News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sorginak

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
Straw man.

I live in the city, we don't have those like you country people out there in your fields.




Simon Moon

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:19:16 PM
Yes, nature is mindless, as defined by materialists.  But materialism is self contradictory anyway ... otherwise the materialists would be mindless, and unable to voice an opinion.


Please, do post a logical syllogism, with sound premises and valid form, where the conclusion is, "therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience".

Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3

Conclusion - Therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience.
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

Baruch

#302
Quote from: Simon Moon on September 23, 2017, 03:58:11 PM

Please, do post a logical syllogism, with sound premises and valid form, where the conclusion is, "therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience".

Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3

Conclusion - Therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience.

You're on!

Premise 1 ... Pythagoras is like a Greek god (a demigod)!
Premise 2 ... Greek gods are omniscient, believe whatever they say!
Fact 1 ... Pythagoras says that everything is number, starting with #1
Theorem 1 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#1 ... everything is number, starting with #1
Fact 2 ... Pythagoras says that you should get up early and worship the dawn
Fact 3 ... Pythagoras says that you should never eat beans
Theorem 2 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#2 ... get up early and worship the dawn
Theorem 3 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#3 ... never eat beans
Corollary 1 ... since frijoles and refries are made from beans, stop eating frijoles and refries (damn)
Corollary 2 ... since everything is number, reality can be accounted for
Corollary 3 ... from C#2 ... materialism is false ... a number is a concept, it isn't material
Theorem 4 ... since Pythagoras is omniscient, he must also be conscious
Theorem 5 ... since C#3 and T#4 ... materialism can't cause (lead to) sentience (consciousness) because a Greek demigod can't contradict himself
QED

Even if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is.  Unless of course your computer can speak the words you are reading on screen.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Simon Moon

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 04:27:57 PM
You're on!

Premise 1 ... Pythagoras is like a Greek god (a demigod)!
Premise 2 ... Greek gods are omniscient, believe whatever they say!
Fact 1 ... Pythagoras says that everything is number, starting with #1
Theorem 1 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#1 ... everything is number, starting with #1
Fact 2 ... Pythagoras says that you should get up early and worship the dawn
Fact 3 ... Pythagoras says that you should never eat beans
Theorem 2 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#2 ... get up early and worship the dawn
Theorem 3 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#3 ... never eat beans
Corollary 1 ... since frijoles and refries are made from beans, stop eating frijoles and refries (damn)
Corollary 2 ... since everything is number, reality can be accounted for
Corollary 3 ... from C#2 ... materialism is false ... a number is a concept, it isn't material
Theorem 4 ... since Pythagoras is omniscient, he must also be conscious
Theorem 5 ... since C#3 and T#4 ... materialism can't cause (lead to) sentience (consciousness) because a Greek demigod can't contradict himself
QED

Even if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is.  Unless of course your computer can speak the words you are reading on screen.


That's pretty good!

QuoteEven if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is


Then, how did you go about determining your claim about sentience not being able to emerge from only natural processes, is true?
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

Baruch

#304
First of all ... if you accept Aristotle as axiomatic ...

I accept that there are both natural and artificial processes.  See Aristotle's 4 causes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

I define nature as ... material and formal causes combined.

I define artificial as ... material, formal, efficient and final cause combined.

Clearly some things are natural (aka existent).  And clearly other things are artificial (aka made up).  The made up things have to depend on the existent things, since the first two causes are included in the artificial.  Genesis reflects this ... G-d is a maker, not a creator (ex nihilo).  G-d imposes a new order on something that already exists.  People are like that.  I don't consider the natural to be sentient, only the artificial (either the maker is sentient, or what is made, is a clue that a sentient has been involved).  Unlike Drew (and I understand the last 2400 years of his argument, it started with Socrates) I don't over simplify, I don't say ... natural or artificial but not both.  That tis a false dichotomy.  This is why one has to be careful, in cases of complex entities, to be black/white .. rather than shades of grey.

I notice that this order (logic and premises) is something I am imposing on chaos, as a demigod, like in Genesis.  I am creating a self fulfilling fact on the ground, and will be confused as to agency if I forget I brought it about by my action (see Schroedinger's Cat).  Personally I must aside that ... I don't agree with Pythagoras or Thales, in the hard sciences I prefer Archimedes.  So even if we accept my agency in framing the question, and the answer to the question ... by attribute, the natural can't produce the artificial, it is lacking in those necessary attributes (efficient and final causes).  I don't have to make the leap however, that this allows us to deduce that the natural is the product of the artificial.  G-d didn't do that in Genesis, and never have I either.

And I don't agree with Aristotle on everything, just Archimedes!  Anyone who can jump out of his bath and run around in public naked, shouting "I have found it" ... is my kind of guy.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 23, 2017, 02:08:47 PM
Because, so far, what we have found, is that there seem to be a continually growing number of natural explanations for everything we examine. Name one time, that scientists have ever looked into an extant phenomena, where, based on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, a supernatural explanation turned out to be the correct one, or at least likely the correct one.

None. Because anything that can be observed, no matter how bizarre, strange or whether it defies the laws of physics is going to be considered natural. The label supernatural is a boogeyman atheists use to obfuscate. Moreover the premise is demonstrably wrong. The premise is that if we continue to explain things by an appeal to the laws of physics this is evidence (a fact that comports with a belief) the cause was natural as well. All is well except it doesn't work. We can examine a laptop from top to bottom inside and out and every inch of it can be explained 'naturalistically'. All its functions and capabilities can be explained without having to invoke a creator. Also we look top and bottom inside and out and we don't find a Creator either. We now have two 'proofs' that laptops are created unintentionally by happenstance.

QuoteAnd, since you are the one claiming that a god is responsible for 'creation', until you can produce demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim, you are the one that is multiplying entities. You just can't seem to understand, that "We don't know YET", is the most intellectually honest answer.

That's not the answer you gave, you said I'm multiplying entities beyond necessity a knowledge claim you defended with a faulty premise.  I'm not attempting to establish theism as a scientific theory. Unlike some who responded in the poll they are 99.9999% certain no Creator was involved I'm not nearly so certain theism is true, its what I opine is true. What I take umbrage with is the notion this is just some whimsical belief I have for no discernible reason to subscribe to. I don't deny there is evidence in favor of naturalism. Are you an a-naturalist as well? If you admit we don't know yet is the intellectually honest answer then you should challenge the naturalists on this board who claim with certainty we owe our existence to naturalistic forces? If we don't know as you say aren't they just as disingenuous?

QuoteThe only claim I am making is that the evidence to support the claim that a creator god exists, has not met its burden of proof. As long as that state of affairs continues, I will continue to not accept the claim that a god exists.

I don't give a rat's ass what you conclude.


QuoteComplexity is not how we detect design. We detect design specifically by contrasting with nature.

Does the scientific technique of inquiry and investigation differ depending on whether science is examining something believed to have been caused naturally by mindless forces minus any plan and intent and something known to be created by design like code for instance or a new invention? The answer is no scientists would use the same method of observation and experimentation to explain a phenomena whether it was known to be intentionally created or not. By the way its not as if humans are capable of creating things from scratch good old mother nature has been incredibly benevolent to us human beings by producing seemingly inviolable laws of nature that allow us to have a frame work to figure out how things work. She also created the laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, planets to exist with the conditions to cause life to exist.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Baruch

"Because anything that can be observed, no matter how bizarre, strange or whether it defies the laws of physics is going to be considered natural."

Not by me.  I consider that to be metaphysical malpractice.  Human beings (any beings) are strictly artificial, not natural.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:19:16 PM
Yes, nature is mindless, as defined by materialists.  But materialism is self contradictory anyway ... otherwise the materialists would be mindless, and unable to voice an opinion.

This is a huge mistake. When a materialist says 'nature is mindless', he means the forces of nature including the laws of physics are mindless. Any materialist who says that a human being is mindless has got to be loony. I think I am a materialist (I haven't really quite decided but I think I am although I'm still go to church with my parents and I'm an altar boy). But I don't accept that everything in nature is mindless. So, there is no contradiction. I can't speak for the loony materialists who say that everything in nature is mindless, if indeed there is such a materialist.

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 04:27:57 PM
You're on!

Premise 1 ... Pythagoras is like a Greek god (a demigod)!
Premise 2 ... Greek gods are omniscient, believe whatever they say!
Fact 1 ... Pythagoras says that everything is number, starting with #1
Theorem 1 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#1 ... everything is number, starting with #1
Fact 2 ... Pythagoras says that you should get up early and worship the dawn
Fact 3 ... Pythagoras says that you should never eat beans
Theorem 2 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#2 ... get up early and worship the dawn
Theorem 3 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#3 ... never eat beans
Corollary 1 ... since frijoles and refries are made from beans, stop eating frijoles and refries (damn)
Corollary 2 ... since everything is number, reality can be accounted for
Corollary 3 ... from C#2 ... materialism is false ... a number is a concept, it isn't material
Theorem 4 ... since Pythagoras is omniscient, he must also be conscious
Theorem 5 ... since C#3 and T#4 ... materialism can't cause (lead to) sentience (consciousness) because a Greek demigod can't contradict himself
QED

Even if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is.  Unless of course your computer can speak the words you are reading on screen.

Forgive me for saying this but this is a good illustration of why I say philosophy is a silly game and depending on what your premise is you can construct a framework that shows that fairies exist together with the pink polka-dotted unicorns. Premise 1 and Premise 2 are nonsensical. Ergo, the entire system right down to the conclusion fails.

St Truth

I have a problem with answering the question in the poll. 'God as a creator of the universe' is too broad. If God is described as a personal God with consciousness, the likelihood of his existence goes down. If God has attributes which include loving kindness and omnipotence, his likelihood of existing plummets to ZERO.

trdsf

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 09:57:18 AM
Forgive me for saying this but this is a good illustration of why I say philosophy is a silly game and depending on what your premise is you can construct a framework that shows that fairies exist together with the pink polka-dotted unicorns. Premise 1 and Premise 2 are nonsensical. Ergo, the entire system right down to the conclusion fails.
I think the best definition of philosophy I ever heard was courtesy Alexei Sayle: "Philosophy is having arguments with dead people."  I'll engage in it sometimes, but when philosophers try to make grand pronouncements about How Things Are (or the rough equivalent, How Things Must Be), that's when I tune out.  Thinking about things may help you come to some sort of conclusions about how things are, but thinking cannot replace real, tangible observations.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Unbeliever

I don't think "nature" is mindless, since it produced us, and we are minds. We are natures way of learning about nature.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

trdsf

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 27, 2017, 11:29:03 AM
I don't think "nature" is mindless, since it produced us, and we are minds. We are natures way of learning about nature.
Well, certainly the natural processes themselves are mindless.  Evolution can't peer ahead and try to out-guess environment.  And even as a natural product of our environment, I do not accept the proposition that we're nature's way of learning about itself.  That's dangerously close to the Gaia hypothesis in my book.  I'll grant that terrestrial ecology is a profoundly complex and interconnected thing, but I don't think it's actually active in perpetuating itself.  Terrestrial ecology finds a balance; it does not actively seek one.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 27, 2017, 11:29:03 AM
I don't think "nature" is mindless, since it produced us, and we are minds. We are natures way of learning about nature.

Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).  This is what Wolfram thinks too (reality is cellular automata) ... but he is just a Pythagorean.  Few are as materialist as Descartes, science has moved on to ... physicalism and reductionism.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#314
Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 12:52:50 PM
Well, certainly the natural processes themselves are mindless.  Evolution can't peer ahead and try to out-guess environment.  And even as a natural product of our environment, I do not accept the proposition that we're nature's way of learning about itself.  That's dangerously close to the Gaia hypothesis in my book.  I'll grant that terrestrial ecology is a profoundly complex and interconnected thing, but I don't think it's actually active in perpetuating itself.  Terrestrial ecology finds a balance; it does not actively seek one.

And so you are more reductionist than Unbeliever ... but I agree with your wariness about anthropomorphism.  I choose anthropomorphism as axiomatic, because I am a human, I am not a random cloud of atoms (that is an abstraction, and and oversimplification).  People equate abstractions with reality, but abstractions are in fact just tools, and only exist because of humans, not the other way around.  Abstract ideas produce nothing (or you are Plato).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.