Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

What makes sentience more plausible?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 8:38:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What makes a universe created by an external timeless, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, powerful, sentient being more plausible than a universe created by a set of mechanical conditions which are external, timeless, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, and powerful?

I'm definitely not saying that I believe in an external timeless, spaceless, eternal, immaterial and powerful cause mind you, I just thought this would be an interesting discussion.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because the first thing to put things in motion needs intent?

Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

I don't believe any of this, I'm just sayin.
I believe in a completely different paradigm.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 9:19:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because the first thing to put things in motion needs intent?

I will respond to your reasoning for this.


Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

There are two problems with this:

(i) If you subscribe to free will, then causality now does involve intent (the intent of human beings to cause things). Therefore, the foundation for your particular argument crumbles.

(ii) If you do not subscribe to free will, then you do not subscribe to free intent leading to creation, therefore, the argument still crumbles.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 10:11:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 9:19:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

There are two problems with this:

(i) If you subscribe to free will, then causality now does involve intent (the intent of human beings to cause things).

Ok, that's great. You just admitted that causes with intent come from human beings, beings that are sentient. So even if free will is assumed, it simply means that more agents of causal intent exist. It doesn't negate the idea that the first mover also needs intent.

Therefore, the foundation for your particular argument crumbles.

False. See above refutation.

(ii) If you do not subscribe to free will, then you do not subscribe to free intent leading to creation, therefore, the argument still crumbles.

False. It's possible for a God with free will to have created an entirely deterministic universe.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 10:37:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because the first thing to put things in motion needs intent?

Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

I don't believe any of this, I'm just sayin.
I believe in a completely different paradigm.

You can't see that there would be a chain of causes for a cause without intent if it was timeless,because a chain of causes itself assumes time which doesn't exist for a timeless cause.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 10:54:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 10:37:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because the first thing to put things in motion needs intent?

Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

I don't believe any of this, I'm just sayin.
I believe in a completely different paradigm.

You can't see that there would be a chain of causes for a cause without intent if it was timeless,because a chain of causes itself assumes time which doesn't exist for a timeless cause.

Can't you see that the OP said "created" denoting that there is a necessary beginning.

OP: "What makes a universe created..."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 8:22:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 10:54:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 10:37:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because the first thing to put things in motion needs intent?

Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

I don't believe any of this, I'm just sayin.
I believe in a completely different paradigm.

You can't see that there would be a chain of causes for a cause without intent if it was timeless,because a chain of causes itself assumes time which doesn't exist for a timeless cause.

Can't you see that the OP said "created" denoting that there is a necessary beginning.

OP: "What makes a universe created..."

"universe created by a set of mechanical conditions which are external, TIMELESS, spaceless, eternal, immaterial, and powerful?"

I am talking about the cause of the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 2:58:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 10:11:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 9:19:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

There are two problems with this:

(i) If you subscribe to free will, then causality now does involve intent (the intent of human beings to cause things).

Ok, that's great. You just admitted that causes with intent come from human beings, beings that are sentient. So even if free will is assumed, it simply means that more agents of causal intent exist. It doesn't negate the idea that the first mover also needs intent.

Therefore, the foundation for your particular argument crumbles.

False. See above refutation.

(ii) If you do not subscribe to free will, then you do not subscribe to free intent leading to creation, therefore, the argument still crumbles.

False. It's possible for a God with free will to have created an entirely deterministic universe.

"Ok, that's great. You just admitted that causes with intent come from human beings, beings that are sentient."

I said if you subscribe to free will, I never said I did so I didn't "admit" anything.

"So even if free will is assumed, it simply means that more agents of causal intent exist."

How do you get more "agents of causal intent" existing based on the assumption that humans are agents of causal intent? This is clearly a non sequitur, therefore, your argument is invalid.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 3:02:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 10:54:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 10:37:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because the first thing to put things in motion needs intent?

Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

I don't believe any of this, I'm just sayin.
I believe in a completely different paradigm.

You can't see that there would be a chain of causes for a cause without intent if it was timeless,because a chain of causes itself assumes time which doesn't exist for a timeless cause.

Can't you see that the OP said "created" denoting that there is a necessary beginning.

OP: "What makes a universe created..."

"Can't you see that the OP said "created" denoting that there is a necessary beginning"

How so? All you need is water and below 0 temperatures for example, and ice gets "created" without any beings. All you need are certain chemical reactions in the clouds and snowflakes are "created" without any being.

Claiming that the word "created" somehow infers a being by default, is of course incorrect.

To anybody else who reads this thread:

Can somebody who can actually form a logical argument, explain to me why sentience is necessary for "creation" of the universe?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 3:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 10:11:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 9:19:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/3/2012 8:55:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Everything in motion now was caused by something else without intent, because it's just causality. But the first mover was not caused by a chain reaction thus need intent to make the first move.

There are two problems with this:

(i) If you subscribe to free will, then causality now does involve intent (the intent of human beings to cause things).

Ok, that's great. You just admitted that causes with intent come from human beings, beings that are sentient. So even if free will is assumed, it simply means that more agents of causal intent exist. It doesn't negate the idea that the first mover also needs intent.

Therefore, the foundation for your particular argument crumbles.

False. See above refutation.

(ii) If you do not subscribe to free will, then you do not subscribe to free intent leading to creation, therefore, the argument still crumbles.

False. It's possible for a God with free will to have created an entirely deterministic universe.

"False. It's possible for a God with free will to have created an entirely deterministic universe"

It's also possible that God doesn't exist...I was asking for a reason why a sentient being is more plausible than the alternative, not an assertion of possibility.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 4:23:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 3:02:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How so? All you need is water and below 0 temperatures for example, and ice gets "created" without any beings. All you need are certain chemical reactions in the clouds and snowflakes are "created" without any being.
I think you are equivocating. Creation implies a creator. I would say that the ice "develops" or "forms".

Claiming that the word "created" somehow infers a being by default, is of course incorrect.
Actually, it is the MOST common understanding of word create. See dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Can somebody who can actually form a logical argument, explain to me why sentience is necessary for "creation" of the universe?
No need to be snobby. Anyways, sentience isn't needed as far as I can tell, but it is much preferred!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 4:33:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ Rational_Thinker

Creation = making something out of nothing, ex nihilo

Construction = making something out of pre-existing materials

Your thoughts are not very coherent and you are falling off the track of your own arguments. I will address those posts later.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 6:04:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 4:33:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Rational_Thinker

Creation = making something out of nothing, ex nihilo

Construction = making something out of pre-existing materials


Your thoughts are not very coherent and you are falling off the track of your own arguments. I will address those posts later.

"@ Rational_Thinker

Creation = making something out of nothing, ex nihilo

Construction = making something out of pre-existing materials"

You cannot make something out of nothing, out of nothing, nothing comes. Also, I can create a painting without it being from nothing (which is impossible anyway).

The only one not presenting any coherent arguments is you, I'm afraid.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 6:15:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 4:23:34 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/4/2012 3:02:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How so? All you need is water and below 0 temperatures for example, and ice gets "created" without any beings. All you need are certain chemical reactions in the clouds and snowflakes are "created" without any being.
I think you are equivocating. Creation implies a creator. I would say that the ice "develops" or "forms".

"Create
cre·ate (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce:"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Water and below zero temperatures give rise to and produce ice. The chemical reactions that take place in the clouds give rise to and produce snowflakes. The contents of the ground give rise and produce and cause trees that we see.


Claiming that the word "created" somehow infers a being by default, is of course incorrect.
Actually, it is the MOST common understanding of word create. See dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Your own source said "to bring into existence", just because God was used as an example doesn't mean something which is not a being couldn't fit the description. Either way it's not a point worth arguing, you can change the wording in my original post to "produce" if that makes anybody feel better.

Can somebody who can actually form a logical argument, explain to me why sentience is necessary for "creation" of the universe?
No need to be snobby. Anyways, sentience isn't needed as far as I can tell, but it is much preferred!

$1,000,000,000 is preferred, doesn't make it true..
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 6:24:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 6:05:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How you answer that is entirely dependent on how you interpret the question.

It's easy really, lets say I grant the timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful external cause....Why does it have to be a sentient being? Why not a timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful non-sentient set of conditions sufficient to produce our universe?

I want to hear reasoning why sentience is required, or more likely over non-sentience. It just seems absurd to me, that if there was a production of the universe, that it would share properties (complex intelligence, sentience ect.) of certain biological organisms on a random rock floating in space....It seems more likely, that the specific biological organisms on a random floating rock in outer space (AKA, us) are applying attributes it has to the "producer" of the universe (assuming this causal mechanism is required) with no basis, just due to the species own anthropomorphic delusion.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 7:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 6:24:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2012 6:05:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How you answer that is entirely dependent on how you interpret the question.

It's easy really, lets say I grant the timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful external cause....Why does it have to be a sentient being? Why not a timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful non-sentient set of conditions sufficient to produce our universe?

I want to hear reasoning why sentience is required, or more likely over non-sentience. It just seems absurd to me, that if there was a production of the universe, that it would share properties (complex intelligence, sentience ect.) of certain biological organisms on a random rock floating in space....It seems more likely, that the specific biological organisms on a random floating rock in outer space (AKA, us) are applying attributes it has to the "producer" of the universe (assuming this causal mechanism is required) with no basis, just due to the species own anthropomorphic delusion.

The Fool: I don't think Freedo is being serious. lol. You can that about anything, and it will alway be true. lol
The one I like is when people say "it depend how you define it. " .
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 8:04:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is my 666th post! AHH!
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 9:16:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 6:24:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2012 6:05:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How you answer that is entirely dependent on how you interpret the question.

It's easy really, lets say I grant the timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful external cause....Why does it have to be a sentient being? Why not a timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful non-sentient set of conditions sufficient to produce our universe?

I want to hear reasoning why sentience is required, or more likely over non-sentience. It just seems absurd to me, that if there was a production of the universe, that it would share properties (complex intelligence, sentience ect.) of certain biological organisms on a random rock floating in space....It seems more likely, that the specific biological organisms on a random floating rock in outer space (AKA, us) are applying attributes it has to the "producer" of the universe (assuming this causal mechanism is required) with no basis, just due to the species own anthropomorphic delusion.

What is sentient? What is timeless? What is spaceless? What is eternal? What is powerful? What is external? They sound obvious but I don't think very many people actually have the vaguest concept of what they actually mean when they say those things.
Especially sentient.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 12:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 6:15:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Create
cre·ate (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
This has an actor the "causer". Let's follow your sources reasoning:
"Found(1): To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872." Clearly has an actor, namely a human actor.

2. To give rise to; produce:"
The full quote: "2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir." Also has an actor at the origin of the creation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Your own source said "to bring into existence", just because God was used as an example doesn't mean something which is not a being couldn't fit the description.
It shows that there is an actor. Even by your sources I am correct.

Either way it's not a point worth arguing, you can change the wording in my original post to "produce" if that makes anybody feel better.
I agree: this is semantics and I am sure as boring to you as it is to me. My only contention is that the Universe was not created or produced: it is uncaused. That which is uncaused needs no actors ergo no REQUIREMENT of a conscience being. However, to many one is preferred.

$1,000,000,000 is preferred, doesn't make it true..
Yes, but while the truth of having a billion dollars can be arrived at, the other cannot!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 3:13:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 12:35:09 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/4/2012 6:15:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Create
cre·ate (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
This has an actor the "causer". Let's follow your sources reasoning:
"Found(1): To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872." Clearly has an actor, namely a human actor.

2. To give rise to; produce:"
The full quote: "2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir." Also has an actor at the origin of the creation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Your own source said "to bring into existence", just because God was used as an example doesn't mean something which is not a being couldn't fit the description.
It shows that there is an actor. Even by your sources I am correct.

Either way it's not a point worth arguing, you can change the wording in my original post to "produce" if that makes anybody feel better.
I agree: this is semantics and I am sure as boring to you as it is to me. My only contention is that the Universe was not created or produced: it is uncaused. That which is uncaused needs no actors ergo no REQUIREMENT of a conscience being. However, to many one is preferred.

$1,000,000,000 is preferred, doesn't make it true..
Yes, but while the truth of having a billion dollars can be arrived at, the other cannot!

"My only contention is that the Universe was not created or produced: it is uncaused."

I have no problem with your contention to be honest, I do find it weird coming from a Christian however lol
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 3:41:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 6:04:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2012 4:33:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Rational_Thinker

Creation = making something out of nothing, ex nihilo

Construction = making something out of pre-existing materials


Your thoughts are not very coherent and you are falling off the track of your own arguments. I will address those posts later.

"@ Rational_Thinker

Creation = making something out of nothing, ex nihilo

Construction = making something out of pre-existing materials"

You cannot make something out of nothing, out of nothing, nothing comes. Also, I can create a painting without it being from nothing (which is impossible anyway).

I am speaking from a philosophical perspective. I have taken a course on the Philosophy of Religion and it is accepted in the philosophical understanding that there is a distinction between creation and construction. You can bring up the dictionary definition all you want (which even that is consistent with the philosphical understanding), but in philosophy, creation means to bring into bring from nothing ex nihilo.

The only one not presenting any coherent arguments is you, I'm afraid.

I wad reffering to our discussion on free will. You said that if I don't believe in free will then I can't believe that God has free will. I retorted that it's possible for God to have free will and still have a deterministic universe. Then you went off topic completely missing the point saying "It's also possible that God doesn't exist...I was asking for a reason why a sentient being is more plausible than the alternative, not an assertion of possibility."

Yea, no kidding, I was simply responding to your point about believing in determinism is incompatible with believing in a free God. Stop losing track and stick to the point being addressed. You essentially created an irrelevant strawman and acted like you refuted me.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 4:12:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyway, I did some research to look at the theistic reasoning for why a sentient cause is required instead of a non-sentient cause of the universe. I'm going to post those arguments and my rebuttals to them here, with the intent of receiving feedback from this forum regarding the issue.

"If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? … The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." – William Lane Craig

The problem with the above argument, is Craig is implying a temporal gap between the choice and the action. Since this contradicts the idea of timelessness, then Craig's explanation for why the cause must be personal fails, even if we accepted simultaneous causation.

If there was no choice, then the problem of a temporal gap implication in a "timeless domain" would be solved. This means, that The Big Bang was most likely spontaneous (acting without external stimulus) or uncaused, rather than caused by an external agent with intent and choice.

If Craig is assuming no temporal gap between the choice and the action however, and God held the choice eternally in a timeless domain, then this means his argument against a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions causing the universe, applies to his personal agent as well. Thus, both forms of hypothetical external causes of the universe are invalid by Craig's own standards.

"The cause must be beyond space and time, therefore it could not be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything, therefore what follows is a transcendent intelligent mind." – Garreth Wilson

The problem with the assertions above, is the assumption that brain-independent minds are a coherent concept. The claim that minds aren't physical (there is a difference between materialism and physicalism) is baseless.

There is a clear correlation between certain processes in the brain and particular mind states that are unavoidable. Claiming the brain is dependent on the mind would be like saying eyes are dependent on 20/20 vision. It would be like saying steel, rubber, metal, and a working engine are entirely dependent on travelling in a motorized vehicle being a reality, or that movie projectors are dependent on motion pictures on a screen existing. Inferring that there is no dependency either way would imply the brain was a not a necessary function, which would be false. The only rational conclusion based on observation, is that minds are in fact dependent on brains and not vice versa.

X= a mind, Y= a brain, Z = matter

If X is dependent on Y, and Y can only exist if Z exists, then X cannot be the explanation of Z's existence.

Suppose an external cause of the is necessary (which of course it isn't, but strictly for the sake of discussion), it most likely would have been something that existed independent of Z, which would not include X. Therefore, the conclusion that a mind must be the cause of the universe is most likely false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 4:23:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 3:41:05 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/4/2012 6:04:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2012 4:33:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Rational_Thinker

Creation = making something out of nothing, ex nihilo

Construction = making something out of pre-existing materials


Your thoughts are not very coherent and you are falling off the track of your own arguments. I will address those posts later.

"@ Rational_Thinker

Creation = making something out of nothing, ex nihilo

Construction = making something out of pre-existing materials"

You cannot make something out of nothing, out of nothing, nothing comes. Also, I can create a painting without it being from nothing (which is impossible anyway).

I am speaking from a philosophical perspective. I have taken a course on the Philosophy of Religion and it is accepted in the philosophical understanding that there is a distinction between creation and construction. You can bring up the dictionary definition all you want (which even that is consistent with the philosphical understanding), but in philosophy, creation means to bring into bring from nothing ex nihilo.


The only one not presenting any coherent arguments is you, I'm afraid.

I wad reffering to our discussion on free will. You said that if I don't believe in free will then I can't believe that God has free will. I retorted that it's possible for God to have free will and still have a deterministic universe. Then you went off topic completely missing the point saying "It's also possible that God doesn't exist...I was asking for a reason why a sentient being is more plausible than the alternative, not an assertion of possibility."

Yea, no kidding, I was simply responding to your point about believing in determinism is incompatible with believing in a free God. Stop losing track and stick to the point being addressed. You essentially created an irrelevant strawman and acted like you refuted me.




.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

"I am speaking from a philosophical perspective. I have taken a course on the Philosophy of Religion and it is accepted in the philosophical understanding that there is a distinction between creation and construction. You can bring up the dictionary definition all you want (which even that is consistent with the philosphical understanding), but in philosophy, creation means to bring into bring from nothing ex nihilo."

You are arguing semantics in all reality, I already stated that you could change the word "created" in my original post to "produced" and the point would still stand.

Also, are you implying that it would be philosophically impossible for someone to create a painting from a canvas, brushes, and paint because creation can only involve ex nihilo?

"I wad reffering to our discussion on free will. You said that if I don't believe in free will then I can't believe that God has free will. I retorted that it's possible for God to have free will and still have a deterministic universe. Then you went off topic completely missing the point saying "It's also possible that God doesn't exist...I was asking for a reason why a sentient being is more plausible than the alternative, not an assertion of possibility.""

I was using your standards, not mine regarding my claim about human free will/ God's free will. Also my response was valid, I wasn't asking for an assertion of possibility I was asking for logical reasoning for necessity.

"Yea, no kidding, I was simply responding to your point about believing in determinism is incompatible with believing in a free God. Stop losing track and stick to the point being addressed. You essentially created an irrelevant strawman and acted like you refuted me."

My point was based on the standards provided by your argument, not my own standards. I was trying to prove a point that your standard of reasoning isn't very sufficient regarding the discussion at hand.