Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

No evidence of God? Yes there is.

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?
MaxSterling
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 3:29:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

The falsehood here is in the phrase 'Or in other words'
You're drawing this false comparison that the scientific method does not recognise. No one doubts a mathematical theorem's validity if it is indeed proven through empirical testing.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

This all simplifies to 'The universe is immensely complex, therefor I infer God' without realising the core issue that you are both making an assumption that a simple system cannot become complex over time. You also attempt to explain away this complex system with another complex system (isn't this getting old?) without explaining where this new complex system originated from.

As far as my point about simple to complex systems, I leave that explanation to someone with a greater grasp of physics. As far as the second point I made: this argument has been circling for YEARS and has been sufficiently, in my eyes anyway, broken down to total irrelevance. It's purpose is to challenge a layman understanding of the universe with something that seems true enough in rhetoric alone yet when compared to the many theories and hypotheses relating to the origins of the universe it falls flat. I am willing to state that it COULD have been the work of some intelligent form we have not detected yet as much as it could be the result of the previous universe collapsing in on itself eternally.
"But why do you want REVENGE?!"

"I HAVE REASONS!!!!!"
ken1122
Posts: 473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 4:27:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.



Ken
Kinda funny; all the non-empirical things you mentioned (facts, beliefs, truth, math, etc.)don"t have an actual existence by themselves; they only exist in the context of human thought; in other words they only exist in our heads. Now if you wish to add God to this list of non-empiricals that only exist in your head, I can agree with that.

Ken
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 7:37:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

I find myself in a life permitting universe golly it must of being pre planned............

How many times do we have to go over the same thing, over and over over and over and over.

We also happen to live in an black hole and ebola virus permitting universe...................golly what are the odds eh ?


Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

There is a joke about a puddle that thinks to it's self wow this hole is just the right size for me...................


Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...


I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

It's a double standard, human beings with all their flaws just can't exist unless they are the product of intelligent design (so the story goes) yet the intelligent designer of humans who is "greater" than humans does not need an intelligent designer them self.

Golly it almost as if people are just making up things to go along with a prior religious belief eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 9:28:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is NO verifiable evidence of the existence of any deity, anyone who claims there is evidence is lying!
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 9:36:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No evidence for the existence of a supreme being exists. Various theories have been created but none have any base to them. They are just full of speculative claims.
b_sorelson
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 2:25:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it? : :

There is a reason that faith and belief is necessary to know God. If it was left up to us human beings to find God, we would still be wondering around in the desert.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 3:25:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

Question begging.

"There is evidence of God", and before you begin to demonstrate your assertion, you immediately define God as a necessary condition on which your conclusion will be based.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Reality, as you just defined God as the intelligent mind which grounds reality, and reality exists, so God must exist. I just saved you a WHOLE bunch of typing.

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

And failed, many times, and required tweaking based on further evidence. God isn't something you can do that with if your deduction requires His existence to begin with.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Reality exists, so God must exist. QED, its how you defined God. Saved you more typing.

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

I take exception "non rational". Please describe a situation in which a non intelligent, non-purposesful etc etc etc behaved in a non-rational way.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish.

Misleading verbiage, hasty generalization fallacy. Currently, there is only one example of life, in this particular petri dish, but there are currently COUNTLESS petri dishes in the universe. You are basing such an assertion from ONE example.

The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.

This is meaningless if we don't know how many attempts are made.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

... so, the universe is an inert lump compared to the brain. Then we move to reality, being unpurposeful, etc, MUST have been derived from an intelligent being because it looks all so gosh darn pretty.

So, why is the universe as a whole not allowed to have the qualities you give to God?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 4:45:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

First of all, let's make it sparkling crystal clear that applied mathematics and aeronautics are real things.

And yet, with all the real applied mathematics and aeronautics, the rocket did not fly straight, many of them exploded. Application after application continued to fail to make the rocket fly straight and by the time it did, it looked nothing like the original hypothetical reasoning.

So, what happened when we started to apply religious beliefs for the existence of God? We discover evolution, instead.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

That depends, your examples require defining. What do you mean by "specified-complexity"?

Is a snowflake complex, especially when compared to other snowflakes? Do snowflakes have a mind or are they mindless? Seems you're working from false premises.

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Argument from incredulity.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Argument from ignorance. The hole in the ground does not fit the puddle of water, it's the other way round.

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Sorry, but that lame argument has been refuted. In fact, the early oceans were filled with billions upon billions of "chances" to form life over many hundreds of millions of years.

I haven't even scratched the surface.

You haven't even produced a single valid point.

Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

Once again, argument from ignorance and incredulity.

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Sorry, order and purpose? Where?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

Not according to anything you've provided here.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 5:04:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

Define "intelligent." Define "mind." Define "grounds." Define "reality."


There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

Citations needed. "Creative," "complex," "categorized," and "purposeful" are all subjective. If reality is grounded by a mind, we wouldn't know what mindless things' attributes would be, meaning you can't possibly justify those as characteristics of things that are mindless without refuting yourself and begging the question.


In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Define "order," common perceptions of it tend to be subjective.


Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

1. Take this analogy. I toss a pack of 52 cards sideways. I get a random order. The probability of my getting that order by chance is 1:10^64, but since everything has a probability of 1:10^64 and there *has* to be an order, we can conclude that it is necessary for something to occur there with a 1:10^64 probability. Why not the same with the universe, albeit with lesser probability?

2. Why do you presume that physical necessity couldn't have "tuned" it?


I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

Establish an objective standard for "telos" and "complexity." Define "complexity" clearly.


So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEDGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

You're assuming "knowledge" presupposes the mind. Bare assertion.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 7:16:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

Actually the evidence you presented refute an intelligent mind belief, why are there billions and billions of stars and galaxies spinning around aimlessly when you only need a few to sustain life?

Why did it take billions and billions of years and millions of deaths to produce intelligent life on our planet alone?

Why did God decide to send Jesus after creating the world and letting it grow and develop systems independently while concentration on only the Jews to punish and teach culminating in Jesus who after all the planning and time taken preparing him for a mission ended in failure?

Stupid is what stupid does. Even Jesus recluses himself of all the stupid things he said by claiming it was not his words but words that God put in his mouth.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2015 11:06:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

The laws of the universe are such that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the universe would kill all forms of known life nearly instantly. It defies any form of common sense to think a designer would chose these laws in order to create a universe compatible to life.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our part of the universe is well suited to life; that's kind of to be expected. It would be far more evidence of a God if we found ourselves alive in a place that wasn't conducive for life! Life can only evolve in corners of the universe that are well suited for life, and finding ourselves in one is not evidence of anything but observer bias.

Now, contrast this with how much of the universe is not conducive for life, and it rejects the notion of a universe designed for life.

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Which would be a valid argument if any scientist claimed that the first life was a single modern cell that was assembled via pure chance. In reality, evolution and the investigation into abiogenesis is concerned with showing how the probability of such things arising are low enough to be plausible. Of course, this research has come a long way in this respect, yet the counter arguments are still rooted in those of the 1700s.

Also, just FYI; specified complexity is not actually a thing.

I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

I would say that the internet is more complex than the human brain, it works better, involves more complex rules and information, contains more data, and is significantly faster. Indeed, the human brain is actually relatively simple. Neurons follow fairly simple chemical rules; what is amazing is how these simple rules repeated over the entire brain can bring about extraordinary things.

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Anthropomorphizing the universe is probably your first presuppositional assumption. Purpose, intelligence, "specified complex information"; which is still not a thing btw, creativity, don't really exist in the universe. Indeed even "order" is arguable.

Life and the universe is pretty complex, but things we design mostly work better; it's why we've augmented so much of our life with technology.

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

No. Not really. Most of this evidence you present is "wow, isn't this complex!". That isn't really evidence of anything more than your own self-limited interpretation of the universe.

To be evidence, it needs to be positively indicative of one thing over another. Indeed, many of the examples you cite have generally detailed explanations as to how they can originate through generally natural processes. The ones that haven't such an explanation are generally not supportative of intelligence because you've used such a superficial analysis of them, ignoring the detailed consequences of your claims.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2015 4:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/5/2015 11:06:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?


Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

The laws of the universe are such that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the universe would kill all forms of known life nearly instantly. It defies any form of common sense to think a designer would chose these laws in order to create a universe compatible to life.

Isn't it more impressive to observe a life-permitting environment balancing on a hairpin rather than everywhere?


Our part of the universe is well suited to life; that's kind of to be expected. It would be far more evidence of a God if we found ourselves alive in a place that wasn't conducive for life! Life can only evolve in corners of the universe that are well suited for life, and finding ourselves in one is not evidence of anything but observer bias.

Didn't you just say "The laws of the universe are such that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the universe would kill all forms of known life nearly instantly"? Also, saying "finding ourselves in corners of the universe that are well-suited for life" is an unmerited assumption - we don't know which other corners of the universe are conducive for life because we haven't found any other forms of life yet..

Now, contrast this with how much of the universe is not conducive for life, and it rejects the notion of a universe designed for life.

Defying all odds is more evidence of a designer rather than the reverse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Which would be a valid argument if any scientist claimed that the first life was a single modern cell that was assembled via pure chance. In reality, evolution and the investigation into abiogenesis is concerned with showing how the probability of such things arising are low enough to be plausible. Of course, this research has come a long way in this respect, yet the counter arguments are still rooted in those of the 1700s.

Where has it showed low enough to be plausible? Actually genetic code is a relatively new discovery, in the 1950's. Back in Darwin's day they believed cells were a simple globule of protoplasm.

Also, just FYI; specified complexity is not actually a thing.

What do you mean by "not actually a thing." Here's a link
http://epsociety.org...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

I would say that the internet is more complex than the human brain, it works better, involves more complex rules and information, contains more data, and is significantly faster. Indeed, the human brain is actually relatively simple. Neurons follow fairly simple chemical rules; what is amazing is how these simple rules repeated over the entire brain can bring about extraordinary things.

No.

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Anthropomorphizing the universe is probably your first presuppositional assumption. Purpose, intelligence, "specified complex information"; which is still not a thing btw, creativity, don't really exist in the universe. Indeed even "order" is arguable.

Im not anthropomorphizing any of it. The evidence speaks for itself. You can tell me those things don't exist, but clearly they do. What is the purpose of your heart? Are we intelligent beings? Do intelligent beings create specified-complex information and is that information present in the genetic code in all of our cells? Does the diversity of life show creativity? The life cycle is just one of many examples of order in our universe. If all of the above is true, there's purpose, intelligence, specified complex information, creativity and order in the universe.

Life and the universe is pretty complex, but things we design mostly work better; it's why we've augmented so much of our life with technology.

Work better in what way? DNA is a better storage system - and a more complex software (according to Bill Gates) than anything we've ever created.

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

No. Not really. Most of this evidence you present is "wow, isn't this complex!". That isn't really evidence of anything more than your own self-limited interpretation of the universe.

I've laid out both hypothesis and gave examples of what we would expect from either. Purpose, intelligence, creativity, order, specified-complexity, etc.

To be evidence, it needs to be positively indicative of one thing over another. Indeed, many of the examples you cite have generally detailed explanations as to how they can originate through generally natural processes. The ones that haven't such an explanation are generally not supportative of intelligence because you've used such a superficial analysis of them, ignoring the detailed consequences of your claims.

Its a philosophical argument - even if everything could be explained naturally doesn't mean an intelligent designer wasn't responsible. Natural phenomena explains the "how" not the "why". Otherwise we could walk up to any designed object, take it apart, learn how it works, and conclude that the designer for that object doesn't exist. I'm not sure about the rest of your post, it's pretty vague.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:43:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
What's interesting is Atheists tend to not believe your consciousness can be "rebirthed" ever in the future due to statistical improbability, but do believe it happened to make their consciousness in the first place.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 6:07:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 5:43:53 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
What's interesting is Atheists tend to not believe your consciousness can be "rebirthed" ever in the future due to statistical improbability, but do believe it happened to make their consciousness in the first place.
What's significant is that if you start off believing in spirits, you naturally produce an ontology in which consciousness is separate from neurology. That then becomes so essential to your beliefs, you may hold consciousness unexplainable in any other way.

On the other hand, if you don't assume spirits exist, it's natural to first test whether consciousness is bound to neurology -- and lo and behold -- it is! In every way one would expect if consciousness arose as a neurological function.

At which point, one has to ask whether one needs spirits at all.

And there's the problem, isn't it, Gritty? The more evidence there is that consciousness is a neurological function, the more you have to ignore just to continue to hope that spirits might still exist.

The falsification of consciousness as a neurological function is simple: show that thought, memory, emotion or temperament can work reliably, independently of any brain damage (we know from repeated testing that it doesn't.)

So what's the falsification of spirit again? Help us out here.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 6:32:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 6:07:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:43:53 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
What's interesting is Atheists tend to not believe your consciousness can be "rebirthed" ever in the future due to statistical improbability, but do believe it happened to make their consciousness in the first place.
What's significant is that if you start off believing in spirits, you naturally produce an ontology in which consciousness is separate from neurology. That then becomes so essential to your beliefs, you may hold consciousness unexplainable in any other way.

On the other hand, if you don't assume spirits exist, it's natural to first test whether consciousness is bound to neurology -- and lo and behold -- it is! In every way one would expect if consciousness arose as a neurological function.

At which point, one has to ask whether one needs spirits at all.

And there's the problem, isn't it, Gritty? The more evidence there is that consciousness is a neurological function, the more you have to ignore just to continue to hope that spirits might still exist.

The falsification of consciousness as a neurological function is simple: show that thought, memory, emotion or temperament can work reliably, independently of any brain damage (we know from repeated testing that it doesn't.)

So what's the falsification of spirit again? Help us out here.

In infinite time, the probability of your consciousness being "birthed" once is identical to the probability of it being birthed infinite times. If there has always been then this process has happened infinite amount of times. In infinite reality we get us, more than us, and infinitely more than us. To say spirits or God do not exist then claim reality or realities have never "not existed" is intellectually incosistant. To say infinite time and infinite reality is what allowed us to be constructed then say spirits or god have never been constructed by a similar process or exist outside of our reality/realities is an intellectual suicide attempt.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 7:55:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 9/5/2015 1:41:53 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
"God" will be defined as the intelligent mind that grounds reality.

There's plenty of evidence of God. What is "evidence"?

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Too often people seem believe that "evidence" is only what can be seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or heard. Or in other words, only things that can be empirically verified should be accepted as evidence. "Facts", "information", "belief", "truth" and "validity" are all non-empirical and non-sensorial concepts. Therefore, the notion that things which are only empirically verifiable can be considered as evidence is flat out wrong.

There are two ways to gain knowledge: empirically and rationally.

Since evidence is not necessarily empirical, can we arrive there rationally? Yes! We've made many discoveries about the universe through the use of purely theoretical/mathematical reasoning. Take the use of applied mathematics in aeronautics, for example. Before the rocket could fly straight, first we needed a purely theoretical and mathematically sound foundation. The knowledge that was required in order for the rocket to fly straight was through hypothetical reasoning but was put into practice when it was applied.

So what evidence is there for God that we can obtain through the use of logical truths and/or rational reasoning?

Take the following competing hypothesis:

(1) Reality is fundamentally not of the mind.

(2) Reality is fundamentally of the mind.

What kind of things would we expect from either hypothesis?

Signatures of the mind include: intelligence, creativity, purpose, emotion, efficient categorization of data, specified-complexity, and rationality.

Signatures of things that are mindless: non-intelligent, non-creative, non-purposeful, non-emotional, non-categorized, non-specified/complex, and non-rational.

In our universe, which is the more plausible hypothesis?

We have various laws and constants that maintain equilibrium and harmonious order throughout the universe. The odds of them independently synchronizing for a life-permitting window, by chance, defies comprehensibility.

Everything just so happens to fall neatly aligned for life to flourish. The exact distance from the sun and moon to prevent being too cold or too hot for life to exist, the moon's gravitational pull to prevent the oceans from stagnation. Earth's 23.5 degree tilt is why we experience seasons - fall, winter, spring and summer.
http://www.universetoday.com...

Our entire bodily structures are built by the genetic code that's housed within each of our cells. Only specified and complex sequences of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine make that possible. What are the odds that this specified and complex information led to the functioning of a cell by chance? Atheist Fred Hoyle, a British mathematics and astronomer from the university of Cambridge calculated the odds to be no less than 1 in 10 ^ 40,000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I haven't even scratched the surface. Look at how amazing the human body is. You're the most marvelous feat of engineering - if it was a feat of engineering - the world has ever seen! The human brain has been said to be the most complex object in existence. Now, if reality is fundamentally not of the mind, what an utterly unbelievable happenstance that even natural, blind processes could lead to that! "Consider the human brain," says the physicist Sir Roger Penrose. "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

So why all of this vast intelligence, intelligibility, order, purpose ("why" should not be an applicable question to any natural process), manifested creativity, specified-complex information in our cells, elicited emotion about the beauty of the natural world, and processes that mirror and exceed our own capabilities if we were to design them AS intelligent beings?

Think of any academic discipline. Physics, cosmology, philosophy, engineering, etc., etc., all of the KNOWLEGE is gained from studying or observing the natural universe - which is not supposed to elicit knowledge at all if its fundamentally not of the mind..

The evidence is clearly in favor of the hypothesis that the universe - and reality - derived from an intelligent mind. Isn't it?

Last time I checked, flagrantly dishonest misrepresentations and arguments from ignorance are not evidence.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:23:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 6:32:33 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:07:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:43:53 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
What's interesting is Atheists tend to not believe your consciousness can be "rebirthed" ever in the future due to statistical improbability, but do believe it happened to make their consciousness in the first place.
What's significant is that if you start off believing in spirits, you naturally produce an ontology in which consciousness is separate from neurology. That then becomes so essential to your beliefs, you may hold consciousness unexplainable in any other way.

On the other hand, if you don't assume spirits exist, it's natural to first test whether consciousness is bound to neurology -- and lo and behold -- it is! In every way one would expect if consciousness arose as a neurological function.

At which point, one has to ask whether one needs spirits at all.

And there's the problem, isn't it, Gritty? The more evidence there is that consciousness is a neurological function, the more you have to ignore just to continue to hope that spirits might still exist.

The falsification of consciousness as a neurological function is simple: show that thought, memory, emotion or temperament can work reliably, independently of any brain damage (we know from repeated testing that it doesn't.)

So what's the falsification of spirit again? Help us out here.

In infinite time, the probability of your consciousness being "birthed" once is identical to the probability of it being birthed infinite times.
If we had an infinite universe without entropy, that'd be a valid argument. But the universe is finite; the matter in it is about 13 billion years old; we've only had life here for less than a third of that; galaxies are accelerating apart, and there's no reason to suppose that initial galactic formation processes will repeat. We may not be the only intelligent life in the universe, but we are the only critically-thinking life who will see this universe exactly as we see it now -- unless we either create some, or someone unexpectedly comes to visit before it all changes.

That our particular experiences of the universe will not repeat means that the experiences informing our current thoughts and memories will not repeat too. So whatever ways there might be to reproduce cognitive functions statistically, key components shaping what most people think of as identity will be lost as our universe changes.

We not only die individually, Gritty, but our species and its environment will die too. The universe is not morally ordered; life on earth has not been constructed to some compassionate plan; if there is an escape-clause from the entropy, extinction and dissolution that awaits our wondrous species, it will not come from rolling our eyes and flapping our hands at the zealous pronouncements of our cruel and ignorant forbears, or muttering magical imprecations at rude wooden symbols on bended knee.

Atheism isn't suicidal, but superstition is. Each moment you spend telling yourself you have answers when you barely understand the questions; each moment you poison your own curiosity, courage and reason with evasive, opaque, platitudinous, debunked dogma, is a moment you are stealing from the braver, smarter person who was born to walk in your shoes.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:44:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 8:23:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:32:33 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:07:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:43:53 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
What's interesting is Atheists tend to not believe your consciousness can be "rebirthed" ever in the future due to statistical improbability, but do believe it happened to make their consciousness in the first place.
What's significant is that if you start off believing in spirits, you naturally produce an ontology in which consciousness is separate from neurology. That then becomes so essential to your beliefs, you may hold consciousness unexplainable in any other way.

On the other hand, if you don't assume spirits exist, it's natural to first test whether consciousness is bound to neurology -- and lo and behold -- it is! In every way one would expect if consciousness arose as a neurological function.

At which point, one has to ask whether one needs spirits at all.

And there's the problem, isn't it, Gritty? The more evidence there is that consciousness is a neurological function, the more you have to ignore just to continue to hope that spirits might still exist.

The falsification of consciousness as a neurological function is simple: show that thought, memory, emotion or temperament can work reliably, independently of any brain damage (we know from repeated testing that it doesn't.)

So what's the falsification of spirit again? Help us out here.

In infinite time, the probability of your consciousness being "birthed" once is identical to the probability of it being birthed infinite times.
If we had an infinite universe without entropy, that'd be a valid argument. But the universe is finite; the matter in it is about 13 billion years old; we've only had life here for less than a third of that; galaxies are accelerating apart, and there's no reason to suppose that initial galactic formation processes will repeat. We may not be the only intelligent life in the universe, but we are the only critically-thinking life who will see this universe exactly as we see it now -- unless we either create some, or someone unexpectedly comes to visit before it all changes.

That our particular experiences of the universe will not repeat means that the experiences informing our current thoughts and memories will not repeat too. So whatever ways there might be to reproduce cognitive functions statistically, key components shaping what most people think of as identity will be lost as our universe changes.

We not only die individually, Gritty, but our species and its environment will die too. The universe is not morally ordered; life on earth has not been constructed to some compassionate plan; if there is an escape-clause from the entropy, extinction and dissolution that awaits our wondrous species, it will not come from rolling our eyes and flapping our hands at the zealous pronouncements of our cruel and ignorant forbears, or muttering magical imprecations at rude wooden symbols on bended knee.

Atheism isn't suicidal, but superstition is. Each moment you spend telling yourself you have answers when you barely understand the questions; each moment you poison your own curiosity, courage and reason with evasive, opaque, platitudinous, debunked dogma, is a moment you are stealing from the braver, smarter person who was born to walk in your shoes.

It doesn't matter that "matter is finite". Infinite time means the same as infinite matter in that over infinite time, matter has had infinite times to create. And in reality, we don't know that matter is finite. What is outside of the finite? A blank piece of paper? Where is the "Big Bang" going? Many scientists believe matter is infinite. And if it is finite, we still have existing potential/matter redoing "Evolution" infinite times.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:53:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 8:23:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:32:33 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 6:07:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/14/2015 5:43:53 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
What's interesting is Atheists tend to not believe your consciousness can be "rebirthed" ever in the future due to statistical improbability, but do believe it happened to make their consciousness in the first place.
What's significant is that if you start off believing in spirits, you naturally produce an ontology in which consciousness is separate from neurology. That then becomes so essential to your beliefs, you may hold consciousness unexplainable in any other way.

On the other hand, if you don't assume spirits exist, it's natural to first test whether consciousness is bound to neurology -- and lo and behold -- it is! In every way one would expect if consciousness arose as a neurological function.

At which point, one has to ask whether one needs spirits at all.

And there's the problem, isn't it, Gritty? The more evidence there is that consciousness is a neurological function, the more you have to ignore just to continue to hope that spirits might still exist.

The falsification of consciousness as a neurological function is simple: show that thought, memory, emotion or temperament can work reliably, independently of any brain damage (we know from repeated testing that it doesn't.)

So what's the falsification of spirit again? Help us out here.

In infinite time, the probability of your consciousness being "birthed" once is identical to the probability of it being birthed infinite times.
If we had an infinite universe without entropy, that'd be a valid argument. But the universe is finite; the matter in it is about 13 billion years old; we've only had life here for less than a third of that; galaxies are accelerating apart, and there's no reason to suppose that initial galactic formation processes will repeat. We may not be the only intelligent life in the universe, but we are the only critically-thinking life who will see this universe exactly as we see it now -- unless we either create some, or someone unexpectedly comes to visit before it all changes.

That our particular experiences of the universe will not repeat means that the experiences informing our current thoughts and memories will not repeat too. So whatever ways there might be to reproduce cognitive functions statistically, key components shaping what most people think of as identity will be lost as our universe changes.

We not only die individually, Gritty, but our species and its environment will die too. The universe is not morally ordered; life on earth has not been constructed to some compassionate plan; if there is an escape-clause from the entropy, extinction and dissolution that awaits our wondrous species, it will not come from rolling our eyes and flapping our hands at the zealous pronouncements of our cruel and ignorant forbears, or muttering magical imprecations at rude wooden symbols on bended knee.

Atheism isn't suicidal, but superstition is. Each moment you spend telling yourself you have answers when you barely understand the questions; each moment you poison your own curiosity, courage and reason with evasive, opaque, platitudinous, debunked dogma, is a moment you are stealing from the braver, smarter person who was born to walk in your shoes.

You say the idea of god has been "debunked" which is no even subtle way true. No one is bending before idols on bended knee. And most of the 8 billion people on Earth disagree with your dogmatic belief. And as a final decleration of the haughtiness, arrogance, and ignorance of your claim, out of the 10 highest IQ's on Earth, 8 are theists, and 6 are Christians. You have been debunked.
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:55:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Out of 10 Highest IQ's on Earth, 8 are Theists. 6 are Christians.

http://www.examiner.com...

Nice attempt to rationalise it in your Atheistic, dogmatized mind.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:23:52 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 6:32:33 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
In infinite time, the probability of your consciousness being "birthed" once is identical to the probability of it being birthed infinite times.
If we had an infinite universe without entropy, that'd be a valid argument. But the universe is finite; the matter in it is about 13 billion years old; we've only had life here for less than a third of that; galaxies are accelerating apart, and there's no reason to suppose that initial galactic formation processes will repeat.
It doesn't matter that "matter is finite". Infinite time means the same as infinite matter in that over infinite time, matter has had infinite times to create.
Actually, that presupposes some assumptions about the nature of time which are unproven, and may not be true. Time connects a lot more closely to matter than was thought back in Newton's day.

At 12/14/2015 8:53:32 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/14/2015 8:23:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Atheism isn't suicidal, but superstition is. Each moment you spend telling yourself you have answers when you barely understand the questions; each moment you poison your own curiosity, courage and reason with evasive, opaque, platitudinous, debunked dogma, is a moment you are stealing from the braver, smarter person who was born to walk in your shoes.
You say the idea of god has been "debunked" which is no even subtle way true.
Actually, I said that 'dogma' has been debunked -- which for Judaeo-Christian dogma has been repeatedly true, starting with Genesis.

No one is bending before idols on bended knee.
Except anyone who bows or kneels or genuflects toward any religious symbol. That'd be most Christians, all Muslims, most Buddhists and Hindus... So approaching 70% of the world's population, including majorities from all the world religions.

And as a final declaration of the haughtiness, arrogance, and ignorance of your claim, out of the 10 highest IQ's on Earth, 8 are theists, and 6 are Christians.
It's not terribly relevant but I believe I've seen that claim before, and the 'methodology' behind it. My suggestion: revisit the methodology, and rethink the implications. :)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 9:25:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/14/2015 8:55:46 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Out of 10 Highest IQ's on Earth, 8 are Theists. 6 are Christians.

http://www.examiner.com...


Nice attempt to rationalise it in your Atheistic, dogmatized mind.

Didn't you already do this??

http://www.debate.org...