1 Kings 18:20-40, where prophets of Baal, a false god, had cited that their god was the true god, but when put to the test to give evidence, they were shamefully disgraced and Elijah's God was the one who revealed true evidence. This thought is carried over into the New Testament of the Bible in 1 Thess. 5:22 and 1 Jn. 4:1, where we are commanded to "test" things to see whether they are true and accurate.
Hence, anything we hold to and believe in cannot be subjective, but we must know with certainty, why we believe in something. As I have been arguing with these atheists, the true God of Creation cannot be identified with physical evidence, because He has identified Himself as Mind and mind is invisible, incorporeal, and eternal; rather, God is a logical necessity based on the evidence of the properties of nature. From the known to the unknown, we can decipher logically that a Creator exists, and thus we can know that a relationship with this Mind is real and our feelings toward this Mind are real as well. In other words, we don't believe in something because we "think" He exists, but we believe in somethings because we KNOW he exists based on the evidence of natural properties.
Pages