Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[Peter_Plato]

This is where we disagree. I see no evidence to suggest that attributes such as these are anything more than emergent properties of the human brain. I therefore do not agree with your definition of an individual.

I don’t agree that a person is an intangible entity. In every case of an existent person there is, at the very least, a tangible brain that must be alive and functioning for any of the attributes of a person to be detectable.

No, actually. There are many documented NDEs where the patient has no brain function for more than thirty minutes but can accurately report events that have happened during that time. Ergo, consciousness or the “existent person” may be aware without detectable brain function.

Which “attributes of a person” can even be “detected” without basing the methods of detection upon the “tangible brain” that is assumed to be behind them, thus begging the question? If you require physical detection to permit the existence of any “attributes of a person” how is THAT not circular since it assumes what you are trying to prove?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m afraid that all you are doing is giving some examples of how the brain works. How it interprets information. That is, how YOU interpret information.

There isn’t a ‘you’ entirely separate from your brain that works in tandem. If your brain sees a larger coin or a different colour, do you think it passes the information on to you? It’s YOU doing the work.

Otherwise, where do you exist?

Ever heard of blind-sightedness? That is where a person cannot consciously see, but where the body can successfully maneuver its way through obstacles. So the brain does not “pass on” perceptions to the YOU inhabiting the body and making use of the brain. In that case, it isn’t the YOU doing the work, it is the body doing the work and the YOU has no access to it. The brain interprets the information quite independent of the YOU.

 

[Bradski]

Ever heard of blind-sightedness? That is where a person cannot consciously see, but where the body can successfully maneuver its way through obstacles. So the brain does not “pass on” perceptions to the YOU inhabiting the body and making use of the brain. In that case, it isn’t the YOU doing the work, it is the body doing the work and the YOU has no access to it. The brain interprets the information quite independent of the YOU.

Uh? It’s the senses passing info to the brain (to you), which then interprets it.

It’s been shown that people can navigate using electro magnetic senses. Fascinating in itself, it says nothing whatsoever about dualism.

Are you seriously suggesting that the body can make decisions independently of the brain? Seriously?

 

[PRmerger]

Where in DaddyGirl’s post do you see the assertion that science will find the answers? You keep arguing against straw man arguments.

So you and DG are both saying that science won’t find the answers?

Or are you saying science may find the answers?

If it’s the former, then it’s an inutile epistemology.

If it’s the latter, then you’re certainly making a…

faith-based assertion.

 

[tonyrey]

Where on earth do you think it is?

Your question implies that everything has a physical location, i.e. on earth. Is truth restricted to this planet? Can you point to it?

Your brain, Tony. It’s inside your head. There are different parts that make up the whole you. Google it and there’s lots of info. Read up on it and you won’t need to keep asking the same question.

“make up the whole” gives the game away! Precisely what is the uniting force? Which part is responsible for the behaviour of the “whole”? Does the biological computer in our skull know what it is doing? How would you prove it?

“Self-awareness is more a product of a diffuse patchwork of pathways in the brain – including other regions – rather than confined to specific areas”. dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/self-awareness-new-insights-into-how-human-brain-constructs-of-sense-of-self.html
There you go. Answered.

It’s not so simple as you think. If the brain "constructs the sense of the self the self doesn’t really exist. It is a human fantasy, there is no such thing as self-control and we aren’t responsible for our thoughts, i.e. they are worthless.

But, oh yeah. The brain is just made up of innaninate material. Just a bag of chemical elements. If you want to suggst that awareness is ‘somewhere else’, then why does it dissapear as your brain dies?

How do you know awareness disappears when you die? Have you been dead?

There’s no trick to it. There’s nothing behind the curtain. All those neurons that are firing RIGHT NOW…that’s you. Electrical impulses. Change the configuration through trauma, drugs, disease and guess what? You are not the same person you were before.

The firing of neurons is a pathetically inadequate explanation of a person’s thoughts, choices, decisions, principles, values, emotions and intuitions. It is self-destructive, amounting to faith in the power of neurons to explain the power of neurons - which is obviously absurd… Do you regard yourself, family and friends as electronic gadgets created by a fortuitous collocation of atomic particles and random mutations of genes? I’m sure they wouldn’t be very impressed if you treated them accordingly - but then in your scheme of things you have no choice because everything is the result of biochemical reactions governed by the law of conservation of energy. You are not a free agent but an impotent product of mindless, purposeless events which has the misfortune to have accidentally become aware of the fact. You have one consolation however: everyone else is in the same boat - in an ocean of absurdity.

 

[tonyrey]

You seem to be reducing a person to a biological organism which has no intangible attributes.

A prudent proviso.

Attributes themselves can be intangible. But those attributes are generated and caused by the activity of a tangible brain.

An imprudent generalisation. A purposeless brain which isn’t aware of itself!

Can you locate the source of awareness and self-control?

Bradski has already answered this. Awareness and self-control are emergent properties of human, and perhaps also (depending on your definitions) some non-human, brains.

So awareness and self-control have emerged from molecular structures which lack awareness and self-control? Precisely how did they create a self which knows what it is doing? Which physical mechanism is capable of such a feat? It sounds like getting something for nothing… Atomic energy seems to have worked the greatest miracle of all time!

Where is the exact location of awareness and self-control?

 

[PRmerger]

This is incredibly tiresome. You keep arguing against assertions that I haven’t made. Worse, you continue to argue even when I have explicitly stated that I don’t hold those views. It strikes me that this is the tactic of desperation because you can’t justify your own position or sensibly argue against mine.

Look, Nixbits. It’s the logical conclusion of what you’re asserting.

Imagine if you were in discussions with an anti-vaxxer.

AV says: I’ve studied all the science and it’s proven that vaccines cause autism.
You say: So you’ve read the Wakefield study?

AV responds: You keep arguing against assertions I haven’t made.

Ok. AV didn’t explicitly say she’d read the Wakefield study, but it’s certainly the logical conclusion of what she asserted.

 

[Nixbits]

There is no part of the brain to which consciousness itself is attributed. This is defined as the “hard problem” of consciousness.

Is what we call ‘consciousness’ a single attribute or a collection of attributes? Could it be that these attributes, each of them relatively complex, rely upon the activity of several or many parts of the brain? If so, could it be that what we call ‘consciousness’ is an aggregate of functions taking place in most of the brain?

If you cannot rule out such a possibility, then the fact that we cannot currently localise consciousness in a single identifiable part of the brain is indicative of nothing.

 

[Nixbits]

Which “attributes of a person” can even be “detected” without basing the methods of detection upon the “tangible brain” that is assumed to be behind them, thus begging the question? If you require physical detection to permit the existence of any “attributes of a person” how is THAT not circular since it assumes what you are trying to prove?

This is certainly a problem of experimental method. Can we find a way to look for the attributes of a live person in someone whose brain (and brain-stem) are absent? I don’t see how. Looking at the corollary, can we find a way to look for attributes that can only be explained by something intangible? So-called near death experiences seem to offer some opportunity. Yet I’ve never heard of any compelling evidence from an NDE. Perhaps you can point me to something that might convince me otherwise.

 

[Nixbits]

So you and DG are both saying that science won’t find the answers? Or are you saying science may find the answers? If it’s the former, then it’s an inutile epistemology. If it’s the latter, then you’re certainly making a faith-based assertion.

I’m saying that, based on past performance, I have a reasonable expectation that science may find some answers. I don’t consider this a faith-based position because, to me, faith means complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I don’t have complete trust or confidence in science’s ability to find the answers.

But you consistently use the word ‘faith’ in a different way. What is the definition of faith which you are using?

 

[Nixbits]

Look, Nixbits. It’s the logical conclusion of what you’re asserting.

That’s the problem. I don’t think it is the logical conclusion. The discussion has been more like this:
NIX: I don’t accept the claim that God exists.
PR: So you think something can come from nothing?
NIX: No, I don’t claim that. But I don’t accept the claim that something cannot come from nothing.
PR: So you think something can come from nothing?
NIX: Nope. Still don’t. Really don’t . . .

There is no logical conclusion about whether or not something can come from nothing that can be derived simply from the weak atheist standpoint.

 

[Nixbits]

So awareness and self-control have emerged from molecular structures which lack awareness and self-control?

Wetness emerges from an accumulation of molecules which themselves lack wetness. The ability to grip objects emerges from an arrangement of bones, muscles, ligaments etc. the tissues of which themselves lack the ability to grip. The meaning of this sentence emerges from the words that themselves do not contain this meaning.

I don’t understand your incredulity with respect to emergent properties.

Precisely how did they create a self which knows what it is doing?

They (the molecules) didn’t ‘create’ the self.

Where is the exact location of awareness and self-control?

I don’t think anyone knows this yet. I’m not convinced that ‘awareness’ and ‘self-control’ are single discrete properties anyway. It seems more likely that they are each a set of properties. It could be that what we call awareness and self-control are emergent properties from a distributed network of brain functions. If that were so, then it might be entirely justified to answer that the exact location is ‘throughout most of the brain’.

I look forward to future developments in neuroscience and other disciplines that may shed more light on this fascinating topic.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m saying that, based on past performance, I have a reasonable expectation that science may find some answers.

Wha??

Weren’t you also saying you can’t extrapolate to the beginnings of the universe since it’s outside our realm of experience?

Surely you can see the cognitive dissonance you’re presenting to us believers.

“I can extrapolate” and “I can’t extrapolate”.

Come on, Nix. Pick a paradigm and stick with it.

 

[PRmerger]

But I don’t accept the claim that something cannot come from nothing.

Again, the cognitive dissonance.

Reading what atheist folks will consider (aliens did it!) as possible makes my head hurt.

“Never, ever, in the entirety of my human experience, nor in the entire world of Science, has it ever been demonstrated that something can come from nothing!”

“I won’t believe in something without evidence!”

And yet…

“It’s possible for something to come from nothing. Even though there’s not a shred of evidence for this. And I already said I won’t believe in something without evidence.”

What the what???

 

[Nixbits]

Wha?? Weren’t you also saying you can’t extrapolate to the beginnings of the universe since it’s outside our realm of experience?

Nope. Not me.

 

[Nixbits]

“Never, ever, in the entirety of my human experience, nor in the entire world of Science, has it ever been demonstrated that something can come from nothing!”
And yet…
“It’s possible for something to come from nothing. Even though there’s not a shred of evidence for this. And I already said I won’t believe in something without evidence.”

Yet again, you’re arguing against something I didn’t say. I’ve never said that it’s possible. I merely said that I don’t see compelling evidence to accept that it’s impossible. These are two distinct positions.

Incidentally, you’ve consistently failed to answer me when I ask how this is relevant to the atheist position and, by extension, to this thread. Most atheists that I know of from forums, internet TV and radio shows and from Youtube videos do not claim that the universe came from nothing. They most often say that we just don’t know (yet) how the universe came into existence. By contrast, surely the claim of classical theism is that the universe was created by God from nothing. So I’m mystified as to why you persist with this line of reasoning.

 

[tonyrey]

So awareness and self-control have emerged from molecular structures which lack awareness and self-control?

Precisely** how **have awareness and self-control emerged from molecular structures which lack awareness and self-control, remembering that there is a vast difference between inanimate objects and rational beings who have a right to life?

Precisely how did they create a self which knows what it is doing?

They (the molecules) didn’t ‘create’ the self.

Then how did **persons **with awareness and self-control originate?

Where is the exact location of awareness and self-control?

I don’t think anyone knows this yet. I’m not convinced that ‘awareness’ and ‘self-control’ are single discrete properties anyway. It seems more likely that they are each a set of properties. It could be that what we call awareness and self-control are emergent properties from a distributed network of brain functions. If that were so, then it might be entirely justified to answer that the exact location is ‘throughout most of the brain’.

The term “emergent” is a cloak for ignorance which doesn’t explain the origin of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. Materialism presupposes the existence of rational beings with hindsight, insight and foresight. It is absurd to believe impersonal, purposeless molecules can accidentally become purposeful entities and explain their own existence because circular arguments are worthless. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our stream of consciousness. We infer the existence of everything and everyone else from our perceptions. We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and all our empirical knowledge is derived from introspection and sense data but it is subordinate to abstract reasoning, moral discernment, spiritual insight, the power of self-control and the capacity for love.

.

I look forward to future developments in neuroscience and other disciplines that may shed more light on this fascinating topic.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. Not me.

Yep. I’m sure it was you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14033649&postcount=164

I remember everything I read, Nix.

 

[tonyrey]

I wander through life with an assumption that there are no gods. But your position is not one of assumption. You go a step further, which requires faith. And please, no posts about pilots.

The assumption that there are no gods is an act of faith that everything has a physical explanation - or no explanation.

Incidentally, suggesting that one try something other than atheism to find answers is missing the point completely. Religion is meant to find answers. Atheism is not. Science is meant to find answers. Atheism is not. Philosophy is mean to find answers. Atheism is not.

If atheism offers no answers it is worthless. As Lear said, “Nothing shall come of nothing”… And Sartre pointed out that it is impossible to remain uncommitted. Not to make a decision is a decision to remain passive and not to intervene!

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, you’ve consistently failed to answer me when I ask how this is relevant to the atheist position and, by extension, to this thread. Most atheists that I know of from forums, internet TV and radio shows and from Youtube videos do not claim that the universe came from nothing.

I think that’s a very smart position to hold.

It’s what Science points to. So to be an Atheist who is consonant with Science as well as common sense, one must espouse the belief that the universe began to exist, and that something outside of this universe is its proximate cause.

The universe–all matter, time, space and energy–came from something.

Yes, Atheists, it is good for you to espouse this very scientific and logical statement.

They most often say that we just don’t know (yet) how the universe came into existence.

And this is true.

You need to look for the answer–perhaps religion, philosophy and science can assist you here.

By contrast, surely the claim of classical theism is that the universe was created by God from nothing.

Yes!

And Science seems to be supporting this view, eh?