Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I've finally realized what "faith" means

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer. No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false. Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why". If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.

Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen. Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:28:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."

I'm not a non-denominational theist. It implies to what extent they regard their intuition on the matter to be true. Not that they don't apprehend the same level of intuitive understanding.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:28:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:28:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."

I'm not a non-denominational theist. It implies to what extent they regard their intuition on the matter to be true. Not that they don't apprehend the same level of intuitive understanding.

I'm a*
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:35:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:28:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."

I'm not a non-denominational theist. It implies to what extent they regard their intuition on the matter to be true. Not that they don't apprehend the same level of intuitive understanding.

So you think that their "intuition" is telling all these atheists that, "Yes, there is a God", but the problem is that they just lack "intuitive understanding apprehension" skills or something, whatever that is.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:43:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:35:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:28:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."

I'm not a non-denominational theist. It implies to what extent they regard their intuition on the matter to be true. Not that they don't apprehend the same level of intuitive understanding.

So you think that their "intuition" is telling all these atheists that, "Yes, there is a God", but the problem is that they just lack "intuitive understanding apprehension" skills or something, whatever that is.

I think it's more indirect than that, but yes, basically. A sense of awe that infers something more than themselves is responsible. Often I think scientific knowledge is misappropriated to replace that sense of awe and draw them away from their intuitions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:46:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Even though we know from experiment that intuitions mislead us all the time.

Magical Thinking: Positive psychology or psychosis lite?
Magical thinking can be plotted on a spectrum, with skeptics at one end and schizophrenics at the other. People who endorse magical ideation, ranging from the innocuous (occasional fear of stepping on sidewalk cracks) to the outlandish (TV broadcasters know when you're watching), are more likely to have psychosis or develop it later in their lives. People who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also exhibit elevated levels of paranoia, perceptual disturbances, and magical thinking, particularly "thought-action fusion," the belief that your negative thoughts can cause harm. These people are compelled to carry out repetitive tasks to counteract their intrusive thoughts about unlocked doors or loved ones getting cancer. But more magical thinking does not necessarily mean more emotional problems"what counts is whether such thinking interferes with everyday functioning.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:06:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:43:31 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:35:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:28:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."

I'm not a non-denominational theist. It implies to what extent they regard their intuition on the matter to be true. Not that they don't apprehend the same level of intuitive understanding.

So you think that their "intuition" is telling all these atheists that, "Yes, there is a God", but the problem is that they just lack "intuitive understanding apprehension" skills or something, whatever that is.

I think it's more indirect than that, but yes, basically. A sense of awe that infers something more than themselves is responsible. Often I think scientific knowledge is misappropriated to replace that sense of awe and draw them away from their intuitions.

Well, I hope it works out well for you, but as a theist and a Christian, I personally wouldn't pay too much attention to my "intuitions" about this or that. Ditto for "feelings".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:15:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer. No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false. Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why". If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.


Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen. Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.

Trusting your intuitions are true, where religion is concerned without any supporting evidence, is likely to lead you up the creek without a paddle! Besides which, what about people whose intuitions lead them to believe in a different religion to you, are their intuitions right or wrong?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 11:10:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

I think that can be a very dangerous way of thinking. Especially if you persuade a suicide bomber to think that way. I consider it to be strictly subjective.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

Intuition is understanding but certainly not innate knowledge. Morality changes all the time so it can't possibly be objective and 'known' as though it is fixed.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect.

How do you know they can't be shown to be correct or incorrect?

I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer.

I find scientific explanations as to how natural beauty comes about, incredibly beautiful. The creation model is a suspiciously convenient and far less impressive and awe inspiring.

No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false.

How do you know that?

Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why".

What makes you think humanity is capable of answering the why questions at present or whether the answers exist at all?

If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.

It could be argued that entropy will eventually lead to the 'end.'

Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen. Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.

Why then do you define faith as trusting that your intuitions are true? Surely the fact that we don't know so much about the world and the fact that there are things you and I don't even know we don't know about the world, means that faith can only ever be subjective... and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The challenge of discovery, is more extraordinary and fascinating than assuming we know all the answers already.
To believe is to know nothing.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 12:45:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Faith has to do with sincerely held belief.

The human being has a great deal more to do with creation than most people seem to realize. Understanding the nature of creation reveals something that can not be seen, but is clearly evident.

God can not be directly perceived, only indirectly. That said, the nature of this indirect perception is such that there can be no doubt. It is clearly evident.

On faith, it is written in Hebrews...

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 2:06:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:46:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Even though we know from experiment that intuitions mislead us all the time.

Magical Thinking: Positive psychology or psychosis lite?
Magical thinking can be plotted on a spectrum, with skeptics at one end and schizophrenics at the other. People who endorse magical ideation, ranging from the innocuous (occasional fear of stepping on sidewalk cracks) to the outlandish (TV broadcasters know when you're watching), are more likely to have psychosis or develop it later in their lives. People who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also exhibit elevated levels of paranoia, perceptual disturbances, and magical thinking, particularly "thought-action fusion," the belief that your negative thoughts can cause harm. These people are compelled to carry out repetitive tasks to counteract their intrusive thoughts about unlocked doors or loved ones getting cancer. But more magical thinking does not necessarily mean more emotional problems"what counts is whether such thinking interferes with everyday functioning.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

"Kuntz & Kuntz"s "Surveying Philosophers About Philosophical Intuition," from the March issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology, surveyed 282 academic philosophers and found that 51% of them thought that intuitions are "useful to justification in philosophical methods."

...

"Another important side point the researchers make is there"s more than one way to use your intuitions. Philosophers certainly do use them as justification for claims, but they also use intuitions to generate claims which they then justify using more rigorous methods like logic and evidence. 83% of survey respondents agreed that intuitions are useful in that latter way, and I agree too " I have no problem with people using intuition to generate possible ideas, I just have a problem with people saying "This feels intuitively true to me, so it must be true."
http://measureofdoubt.com...

Our ability to utilize logic is intuitive. Our ability to distinguish right from wrong is intuitive. Our memory relies on intuitive capabilities. We trust our intuitions all the time.

I'm also using logic to support my claims.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 2:14:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 2:06:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:46:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Even though we know from experiment that intuitions mislead us all the time.

Magical Thinking: Positive psychology or psychosis lite?
Magical thinking can be plotted on a spectrum, with skeptics at one end and schizophrenics at the other. People who endorse magical ideation, ranging from the innocuous (occasional fear of stepping on sidewalk cracks) to the outlandish (TV broadcasters know when you're watching), are more likely to have psychosis or develop it later in their lives. People who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder also exhibit elevated levels of paranoia, perceptual disturbances, and magical thinking, particularly "thought-action fusion," the belief that your negative thoughts can cause harm. These people are compelled to carry out repetitive tasks to counteract their intrusive thoughts about unlocked doors or loved ones getting cancer. But more magical thinking does not necessarily mean more emotional problems"what counts is whether such thinking interferes with everyday functioning.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

"Kuntz & Kuntz"s "Surveying Philosophers About Philosophical Intuition," from the March issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology, surveyed 282 academic philosophers and found that 51% of them thought that intuitions are "useful to justification in philosophical methods."

...

"Another important side point the researchers make is there"s more than one way to use your intuitions. Philosophers certainly do use them as justification for claims, but they also use intuitions to generate claims which they then justify using more rigorous methods like logic and evidence. 83% of survey respondents agreed that intuitions are useful in that latter way, and I agree too " I have no problem with people using intuition to generate possible ideas, I just have a problem with people saying "This feels intuitively true to me, so it must be true."
http://measureofdoubt.com...

Our ability to utilize logic is intuitive. Our ability to distinguish right from wrong is intuitive. Our memory relies on intuitive capabilities. We trust our intuitions all the time.

I'm also using logic to support my claims.

No, you're using the form of logic to express ideas and come to conclusions without actual evidence and requiring unproven assertions as valid conditions.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Okay.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

Disagree. Intuition is a subjective perception based on knowledge. It is not knowledge.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer. No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false. Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why". If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.

"Why" is a loaded question, Ben. It assumes a purpose. "How" is a more reasonable question.


Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen.

It's the only one you've ever seen, no?

Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:47:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:40:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Okay.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

Disagree. Intuition is a subjective perception based on knowledge. It is not knowledge.

If that were true, our ability to use reason and logic would be learned. That isn't the case. All things *known* a priori utilize our intuition.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer. No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false. Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why". If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.

"Why" is a loaded question, Ben. It assumes a purpose. "How" is a more reasonable question.

Is it so unreasonable to ask, "why do we have a heart? Why do we have lungs?" I think it's more unreasonable to just suppose that everything exists without explanation.


Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen.

It's the only one you've ever seen, no?

Yes. Yet, I still draw that inference. Now why on earth would that be the case?

Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 4:00:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

Intuition, justice and morality are not "innate", the three are learned whether counscously or uncounsciously, and our experiences shape the three of them. A particular intuition, morality or justice thought, can always be explained as a consequence of personal experience.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer.

If that were true, don't you think science, being obsessed with the understanding of natural world, would be pointing to intelligent design as the most plausible explanation? Or do you think there's a secret conspiracy going on.....?

No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false.

There's no true or false, my friend, only personal interpretation of equaly personal observations. The concept of "false" only makes sense when talking about how a person will state what he really thinks (he is telling the truth), or state the opposite of what he thinks (he is lying).

Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why".

That depends on the question. Why do fish have gills? Well for breathing underwater, of course.

If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.

"End" is something conscious beings have, or rather, create to give purpose to their actions. Nature, being unconscious, does not have an end linked to its actions. Hurricanes, cancer, etc, do not have any particular end, they are simply natural accidents. I understand how frustrating can be to accept things DO NOT happen for a reason, but that's just a problem of human psychology, probably consequence of our advantageous (from an evolutionary perspective) obsession of giving sense to everything, and every human must solve this "mind flaw" by themselves.

Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation.

Everything in this universe can be explained. I feel that your problem is this explanation does not satisfy you.

Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information.

And this efficient, functioning genetic information probably took millions of times to develop before even being considered a "life form" by today's standards.

Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence.

Here we are also with a lot of intelligent beings surrounding us, like orcas, chimps, etc. Suspiciously, you can see a progressive, slow gradient of non-intelligence to intelligence in biodiversity. Why is this so commonly skipped?

This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen. Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man.

which took thousands of millions of years. Surely God would be capable of doing better if he really existed.

while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient,

upward energy gradient? What do you mean exactly?

over a very long period of time.

Exactly.

From there? Who knows.
Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.

It surely takes faith to be a religious person, I can grant you that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 4:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It shouldn't take long.
Faith is the belief that you won't be dead when you DIE.
Doesn't make any sense does it?
Oh well that's faith.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 4:25:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 4:00:15 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

Intuition, justice and morality are not "innate", the three are learned whether counscously or uncounsciously, and our experiences shape the three of them. A particular intuition, morality or justice thought, can always be explained as a consequence of personal experience.

Do we all need to *learn* that raping an infant is wrong to know that it would be wrong? Do we need to *learn* that killing our brother or sister is wrong? Our ability to utilize a priori logic is intuitive.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer.

If that were true, don't you think science, being obsessed with the understanding of natural world, would be pointing to intelligent design as the most plausible explanation? Or do you think there's a secret conspiracy going on.....?

I believe it already does. Look at nature acting as means towards ends - and before you respond to this, see my response to your other statement below. Look at the genetic code, literally a code that operates on information, in all living things. Look at the inherent interdependency, beauty, complexity, and harmony of it all. Science is like taking apart a computer and documenting how each part functions. Clearly it can be induced that each part is complex and serves a specific role, but it can't explain why those parts are there in the first place. "Why" was never science's concern.

No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false.

There's no true or false, my friend, only personal interpretation of equaly personal observations. The concept of "false" only makes sense when talking about how a person will state what he really thinks (he is telling the truth), or state the opposite of what he thinks (he is lying).

Im referring to whether "God exists" is true or false in reality.

Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why".

That depends on the question. Why do fish have gills? Well for breathing underwater, of course.

this is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that naturally occurring phenomena act as means towards ends. Explain to me how gills, a product of unembodied processes - totally devoid of knowledge and intent, are there for helping the fish to breath underwater. If atheism is true, ALL things are inherently a means without an end. ALL things are simply means for action. Gills are there to help the fish breathe underwater just as much as they are there to make make subtle waves upon opening and closing.

If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.

"End" is something conscious beings have, or rather, create to give purpose to their actions. Nature, being unconscious, does not have an end linked to its actions. Hurricanes, cancer, etc, do not have any particular end, they are simply natural accidents. I understand how frustrating can be to accept things DO NOT happen for a reason, but that's just a problem of human psychology, probably consequence of our advantageous (from an evolutionary perspective) obsession of giving sense to everything, and every human must solve this "mind flaw" by themselves.

You've apparently contradicted yourself with the "gills" response.

Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation.

Everything in this universe can be explained. I feel that your problem is this explanation does not satisfy you.

I'll ask you a question. Does knowing *how* something works explain why it's there?

Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information.

And this efficient, functioning genetic information probably took millions of times to develop before even being considered a "life form" by today's standards.

If you filled the entire galaxy with monkeys on typewriters, and let them write for as long as our galaxy has been in existence, they wouldn't even finish one sentence. If a tornado ripped through a junkyard a trillion times it still wouldn't create a Boeing 747. Time doesn't create efficient information.

Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence.

Here we are also with a lot of intelligent beings surrounding us, like orcas, chimps, etc. Suspiciously, you can see a progressive, slow gradient of non-intelligence to intelligence in biodiversity. Why is this so commonly skipped?

This doesn't defeat or impact my point.

This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen. Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man.

which took thousands of millions of years. Surely God would be capable of doing better if he really existed.

Why does the span of time matter?

while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient,

upward energy gradient? What do you mean exactly?

I mean operating against the second law of thermodynamics where energy is followed to its lowest energy gradient.

over a very long period of time.

Exactly.

From there? Who knows.
Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.

It surely takes faith to be a religious person, I can grant you that.

I'm irreligious.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:23:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 4:25:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do we all need to *learn* that raping an infant is wrong to know that it would be wrong? Do we need to *learn* that killing our brother or sister is wrong? Our ability to utilize a priori logic is intuitive.

Yes. We "learn" how we feel about raping an infant as soon as we realize we wouldn't like to be raped as infants, and we extrapolate this thought to everyone because of our empathetic nature. Note that we never learn raping an infant is "wrong", we only learn we wouldn't like it, and presume no one would like it because of this. All this is learned in an unconsious manner, but still learned. We do not born knowing that we wouldn't like to be raped, we decide it as soon as we give it a thought. In the same sense, we do not born knowing we like chocolate, we learn it as soon as we think about it, hear other people's opinions about chocolate, see other people's reaction when tasting it, and possibly come to a definitive conclusion as soon as we smell it or taste it.

I believe it already does. Look at nature acting as means towards ends - and before you respond to this, see my response to your other statement below. Look at the genetic code, literally a code that operates on information, in all living things. Look at the inherent interdependency, beauty, complexity, and harmony of it all.

But Ben, this only shows your inhability to see flaws in the living structures, not our inhability to see how perfect it is. It is evident how flawed human life is, we only need to see the TV a couple of hours to realice how we are constantly struggling to survive because of our inhability to adapt the ever changing environment, and the enormous efforts of medicine to keep us artificially alive through vaccines, antibiotics, quimiotherapy, surgery, etc.

About interdependency, of course everything in this world is dependant of each other, but how is this supposed to prove your points? Do you think it would be more logical to be capable of absolutely isolate ourselves of the world? I find that as a rather fictitious impossible concept. As long as anything (whether a rock or a human) comes into existence, it comes into existence depending on the surounding elements. This is especialy true with evolution in mind, as evolving means, precisely, to adapt to environment, which necesarily means we depend/are connected to the environment.

Science is like taking apart a computer and documenting how each part functions. Clearly it can be induced that each part is complex and serves a specific role, but it can't explain why those parts are there in the first place. "Why" was never science's concern.

Those parts are there to make a computer, which in turn has a specific function which is to be a tool for a huge variety of tasks.

Im referring to whether "God exists" is true or false in reality.

True, science can not pronounce itself about God in an absolute matter, the same it can not pronounce itself about anything in an absolute matter. This is because science is made with the concept of our flawed perception in mind, meaning everything must be put to test and everything can be doubt, as our perception is not perfect. Also, it is because the "God hypothesis" is not testable (which means we shouldn't consider it an hypothesis tbw, buy anyway), but this is a flaw of the God hypothesis and not of science.

this is exactly what I'm talking about when I said that naturally occurring phenomena act as means towards ends. Explain to me how gills, a product of unembodied processes - totally devoid of knowledge and intent, are there for helping the fish to breath underwater. If atheism is true, ALL things are inherently a means without an end. ALL things are simply means for action. Gills are there to help the fish breathe underwater just as much as they are there to make make subtle waves upon opening and closing.

That's true. Gills are there to both things. It is humans who conveniently give more value to the "breathing function" in order to understand fish better, not because "gills were made for that particular purpose". Of course nature can not "make things for a purpose", you are absolutely right about that. This is why evolution is a pre-adaptative phenomenom, meaning structures appear before they are needed to be used (in opposition of appearing because they are needed), and then remain because they are of use.

You've apparently contradicted yourself with the "gills" response.

I hope my position is clear now :)

I'll ask you a question. Does knowing *how* something works explain why it's there?

Not really. But it depends on the sense of the question. For example, if you ask me why are gills there, I would point towards evolution, but if you ask me how gills work, I would probably start a boring phisiology explanation. Of course by phisiology alone, the conclusion of evolution is not self-evident (well maybe to Darwin lol, but not to us), so in this case, the "how" doesn't explain the "why".

If you filled the entire galaxy with monkeys on typewriters, and let them write for as long as our galaxy has been in existence, they wouldn't even finish one sentence. If a tornado ripped through a junkyard a trillion times it still wouldn't create a Boeing 747. Time doesn't create efficient information.

You are partly right. Time is not always related to information. As information exists eternaly. Everything can be reduced to information and every natural stochastic process reduced to a code. The problem is, the genetic code is more evident than other natural codes, first because everyone calls it a "code", and second because it is explained as a book read by ribosomes in order for children to understand it. Truth is, genetic translation can be reduced to chemical interactions no more complex than any other chemical interaction, and that the so called "genetic code" has irreconcilable differences when compared with an instruction manual , for example, nucleotides have no static "meaning", ie they do not have a direct translation into amino acids, but the different organisms set up one or another amino acid for convenience using the chemical energy contained in the same triplet of nucleotides. This alone should suffice to demonstrate genes are not a code in the sense you guys mean, and if it is, then apparently single-celular organisms can skip God's instructions for their convenience.

As for the impossibility of writing Shakespeare with an "evolution kind" process, it would take little time as long as you quickly select the few senseful words the monkeys make, or are you forgeting about natural selection?

This doesn't defeat or impact my point.

I think it is an important remark. You pointed out how going from non-intelligence to intelligence is impossible, so I was merely pointing out that is precisely what we see in biodiversity: from non-inteligent bacteria, to intelligent humans, going through millions of different species with different intelligence levels.

Why does the span of time matter?

Does the time playing roulette affect at how many times you win?

I mean operating against the second law of thermodynamics where energy is followed to its lowest energy gradient.

Surely you know the second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems. And surely you know organisms are not isolated systems, as you cleverly pointed out organisms are interconected with other elements in the universe.

I'm irreligious.

You may want to give that a second thought. But if you are not religious, then I take your comment as honest. I don't like people telling me what I am, so I will try not to tell you what you are :)
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:14:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:47:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:40:34 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Okay.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

Disagree. Intuition is a subjective perception based on knowledge. It is not knowledge.

If that were true, our ability to use reason and logic would be learned. That isn't the case. All things *known* a priori utilize our intuition.

Again, I disagree. Intuition is based on knowledge. We only need to contrast the intuition of children to the knowledge of rational adults to illustrate this. Monsters aren't real, but predators are.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer. No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false. Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why". If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.

"Why" is a loaded question, Ben. It assumes a purpose. "How" is a more reasonable question.

Is it so unreasonable to ask, "why do we have a heart? Why do we have lungs?" I think it's more unreasonable to just suppose that everything exists without explanation.

Yes, when you ask 'why we have a heart,' as opposed to 'how did the heart come about?' It is unreasonable. You're equivocating 'why' with 'how'. One suggest purpose while the other questions the process.


Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen.

It's the only one you've ever seen, no?

Yes. Yet, I still draw that inference. Now why on earth would that be the case?

While the universe is impressive, conclusions drawn from a sample size of one is not all that impressive, Ben. Plus, your overlooking the fact that your sample appears to be completely hostile to life as we know it, save for one small planet out of trillions.

Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:37:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."

why do you assume the bible is "the word of god"?
there are too many flaws and errors in the bible for me to take it seriously.
my intuition says that the bible is a book of fairy tales, written by people too afraid to the unknown, and go looking for actual answers.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:45:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:23:57 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 4:25:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


Yes. We "learn" how we feel about raping an infant as soon as we realize we wouldn't like to be raped as infants, and we extrapolate this thought to everyone because of our empathetic nature. Note that we never learn raping an infant is "wrong", we only learn we wouldn't like it, and presume no one would like it because of this. All this is learned in an unconsious manner, but still learned. We do not born knowing that we wouldn't like to be raped, we decide it as soon as we give it a thought. In the same sense, we do not born knowing we like chocolate, we learn it as soon as we think about it, hear other people's opinions about chocolate, see other people's reaction when tasting it, and possibly come to a definitive conclusion as soon as we smell it or taste it.

I'm arguing that our moral sense of *right and wrong* is innate. Empathy is what allows us to understand what others feel. We can understand how one would feels, but this doesn't tell us how we ought to act upon it. Morally, what we ought to do is determined by the good. What we ought not do is determined by the bad. There are things unlearned that we know are right and things unlearned that we know are wrong. This makes it intuitive and innate. I empathize knowing that murdering my enemies would be painful, but acting upon it is a violation of my moral code.

But Ben, this only shows your inhability to see flaws in the living structures, not our inhability to see how perfect it is. It is evident how flawed human life is, we only need to see the TV a couple of hours to realice how we are constantly struggling to survive because of our inhability to adapt the ever changing environment, and the enormous efforts of medicine to keep us artificially alive through vaccines, antibiotics, quimiotherapy, surgery, etc.

This as akin to arguing that computer software isn't intelligently designed because it's prone to viruses. Char limit so my responses are going to be short.

About interdependency, of course everything in this world is dependant of each other, but how is this supposed to prove your points? Do you think it would be more logical to be capable of absolutely isolate ourselves of the world? I find that as a rather fictitious impossible concept. As long as anything (whether a rock or a human) comes into existence, it comes into existence depending on the surounding elements. This is especialy true with evolution in mind, as evolving means, precisely, to adapt to environment, which necesarily means we depend/are connected to the environment.

It just goes to show how "coincidentally" everything matches up towards a common, but unintended goal ( the life-permitting window).

Im referring to whether "God exists" is true or false in reality.

True, science can not pronounce itself about God in an absolute matter, the same it can not pronounce itself about anything in an absolute matter. This is because science is made with the concept of our flawed perception in mind, meaning everything must be put to test and everything can be doubt, as our perception is not perfect. Also, it is because the "God hypothesis" is not testable (which means we shouldn't consider it an hypothesis tbw, buy anyway), but this is a flaw of the God hypothesis and not of science.

There are things that we regard as being real but aren't testable. Abstract entities like numbers or concepts like free will.

That's true. Gills are there to both things. It is humans who conveniently give more value to the "breathing function" in order to understand fish better, not because "gills were made for that particular purpose". Of course nature can not "make things for a purpose", you are absolutely right about that. This is why evolution is a pre-adaptative phenomenom, meaning structures appear before they are needed to be used (in opposition of appearing because they are needed), and then remain because they are of use.

Isn't it amazing to suppose that things, such as our hearts, are there for pumping oxygenated blood throughout the body just as much as they are there for beating against our chest cavity?

pre-adaptive phenomena presupposes that survival is aimed for, which can't be the case. There is nothing "needed" if everything is just a means for action. It's merely an inconsequential tendency.


I'll ask you a question. Does knowing *how* something works explain why it's there?

Not really. But it depends on the sense of the question. For example, if you ask me why are gills there, I would point towards evolution, but if you ask me how gills work, I would probably start a boring phisiology explanation. Of course by phisiology alone, the conclusion of evolution is not self-evident (well maybe to Darwin lol, but not to us), so in this case, the "how" doesn't explain the "why".

That is a question of where they came from, not why. It's a popular misuse of the question though.

You are partly right. Time is not always related to information. As information exists eternaly. Everything can be reduced to information and every natural stochastic process reduced to a code.

Sentient beings create information all the time. So when we observe information in nature itself, why is it so fantastic to posit that an intelligent designer was responsible?

The problem is, the genetic code is more evident than other natural codes, first because everyone calls it a "code", and second because it is explained as a book read by ribosomes in order for children to understand it. Truth is, genetic translation can be reduced to chemical interactions no more complex than any other chemical interaction, and that the so called "genetic code" has irreconcilable differences when compared with an instruction manual , for example, nucleotides have no static "meaning", ie they do not have a direct translation into amino acids, but the different organisms set up one or another amino acid for convenience using the chemical energy contained in the same triplet of nucleotides. This alone should suffice to demonstrate genes are not a code in the sense you guys mean, and if it is, then apparently single-celular organisms can skip God's instructions for their convenience.

It's called genetic code because it mirrors syntactic language. A, T, C, G convey information-bearing properties depending on specific and complex sequences, like language does.

As for the impossibility of writing Shakespeare with an "evolution kind" process, it would take little time as long as you quickly select the few senseful words the monkeys make, or are you forgeting about natural selection?

One problem, naturally selective processes don't determine the sequencing of genetic code. It would be like writing an instruction manual by copying, editing, and omitting garbled letters, randomly.

I mean operating against the second law of thermodynamics where energy is followed to its lowest energy gradient.

Surely you know the second law of thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems. And surely you know organisms are not isolated systems, as you cleverly pointed out organisms are interconected with other elements in the universe.

Organisms need a way to turn raw energy into bio-chemical systems though. If the sun is sufficient to cause a decrease in biological entropy we would simply never die of old age.

I'm irreligious.

You may want to give that a second thought. But if you are not religious, then I take your comment as honest. I don't like people telling me what I am, so I will try not to tell you what you are :)

Yep I am :)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:55:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 2:06:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:46:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.
Even though we know from experiment that intuitions mislead us all the time.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
"Kuntz & Kuntz"s "Surveying Philosophers About Philosophical Intuition," from the March issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology, surveyed 282 academic philosophers and found that 51% of them thought that intuitions are "useful to justification in philosophical methods."
Are philosophers known for making reliable predictions? If so, what predictions?

Is intuition useful to philosophers because it produces reliable argument, or because it's good at making ignorance and prejudice look coherent?

Our ability to utilize logic is intuitive.
Why then is logic taught in schools? Why are there so many logical fallacies, and why do people keep repeating them? [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Our ability to distinguish right from wrong is intuitive.
Why then are moral questions like abortion and euthanasia so controversial?

Compassion is intuitive, but how can morality be intuitive when it depends on a discerning understanding of consequence and impact before events occur?

It's utterly wrong to smoke tobacco around others, and particularly around infants and children. But how could intuition reliably know that, when the detrimental effects of smoking take decades to accumulate?

Our memory relies on intuitive capabilities.
Or does our intuition rely on memory and proven knowledge, to synthesise experience?

Why do people with education, training and experience have better workplace intuitions than people without?

We trust our intuitions all the time.
Not all the time, and not all the way.

People trained to test their intuitions carefully before acting on them include mathematicians, engineers, scientists, paramedics, nurses, doctors, accountants, police, judges, lawyers, electricians, pilots, tree-surgeons, and technicians of all kinds -- people whose health, reputation and commercial survival depend on not being disastrously wrong.

People who give reign to intuitions include poets, philosophers, palm-readers, tarot-readers, and theologians -- people never held to account for the accuracy of their claims.

I'm also using logic to support my claims.
What is it you're actually claiming? That what faith trusts is intuition, and not prejudice, ignorance and conceit?

At casinos, at sports fixtures, and in stockmarkets, people gamble on their intuitions all the time. How reliable is intuition in picking results correctly?

Does intuition reliably distinguish between the probable and improbable? Between truth and self-interest? If it does, why are so many key professions trained to scruitinse and test their intuitions before trusting them?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 6:57:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:37:45 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:23:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:21:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:17:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The word of God produces faith, i. e. faith comes from an external source of information - the word of God.

I disagree. God can be known solely through intuition. Trusting that those intuitions are true, which can never be verifiable, is an act of faith.

Then evidently you adhere to something other than the Bible. Your position also implies, necessarily implies, that all atheists and agnostics have some sort of "intuition deficiency."

why do you assume the bible is "the word of god"?

I never said I assumed it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:17:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:45:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm arguing that our moral sense of *right and wrong* is innate.

Why there's people with different moral senses of "right and wrong" then? If this is innate, I get morality is a genetic trait?

Empathy is what allows us to understand what others feel. We can understand how one would feels, but this doesn't tell us how we ought to act upon it.

However it conditions us to act or not act upon it. There's a huge difference on seeing a dog being attacked, and actually trying to understand its suffering. The latter will always make us be more involved with stopping the attack.

Morally, what we ought to do is determined by the good. What we ought not do is determined by the bad. There are things unlearned that we know are right and things unlearned that we know are wrong.

For example?

This makes it intuitive and innate. I empathize knowing that murdering my enemies would be painful, but acting upon it is a violation of my moral code.

Surely people try to follow moral codes that go against what they feel in some cases. But I don't see how this is proving the points you are making. For example, most people feel the need to have sex with other people, this is innate, but religious moral code asks for celibacy in some cases. What does this mean?

This as akin to arguing that computer software isn't intelligently designed because it's prone to viruses. Char limit so my responses are going to be short.

Virus are, also, intelligently designed to harm computers. Are you arguing that biological virus are designed by God to harm us? Are cancer and AIDS God's doing? Are hunger and malaria some kind of God's masterpieces?

It just goes to show how "coincidentally" everything matches up towards a common, but unintended goal ( the life-permitting window).

The same way that, coincidentally, everything matches up towards a common unintended goal: _____________ <- insert whatever you want there. There's always an explanation for any phenomena, this doesn't mean those phenomena have a metaphysical reason behind it. Again, this latter reason is made up by you because you feel the need to satisfy something.

There are things that we regard as being real but aren't testable. Abstract entities like numbers or concepts like free will.

How are numbers and free will not demonstrable as real?

Isn't it amazing to suppose that things, such as our hearts, are there for pumping oxygenated blood throughout the body just as much as they are there for beating against our chest cavity?

It's not really a supposition, they are in fact there pumping oxygenated blood AND beating against our chest cavity. Why do you assume the former function is over the latter? Of course because the former is very important for a lot of things, like medicine, and it helps you organize information better and understanding the heart better. You assume hearts have an inner purpose, you also assume this purpose is to allow us to live, and then you assume that, because of this, a heart's main function is to pump blood. However, this is exactly a succesion of assumptions that say a lot about your purpose when studying the heart, but not so much about the heart itself. If I were an alien and I didn't know about human clocks, and you presented me a clock, it wouldn't be honest of me to think clocks make "tic tac" because they are showing us the passing seconds, because that's your purpose when using the clock not the purpose of the clock, as objects have, obviously, no purpose by themselves. Hearts have obviously no purpose either. Purpose is a creation of the conscious mind, invented mainly to understand the world, or rather, to make sense of it.

pre-adaptive phenomena presupposes that survival is aimed for, which can't be the case. There is nothing "needed" if everything is just a means for action. It's merely an inconsequential tendency.

Can you elaborate?

That is a question of where they came from, not why. It's a popular misuse of the question though.

So what exactly do you mean by "why"?

Sentient beings create information all the time. So when we observe information in nature itself, why is it so fantastic to posit that an intelligent designer was responsible?

It is fantastic only if it takes fantastic qualities to produce this information. If somebody told you a magician made a volcano, and another person tells you that volcanoes are spontanous consequence of deep Earth's magma, what would you believe? That there's really a person with fantastic qualities capable of creating huge magma-spitting mountains, or that maybe those gigantic things are consequence of a natural process?

It's called genetic code because it mirrors syntactic language. A, T, C, G convey information-bearing properties depending on specific and complex sequences, like language does.

But I have just told you ATCG have no meaning, if they had, cells would always create the same aminoacid from, ie "AUA" triplet, but they don't. They use chemical energy on those triplets to produce one or other aminoacid for convenience. The fact that a lot of organisms make the same aminoacids from the same triplets, is only because we share a common ancestor, and therefore common traits, but there's actualy 22 different so called "genetic codes" discovered by now, so are you guys pretending God made 22 different set of instructions for life? What will you say if a thousand codes were discovered?

When the word Cat can mean literally anything, suddenly there's no code anymore.

One problem, naturally selective processes don't determine the sequencing of genetic code. It would be like writing an instruction manual by copying, editing, and omitting garbled letters, randomly.

Sure, it would be exactly like that except for the part that the omission of garbled letters is not exactly random. But what about it?

Organisms need a way to turn raw energy into bio-chemical systems though. If the sun is sufficient to cause a decrease in biological entropy we would simply never die of old age.

I'm really lost right now. Can you elaborate on that "defense of immortality"?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:43:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer. No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false. Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why". If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.


Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen. Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.

You have pretty much given us the check list of bullsh*t makes up the justification for intelligent design.

If intelligent design isn't involved it's just all random/without explantion.............Check

Appeal to low odds of an outcome to justify ID.....CHECK

Being selective with the data, pointing out what works/survives while ignore what doesn't.....CHECK

Something something just can't of happened without an intelligent designer ?........CHECK

It is not good enough just to point out to things that "work" and say well golly that's probably intelligent design, you have to look at how it all came about. Was this matter that we call humans an instant creation ? or did it come about say by a process over billions of years, a process of trial and error, a process where that which doesn't work gets discarded into the dustbin of history and that which does lives to fight another day.

Is the process one where the environment was made for man ? or did man evolve to suit the environment ? That is kind of important cause it will suggest what is or what was NOT in mind so too speak.

Here is something to consider, maybe just maybe the world wasn't made for humans in mind or ants or penguins, rather life evolves to suit the environment ? So thus that life looks around and may think to it's self hey it was made for me !!!

For the life of me it's gets so frustrating that my fellow humans even though they know how "big" the universe is, the hostile environment they exist in to try and get through another day still tell themselves and others, it's all part of plan, a glorious plan.

I suspect for any intelligent life anywhere this is probably the case, since their view is biased by necessary pre conditions of their existence they probably think they too hey something something it's all part of a plan, cause if such and such didn't happen we would not exist !!

Here is one last thing to think about, notice the only entities that go around telling themselves they are part of a plan are humans ? I wonder why that is..............
"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
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 3:24:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 6:11:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It means to trust that your intuitions are true.

Intuition is a form of innate knowledge and understanding. Just like our sense of morality and justice is known intuitively.

I don't believe that intuitive reasons for belief in God are resolvable. They can't be shown to be correct or incorrect. I find that the complexity, order, diversity, interdependency, and beauty of the natural universe is strongly indicative of an intelligent designer. No amount of science can ever resolve whether that's true or false. Science answers the "how" questions, not the "why". If you said to me that every naturally occurring thing occurs as a means without an end, I'd ask you if we actually regard things to be that way. If we're being scientific, I think the answer is a definite no.


Consider that our universe is a mindless happenstance. All things are the way they are, just because, and without explanation. Human beings ultimately came from non-living things. This defied odds exponentially greater than the already incomprehensible odds of the cosmological constant being in alignment for a life-permitting universe. The smallest unit of life appeared on the scene brimming with efficient, functioning genetic information. Here we now, finding ourselves as intelligent and moral beings ruminating over questions of philosophy and existence. This universe has the most intelligent non-intelligent natural processes I've ever seen. Essentially, a universe where natural forces turned dirt into man, while creating new genetic information and against an upward energy gradient, over a very long period of time. From there? Who knows.

Maybe none of it has an explanation. For all I know, our perceptions of reality itself could be completely illusory. All of my intuitions could be wrong. I guess that's what it means to have faith.

A universe with any amount of material has a crazy small chance of ever arranging itself into a situation where humans exist. Yet if you introduce the idea of infinite time for change to occur and a mode for random change, we are an inevitable random occurrence from a mathematical perspective. I consider God to be the force of infinite random change, that at time is intelligently directed toward an outcome.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 6:34:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 3:24:23 AM, drpiek wrote:
A universe with any amount of material has a crazy small chance of ever arranging itself into a situation where humans exist.

Statement negated by the only universe known to exist.
Well done little one.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin