Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If you have evidence of a mind that is not dependent on a functioning brain please present it. As far as I know there is no such evidence.

That is easy, we can start off by the Law of Identity, which state that if you have two entities (or whatever), A and B, if there is something true of A that isn't true of B, then A and B are not identical. If they were identical, then what is true of A should also be true of B.

So when we talk about the mind and the brain, mental states such as happiness, anger, joy, sadness...these are mental states, not physical states....so when you are happy, your brain isn't happy...nor is the neurons in your brain happy...YOU are happy, not your brain. That distinction alone is enough to say that the brain and the mind are two separate entities.

Second, our brain is made up of matter, no one will argue that...but I can conceive of a scientist taking the cartilage that the brain is made up and going to a lab and proceeding to shape and mold the cartilage into a brain...but where would the consciousness come from?

Thoughts are immaterial, you cannot weigh or touch the thought of a cat...so if the scientist wanted to make the brain think of a cat, how will he do it? It isn't as if he can pull the thought of a cat out of a deep freezer and carry it over to the brain and place the thought on top of the brain and watch the thought sink into the brain, and now suddenly the brain is thinking of a cat.

So where would consciousness come from, even if you shaped a fresh and brand new brain from preexisting material???

Can't happen...and you can try all you want, but you are unable to conceive of how on earth could consciousness originate from preexisting material, can you? Because it didn't happen.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Correlation does not prove causation but it sure provides grounds for a working hypothesis, especially in the absence of ANY contradictory examples.

And what hypothesis would that be, and what is the framework to test it?

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I have no idea what a "moral proof" is.

Moral proof shouldn't have been on the list.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The others all depend on the axioms and premises selected and if those aren't grounded in anything that is demonstrably real then they may be interesting, and potentially even useful, but they aren't knowledge in the same sense that methodological naturalism provides.

Ok, so the statement "We should only believe things that can be scientifically proven", the truth value of that statement itself cannot be scientifically proven, so methodological naturalism is a self defeating concept.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Without empirical methods all you have is supposition. I agree that you don't get far without them but what I don't understand is why anybody thinks they actually get anywhere with anything else. It is all just different fantasies.

Well, if empirical methods is incapable of answering my questions, I shouldn't look elsewhere for answers?

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It is rational to say "I don't know". It is rational to hypothesize, or postulate, but those guesses only have value if you can come up with ways to test them to see if they work. That's what Krauss is doing. Just saying "must be god" is not answering the questions, it is giving up on them.

Actually, it is the Law of Excluded Middle...I have only two options: Goddidit, or Naturedidit...If I can prove that nature couldn't have done it (which I can), then the God hypothesis wins by default...there is no middle ground here. The origin of the universe, life, and consciousness will always be sciences' biggest problems.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, no pre-existing space. The idea is that space itself is being created. I agree it is a strange concept and I'm not saying that I think Krauss is correct because it is beyond my education in the field so I am in no position to hold a position about it.

Makes no sense. If we were sitting in the living room watching the SuperBowl and we heard a loud POP coming from the room, and you asked me "What the hell was that" or "Where did that POP come from", and I respond "Oh, nothing"...would you accept that?

I mean seriously, be honest.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If you believe that a god existed somehow "outside" our universe in order to create it then you have only backed the question up a level. That god must exist in some sort of spacetime and the immediate question is where did that come from.

Not at all, God is a spirit...a mind...which would make him immaterial, and something that is immaterial does not occupy space. And since I believe that God was in a timeless state (stationary state) from eternity, there was no time...time began only when God began to create.

The universe on the other hand, that does occupy space, and that does exist in time..and there is no way out of it either.


(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Postulating an eternal god because the idea of an eternal universe seems absurd just obfuscates that absurdity so that it isn't as uncomfortable to think about. Claiming a god doesn't resolve anything.

Actually, God resolves everything. If you can go in a lab and demonstrate how a universe could have originated from nothing, how life could have arisen from nonliving material, and how the brain can be the origin of consciousness...if you can demonstrate these things, then I would become a naturalist. Until then, I will stick to my theism.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Yes, a causal agent is a complex thing which is by definition more complicated than just a quantity of mass/energy. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that the idea of a universe from nothing IS simpler than starting with a god because you don't then have to explain the god.

Ok, so explain what is it about the universe that will allow only universes to pop in to being out of nothing...instead of cars, money, or horses?? So basically, what you are saying that you find the idea that a horse can just pop into your room out of nothing...you find that idea rational?? Okkkk. That is the price of atheism right there....belief in absurdities all because you don't want to believe in the Almighty.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The terminology is difficult and easy to equivocate on. "Nothing" for lunch is just saying that there is no object to which I gave the label "lunch". That's not quite the same as the "nothing" that the universe may have come from. We're talking no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no dimensions, no vacuum, ... nothing.

Well, lets put it in the same light that the universe is in...suppose your stomach was empty and then suddenly it became full with food, despite the fact that you didn't eat anything...the food came from nothing. Now as absurd as that may seem, how can that be any less absurd than an entire universe??Big Grin

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  This is all kind of a red herring though, as whether the universe came from "nothing", or there is a multiverse of some kind, or something else we haven't conceived of, or even if there is something that could be labelled a god, is completely irrelevant to my atheism. I do not know what came before the big bang or if "before" even makes sense in that context. I'm not going to jump to "god" to make me feel like I've answered the question because I have zero evidence for that hypothesis. If positive evidence for a god ever turns up and it is compelling then, and only then, will I treat it as a reasonable belief to hold.

Well, you don't have to worry about labeling it as a god, because there is no evidence of Krauss' universe, nor is there evidence of a multiverse...so there isn't even any evidence of the natural stuff...all we know is that our universe had a beginning. As mentioned previously, the philosophical problem of infinite duration in time is a independent problem...independent of the physics of the universe, and neither Krauss or anyone else can help you there.

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You keep saying that but you don't know what can possibly be created from a state of nothingness. We don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate to determine what limits may or may not exist.

Wait a minute, we don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate yet you are advocating Krauss' model which imply a universe from nothing? Undecided

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  We know that we have a universe. We do not know what preceded the form it is currently in or what possibilities there are. Physicists are working on it. Until they make more progress my answer is "I don't know" and I am quite comfortable that that is the best answer available to me right now.

Well, you can wait for physicists to figure it out, and while you are waiting for that, I will be waiting on Jesus' return. Thumbsup

(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Then you haven't studied it sufficiently.

LMAO
Jesus was not the messiah:





Get back to me when you've converted all of the Jews to your false religion.
They don't believe Jesus was anything but a man proclaiming to be the messiah, there were plenty of posers back then, Jesus was just another one that didn't fulfill any of their criteria derived from Old testament scripture.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not even a contender.

What I'd like to see is the list of contenders then Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 07:21 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2015 07:25 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 06:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 02:42 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Though perhaps this YHWH chap is god, (my second choice) but I would just believe in YHWH, not this false prophet Jesus:

Mashiach: The Messiah

It's turtles all the way down.

Jesus Christ was/is the greatest man that ever lived.

There is zero evidence that jesus christ the myth, the legend, the zombie savior ever was a historical person. We have no physical evidence, no works of carpentry, no personal items, no writings...furthermore, no one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him...no one. All writings of jesus were written down by people who were either born after he died, or never actually met him, thus all stories are based on myth, legend and hearsay.

For example. If upon his death, the earth shook, corpses burst out of their graves and walked around town, and the entire earth grew dark from 3-6 pm, someone AT THE TIME would have thought these events significant enough to perhaps write down...nope, we wait until the first quarter of the 4th century to have an epiphany and start writing down stories, and we all know how people LOVE to tell stories, and exaggerate them. odd not a word until then Consider A thinking person would call bullshit. Allow me to expound....

No one who ever wrote of jesus, actually knew him. When you learn this, and validate this, it throws the whole Christianity belief basis out the window, thus discrediting it. Lets look at this real quick..

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. See the bottom where I get into Paul a bit more.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

When you research authorship of each book of the bible, you find out they were not written by whom you think, which makes them suspect for any level of validity. Let’s look at the gospels a bit more…

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

Various works cited or used:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
03-02-2015, 07:26 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  



Get back to me when you've converted all of the Jews to your false religion.
They don't believe Jesus was anything but a man proclaiming to be the messiah, there were plenty of posers back then, Jesus was just another one that didn't fulfill any of their criteria derived from Old testament scripture.

I would love for Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, and Robert Duvall to star in one movie together, and they should call it "The Godfather", with Marlon Brando as the Godfather...wouldn't that be nice. It would be nice if Hollywood came out with such a movie...wait a minute...they already did...over 40 years ago..

See where I'm going with this?? Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 07:21 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  



Get back to me when you've converted all of the Jews to your false religion.
They don't believe Jesus was anything but a man proclaiming to be the messiah, there were plenty of posers back then, Jesus was just another one that didn't fulfill any of their criteria derived from Old testament scripture.

I would love for Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, and Robert Duvall to star in one movie together, and they should call it "The Godfather", with Marlon Brando as the Godfather...wouldn't that be nice. It would be nice if Hollywood came out with such a movie...wait a minute...they already did...over 40 years ago..

See where I'm going with this?? Big Grin

That the myth of Jesus is as real as the Godfather movie?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
03-02-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  For the first time in my life, I was missed Big Grin

Hug

(03-02-2015 07:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I cite the entire New Testament Thumbsup

Okay.. what about it? On one level.. it is a book.

The history and veracity there of others on the forum have posted much and many links about.

So.. you think it's a good book. I should.. what...?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 08:49 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 07:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So when we talk about the mind and the brain, mental states such as happiness, anger, joy, sadness...these are mental states, not physical states....so when you are happy, your brain isn't happy...nor is the neurons in your brain happy...YOU are happy, not your brain. That distinction alone is enough to say that the brain and the mind are two separate entities.

I don't claim that the mind is physical or that it is identical to the brain. I said that all evidence so far shows that the mind is dependent on a functioning brain. The mind, the conciousness, whatever you want to call it appears to be the pattern of electrochemical information in the brain.

Quote:Can't happen...and you can try all you want, but you are unable to conceive of how on earth could consciousness originate from preexisting material, can you? Because it didn't happen.

You are again taking something that we don't have a full understanding of and leaping to conclusions about what is and is not possible. Everything I understand about biology and evolution points to the mind being a product of the brain which evolved the capabilities it has over eons.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Correlation does not prove causation but it sure provides grounds for a working hypothesis, especially in the absence of ANY contradictory examples.

And what hypothesis would that be, and what is the framework to test it?

The hypothesis that the mind is a product of a functioning brain and not independent is any way. One way of testing is done by comparing mental abilities of various brains and what happens as the result of physical damage. Injury and disease affect the mind when they affect the brain. Why would that be so if the mind were distinct? Animals have varying brain development and varying mental abilities. Why would that be true? It all makes sense if you assume no dualism.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The others all depend on the axioms and premises selected and if those aren't grounded in anything that is demonstrably real then they may be interesting, and potentially even useful, but they aren't knowledge in the same sense that methodological naturalism provides.

Ok, so the statement "We should only believe things that can be scientifically proven", the truth value of that statement itself cannot be scientifically proven, so methodological naturalism is a self defeating concept.

No, it is simply a recognition that MN has proven to be a reliable way to learn about the universe. Any system has to start somewhere. If another method is found that provides the same usefulness then we can talk. Theology has been proposed but there is no way to distinguish anything that may be true from fantasy so it serves no practical purpose.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Without empirical methods all you have is supposition. I agree that you don't get far without them but what I don't understand is why anybody thinks they actually get anywhere with anything else. It is all just different fantasies.

Well, if empirical methods is incapable of answering my questions, I shouldn't look elsewhere for answers?

Sure, if you can find something that actually provides answers. Theology claims that it provides answers but distinguishing Yahweh from Zeus from Thor from the thousands and thousands of other versions is not possible. Faith doesn't provide answers, just the illusion of answers.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It is rational to say "I don't know". It is rational to hypothesize, or postulate, but those guesses only have value if you can come up with ways to test them to see if they work. That's what Krauss is doing. Just saying "must be god" is not answering the questions, it is giving up on them.

Actually, it is the Law of Excluded Middle...I have only two options: Goddidit, or Naturedidit...If I can prove that nature couldn't have done it (which I can), then the God hypothesis wins by default...there is no middle ground here. The origin of the universe, life, and consciousness will always be sciences' biggest problems.

You first have to prove that nature and god represents a true dichotomy and you have not done that. You then have to prove that nature could not be responsible and you have not done that. You've made both claims but only with a god of the gaps argument. Your not being able to think of an explanation for something doesn't make god win by default.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, no pre-existing space. The idea is that space itself is being created. I agree it is a strange concept and I'm not saying that I think Krauss is correct because it is beyond my education in the field so I am in no position to hold a position about it.

Makes no sense. If we were sitting in the living room watching the SuperBowl and we heard a loud POP coming from the room, and you asked me "What the hell was that" or "Where did that POP come from", and I respond "Oh, nothing"...would you accept that?

I agree it doesn't make sense but it isn't something I have studied. As I said before, I leave it at "I don't know" because I don't have the answers. Unlike you I am not willing to say that Krauss, and others who have devoted their lives to studying it, are being ridiculous when they can just see that only god makes sense. That's what is ridiculous.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  If you believe that a god existed somehow "outside" our universe in order to create it then you have only backed the question up a level. That god must exist in some sort of spacetime and the immediate question is where did that come from.

Not at all, God is a spirit...a mind...which would make him immaterial, and something that is immaterial does not occupy space. And since I believe that God was in a timeless state (stationary state) from eternity, there was no time...time began only when God began to create.

Well, we're back to the fact that there is zero evidence for spirit or mind without a physical substrate. There is also the issue that if god were timeless then no act of creation could be undertaken because any act or change automatically implies time. God would have had to come into existence simultaneously with time and space and that puts us back to not needing him.

Quote:The universe on the other hand, that does occupy space, and that does exist in time..and there is no way out of it either.

Unless space and time appeared simultaneously; or space existed eternally and timelessly; or there is a multiverse that operates under different rules; or....

You need to grok the fact that "I don't know" is often the best answer. Filling in something you don't understand with something you find plausible may be comforting but it isn't proof of anything but insecurity.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Postulating an eternal god because the idea of an eternal universe seems absurd just obfuscates that absurdity so that it isn't as uncomfortable to think about. Claiming a god doesn't resolve anything.

Actually, God resolves everything. If you can go in a lab and demonstrate how a universe could have originated from nothing, how life could have arisen from nonliving material, and how the brain can be the origin of consciousness...if you can demonstrate these things, then I would become a naturalist. Until then, I will stick to my theism.

No, you have just decided to label everything you don't understand "god". That explains nothing, it just lets you stop thinking about it.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Yes, a causal agent is a complex thing which is by definition more complicated than just a quantity of mass/energy. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that the idea of a universe from nothing IS simpler than starting with a god because you don't then have to explain the god.

Ok, so explain what is it about the universe that will allow only universes to pop in to being out of nothing...instead of cars, money, or horses?? So basically, what you are saying that you find the idea that a horse can just pop into your room out of nothing...you find that idea rational?? Okkkk. That is the price of atheism right there....belief in absurdities all because you don't want to believe in the Almighty.

There is no state of nothing within our universe. How do you know that what can happen in such a state can also happen in the absence of that state? Why do you feel the need to have an answer when we can't even form coherent questions about what could possibly have resulted in the present state of the universe?

I don't believe in absurdities; I don't believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't believe that a god created it. I don't believe it always existed. I have no belief about how the universe got here because I DO NOT KNOW so I await evidence to narrow down the options.

The price of theism is giving up intellectual honesty for easy answers.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The terminology is difficult and easy to equivocate on. "Nothing" for lunch is just saying that there is no object to which I gave the label "lunch". That's not quite the same as the "nothing" that the universe may have come from. We're talking no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no dimensions, no vacuum, ... nothing.

Well, lets put it in the same light that the universe is in...suppose your stomach was empty and then suddenly it became full with food, despite the fact that you didn't eat anything...the food came from nothing. Now as absurd as that may seem, how can that be any less absurd than an entire universe??Big Grin

You are equating a stomach without anything in it to a state of nothing where no universe exists. We have no basis for understanding the latter. Your analogies are meaningless.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  This is all kind of a red herring though, as whether the universe came from "nothing", or there is a multiverse of some kind, or something else we haven't conceived of, or even if there is something that could be labelled a god, is completely irrelevant to my atheism. I do not know what came before the big bang or if "before" even makes sense in that context. I'm not going to jump to "god" to make me feel like I've answered the question because I have zero evidence for that hypothesis. If positive evidence for a god ever turns up and it is compelling then, and only then, will I treat it as a reasonable belief to hold.

Well, you don't have to worry about labeling it as a god, because there is no evidence of Krauss' universe, nor is there evidence of a multiverse...so there isn't even any evidence of the natural stuff...all we know is that our universe had a beginning. As mentioned previously, the philosophical problem of infinite duration in time is a independent problem...independent of the physics of the universe, and neither Krauss or anyone else can help you there.

We know that there was a beginning for our universe as we see it today. We do not know what preceded that, or if time existed "before" then. The problem of an infinite duration applies equally to any god hypothesis because any kind of "timeless" state proposed for that could apply equally as well to the universe.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You keep saying that but you don't know what can possibly be created from a state of nothingness. We don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate to determine what limits may or may not exist.

Wait a minute, we don't have a state of nothingness that we can investigate yet you are advocating Krauss' model which imply a universe from nothing? Undecided

I am NOT advocating Krauss' model. I've said repeatedly that it is outside my knowledge and I'm not qualified to support it. If you want to argue that go find his website. What I am saying is that you can't make claims about what is or is not possible from a state of nothing unless you have a thorough grounding in the concept and from your analogies I can see that you don't.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  We know that we have a universe. We do not know what preceded the form it is currently in or what possibilities there are. Physicists are working on it. Until they make more progress my answer is "I don't know" and I am quite comfortable that that is the best answer available to me right now.

Well, you can wait for physicists to figure it out, and while you are waiting for that, I will be waiting on Jesus' return. Thumbsup

I suggest patience; they've been waiting for nearly 2000 years now. That's assuming that there even was a Jesus or that he did any of the things ascribed to him.

Quote:
(03-02-2015 04:32 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Then you haven't studied it sufficiently.

LMAO

I'm not a physicist, cosmologist, or biologist, just an interested layman. Even so, it is apparent that you have not read any of those subjects with an open mind. you seem like you are probably pretty intelligent; it's a shame you don't try.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
03-02-2015, 08:50 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 02:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 01:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  [Citation needed]

Please present it. That would be very important stuff. Like... Nobel Prize winning stuff.

Thanks.

Look up mind/body dualism. Google can be your friend if you give it a chance.

Not so fast. Avoiding the question doesn’t get you any brownie points. Dualism has not been shown to exist. You need it to exist for your god to exist. Since there is no evidence to support your assertion...poof, your imaginary friend remains imaginary.

You can spin your yarn in every way apologists have spun it throughout the years and in the end you still have nothing to prove the existence of gods.

And for you this is a good thing because if you did have proof you would be denied the faith aspect of your beliefs.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
03-02-2015, 10:07 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-02-2015 12:58 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I think there is evidence of the mind being independent of the brain
(03-02-2015 02:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 01:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  [Citation needed]
Please present it. That would be very important stuff. Like... Nobel Prize winning stuff.
Thanks.

Look up mind/body dualism. Google can be your friend if you give it a chance.

I'm enjoying your sense of humour. I hope you stick around for a while Yes

I asked Google and she said there is no evidence... merely hypothesis.

... skipping ahead, because ADD / ennui kicking in...

(03-02-2015 02:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 01:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  God of the gaps or argument from incredulity? Take your pick. Big Grin

I got one for you...something called "Argument from the best explanation". I have two options, either Goddidit, or Naturedidit, and I conclude that based on all of the evidence that has been presented to me, that theism is the best explanation to explain these things.

That is about as fair and balanced as you can get right there Big Grin

Now, don't be naughty. That's a false equivalence.

There is evidence for nature but no evidence for gods / goddesses.

There is plenty of evidence for the idea of things supernatural but only arguments for their existence.

If there was such evidence then they would be natural not supernatural ... i.e. if a god or gods / goddesses existed, then Naturedidit.

Lemme know if that confuses you in any way because I think this misconception (the difference between evidence and hypothesis) may be the root of your problem.

(03-02-2015 02:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...
You can conclude that those things are a product of evolution, but you sure as hell aren't using science to draw that conclusion...you are relying on faith...the unseen...sounds kinda...religious to me lol.

Au contraire mon ami ... science all the way.

An epistemology based on evidence, logic and reason does not start with a conclusion... it finds one (sooner or later).

A faith-based epistemology will inevitably draw conclusions that are only within the bounds of that presupposed faith.

Big difference.

I'll happily explain why 'life' and 'consciousness' are labels we apply to products of evolution but right now I've got shitloads (an evolved term) to do before I head for the airport.

(03-02-2015 02:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...
Ok, lets slow this down...if someone say "Whether or not homosexuality is wrong is completely subjective", what does that mean?

Again, sorry, I don't have enough time to do that one justice so ... quick version...

It means ... they're an arse ... probably. Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
04-02-2015, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2015 06:30 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
So let's look at all of the baseless presuppositions Call Of The Wild has invoked so far:

1. The universe exists, so a magical being created it - even though matter and energy could indeed be eternal itself requiring no magical being.

2. This magical being currently exists and is omni-everything so it is aware and interested in humans on this insignificant mote of dust in the cosmos.

3. This magical being is called god and it just so happens, out of thousands of gods, that THIS god is the correct choice! Will the miracles never cease? What are the odds?
Even though the Genesis creation myth is based upon the Babylonian Elam Elish, it apparently does not prove the Babylonian gods, just the Abrahamic old testament god.Consider

4. The Jewish YHWH god that has Jesus as his son and savior from our sins is the right version of this Abrahamic god, those Jews that wrote about YHWH sans Jesus don't know what they're talking about!

5. And on top of all of these rock-solid presuppositions Laughat I'm sure this particular god is the exact flavor that Call of The Wild believes. It's Catholic, Protestant, Mormon or whatever it needs to be to match their worldview. Then it's Baptist, Lutheran, Nazarene, Bapticostal or whatever else it needs to be to provide a perfect match to their presuppositions. (only 40,000+ denominations to choose from)

And the cool trick is, this god claims to be the only one while being a perfect match for every bias one can conceive.

Presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, stacked upon presupposition, with zero evidence of the truth of a single presupposition, how can we not be convinced? Laughat

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: