Author Topic: Atheism Poll  (Read 1700 times)

Online Sorginak

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #300 on: September 23, 2017, 03:40:32 PM »
Straw man.

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




Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #301 on: September 23, 2017, 03:58:11 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

Online Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #302 on: September 23, 2017, 04:27:57 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.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 04:30:15 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #303 on: September 23, 2017, 04:35:17 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!

Quote
Even 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

Online Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #304 on: September 23, 2017, 04:47:33 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 04:51:33 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #305 on: September 23, 2017, 07:05:09 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.

Quote
And, 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?

Quote
The 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.


Quote
Complexity 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

Online Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #306 on: September 23, 2017, 07:24:51 PM »
"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.
שלום