Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-03-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(03-03-2016 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-03-2016 04:24 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I can do all of that...but I like the pace we have. Small steps, not leaps and bounds Laugh out load

That's the way evolution works, too.

Sure, according to the theory...Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 12:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Are you pushing the silly strong anthropic principle?

Call it what you want, cat man.

(04-03-2016 12:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Such a calculation is ill-conceived as it assumes that Homo sapiens was a goal.
Evolution has no goals.

Actually, the calculations doesn't even consider Homo sapiens. Try again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 12:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 12:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Are you pushing the silly strong anthropic principle?

Call it what you want, cat man.

How informative. You post like a twelve-year-old.

Quote:
(04-03-2016 12:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Such a calculation is ill-conceived as it assumes that Homo sapiens was a goal.
Evolution has no goals.

Actually, the calculations doesn't even consider Homo sapiens. Try again.

Oh, really? Then what did you mean by:
"physicist Roger Penrose, whose work calculated the astronomical improbability of man existing"?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-03-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 01:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, really? Then what did you mean by:
"physicist Roger Penrose, whose work calculated the astronomical improbability of man existing"?

Life in general. Either way, it doesn't "assume that Homo Sapiens was a goal" as you said it did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 01:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 01:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, really? Then what did you mean by:
"physicist Roger Penrose, whose work calculated the astronomical improbability of man existing"?

Life in general. Either way, it doesn't "assume that Homo Sapiens was a goal" as you said it did.

I thought you proclaimed god was life/a living thing before though, so it's a weird dichotomy of existence here. Or was that only one of the other current christian theists here using that claim. I thought it was from within this thread.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 01:54 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 01:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I thought you proclaimed god was life/a living thing before though, so it's a weird dichotomy of existence here. Or was that only one of the other current christian theists here using that claim. I thought it was from within this thread.

What?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 02:05 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So instead of explaining how it is incoherent

I did, actually. It is incoherent because it posits that the creation of time itself took place within time.

This is an incoherent concept.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If it had a beginning, there is a reason why it had a beginning

Bare assertion.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "We are working on it". Ok, well get back to me when you are finished Big Grin

And, again, your personal incredulity is not an argument. Repeating the same fallacy ad nauseum does not make it any less of a fallacy.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  This is becoming a common thing with you.

Yes. Because I do not suffer fools gladly, and when someone keeps saying things that are blatantly wrong, I point them out.

If you want me to stop doing this, stop saying things that are blatantly wrong.

As for your supposed chicken-and-egg scenario, obviously the brain came first. At what point we move to true consciousness is exactly what various fields of neuroscience, such as integrated information theory, are working to determine - but there is no evidence whatsoever that some sort of "spark" was involved, let alone that it was necessary.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will ask again, how can mere chemicals form an image of a discrete physical object??

I answered this in my previous post. Do not attempt to fisk me if you do not understand how it works.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Neurochemical reactions to what, exactly?

Input gathered from interaction with external entities, mostly, though there are feedback loops within the brain that cause some thoughts to interact with others, obviously.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(03-03-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have no idea, personally. I am not a neuroscientist. But it demonstrably does.

Keep the irrelevant links to yourself.

This is anything but irrelevant. It is demonstrable proof that thoughts are neurochemical reactions.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No neuroscientist can explain where consciousness came from

Integrated information theory, the Blue Brain Project, et cetera.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I also stated that the concept of God (as defined in the argument) is logically coherent

The argument offers no definition for the concept of God. Which is another problem entirely, and another reason that it fails, but ultimately unimportant.

Again, the issue here is that ontological arguments are inherently semantic. They are based upon definitions, and, in all their forms - not just the modal - they essentially boil down to:

- [X] is defined as an entity which exists in any possible world.
- An actual world exists.
- Therefore, X exists.

The above is logically valid, but actually worthless. Simply creating a definition is worthless, as it does nothing towards actually establishing the existence of an entity which meets that definition. Even Plantinga himself says outright, in "The Nature of Necessity", that the ontological argument cannot be considered to prove its conclusion.

Every ontological argument boils down to "if God exists, God exists" - which is true, but tells us nothing, as the existence of God has not been established.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The fact that they believed, is evidence that they saw something to make them believe that they SAW something.

Which is still not evidence that what they believed was true.

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Either way, you have to explain the low entropy needed for this "stuff" (life permitting universe) to work.

Do you understand the difference between a closed system and an open system?

(04-03-2016 12:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Apparently, you've never heard of physical constants and the values that accompany them. Also, apparently you've never heard of physicist Roger Penrose, whose work calculated the astronomical improbability of man existing in a life permitting universe by mere chance.

I have. Which still does not change the fact that asserting that the universe even could have been otherwise is bare assertion, as we simply do not know. It also does not change the fact that, even were it to be a matter of pure chance, the dice coming up in our favor does not in any way even begin to suggest an intelligent agency or other bias at work.

You do not understand what the term "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" means.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-03-2016, 02:39 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 01:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 01:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Life in general. Either way, it doesn't "assume that Homo Sapiens was a goal" as you said it did.

I thought you proclaimed god was life/a living thing before though, so it's a weird dichotomy of existence here. Or was that only one of the other current christian theists here using that claim. I thought it was from within this thread.

I think you're right, but it was way, way back in this thread, when I was still wasting my time arguing with him. When he kept pooh-poohing abiogenesis, I pointed out that he, too, must accept abiogenesis, because if the universe had a beginning, there was a time without life, and now we have life. Therefore, "life came from non-life". He backed out by claiming that God was "life".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
04-03-2016, 04:30 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 12:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 12:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Are you pushing the silly strong anthropic principle?

Call it what you want, cat man.

(04-03-2016 12:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  Such a calculation is ill-conceived as it assumes that Homo sapiens was a goal.
Evolution has no goals.

Actually, the calculations doesn't even consider Homo sapiens. Try again.

Hey ignoramus, it's "the calculations DON'T" ... it's plural.
I know you never went to school, but really, isn't this something you could pray about ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2016, 05:48 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I did, actually. It is incoherent because it posits that the creation of time itself took place within time.

This is an incoherent concept.

Simultaneous causation. I'd like a direct response to THAT aspect of the argument, please.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Bare assertion.

Oh yeah, the universe popped into being out of nothing, right? Laugh out load

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And, again, your personal incredulity is not an argument. Repeating the same fallacy ad nauseum does not make it any less of a fallacy.

What you quoted and what you responded with doesn't seem to mesh up.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. Because I do not suffer fools gladly, and when someone keeps saying things that are blatantly wrong, I point them out.

If you want me to stop doing this, stop saying things that are blatantly wrong.

More like "if you want me to stop doing this, stop saying things that are against my naturalistic worldview".

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As for your supposed chicken-and-egg scenario, obviously the brain came first. At what point we move to true consciousness is exactly what various fields of neuroscience, such as integrated information theory, are working to determine - but there is no evidence whatsoever that some sort of "spark" was involved, let alone that it was necessary.

So, back to my scenario. If the brain came first...if you are a neuroscientist in a lab, and you had all of the brain material in the world (neurochemicals included), and you are tasked to shape and form a human brain with all of the material at your disposal....

Got it?

So even if you are able to shape and mold the material into a "brain"...where would you get the consciousness from?? In the scenario, you have the brain...AND the neurochemicals...but how will you get the brain to begin thinking??

Where will you get the consciousness, sir?? Laugh out load Well, you said the brain came first, so in this scenario, you have the brain "first"...so, get some consciousness in there, sir.

Laugh out load

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I answered this in my previous post. Do not attempt to fisk me if you do not understand how it works.

You repeated the same thing about chemical reactions, which does not answer the question of where did the image of an apple come from.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Input gathered from interaction with external entities, mostly, though there are feedback loops within the brain that cause some thoughts to interact with others, obviously.

Input from what external entities?? I am asking you about the origins of a thought of an apple in my brain, and you are giving me an explanation that already presupposes thoughts.

I will ask again, what are the neurochemicals in my brain reacting to too give me a thought of a SPECIFIC image of a discrete and independent material object?

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is anything but irrelevant. It is demonstrable proof that thoughts are neurochemical reactions.

Then in the scenario above, you shouldn't have any problem telling me where you would get the consciousness from. Obviously, I can easily predict that you aren't able to do so, and if you can't do so in a thought analogy, then it can't be done in real life...thus, making the link irrelevant.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Integrated information theory, the Blue Brain Project, et cetera.

http://www.artificialbrains.com/blue-brain-project#news

I see nothing regarding the origins of consciousness, in fact, the contrary..."Goals of the project are to gain a complete understanding of the brain and to enable better and faster development of brain disease treatments."

Says nothing about origins/consciousness. So far, neither experiments have produced such results.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The argument offers no definition for the concept of God. Which is another problem entirely, and another reason that it fails, but ultimately unimportant.

You begin the argument by giving the DEFINITION of a Maximally Great Being (Supreme Being), as you obviously want to DEFINE the being that you are advocating FOR....this acts as an abstract for the argument and can be looked at as part of it.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Again, the issue here is that ontological arguments are inherently semantic. They are based upon definitions, and, in all their forms - not just the modal - they essentially boil down to:

- [X] is defined as an entity which exists in any possible world.
- An actual world exists.
- Therefore, X exists.

Again, I am advocating Alvin Plantiga's version, and you keep talking about everything else BUT this version. If you stick to the version I am arguing for, then you will realize that the above syllogism is irrelevant because no one is making a case for that.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The above is logically valid, but actually worthless. Simply creating a definition is worthless, as it does nothing towards actually establishing the existence of an entity which meets that definition.

Straw man.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even Plantinga himself says outright, in "The Nature of Necessity", that the ontological argument cannot be considered to prove its conclusion.

Well, I'd like to know how is the ontological argument "considered to prove its conclusion". Dr. William Lane Craig, a friend of Plantiga, uses Plantiga's version in both his written work and his teaching work.

What I'd like for you to do is simply tell me why the premises of the argument are false, if any.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Every ontological argument boils down to "if God exists, God exists" - which is true, but tells us nothing, as the existence of God has not been established.

That's not what Plantiga's version says. Educate yourself, otherwise, strawman.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is still not evidence that what they believed was true.

Again, then the question is...what reasons did they have to BELIEVE that Jesus rose from the dead?

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Do you understand the difference between a closed system and an open system?

Do you? The universe is a closed system...there is nothing outside it replenishing its energy as it loses energy...it is closed. If it was, it would be an open system. But judging by the fact that we are losing usable energy with no replacement...it is obviously closed.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have. Which still does not change the fact that asserting that the universe even could have been otherwise is bare assertion, as we simply do not know.

It also does not change the fact that, even were it to be a matter of pure chance, the dice coming up in our favor does not in any way even begin to suggest an intelligent agency or other bias at work.

Could have been otherwise? Um, there are only two options...either the universe would have been life prohibiting, or life permitting. Again, no gray area. Based on the mathematical precision needed for the universe to be life permitting, and only ONE try to do so, it is simply foolish to believe that we are here by mere chance.

Roger Penrose's calculations...the number regarding to the probability of us being here by mere chance is sooooooo vastly improbable that it is just simply foolish to believe that we are here by mere chance.

Obviously, no sane person would take their chances with that kind of probability if they didn't like the idea of a cosmic engineer being behind the process.

(04-03-2016 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not understand what the term "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" means.

I also do not give a damn, either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: