Can an Atheist Answer These?

[tonyrey]

“1. My hypothesis is that my mind and other minds exist.
2. I observe my thoughts and perceptions at regular intervals.
3. I note that my thoughts and perceptions are consistent and coherent.”

How do you get from that ^^^^^

to this…

“4. I conclude that there is an intangible entity which produces these thoughts.”

Do you really believe you are mindless? :extrahappy:

 

[liquidpele]

You think you can mask your inability to answer my questions or refute my argument with a cartoon! I leave others to draw their conclusions…

I love using cartoons for argument … the mistake would be rejecting the point just because it’s in the form of a cartoon.

 

[SonofMonica]

And before you engage in any more childish laughter and accuse me of not understanding the nature of scientific theory, I would inform you that I was a biochemistry major in college, in other life. I fully understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, and the limits of both. I was very close to pharmacy school before I decided to get my law degree. I also subscribe to the idea that we can explain everything on Earth via naturalistic processes. As such, I understand that we have observed evolution happening, I do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old., etc.

However, I do not subscribe to the idea that there need not be a first cause. I do believe in God. And I believe that, at their best, humans can be his hands and feet so to speak, because at their best, humans are creative, they build up, they procreate, they do the things that cause “creation” if you will indulge the usage of that word, to flourish. This, I believe, is how God principally acts in the world. Through us. I find Catholic doctrine extremely receptive to this idea and I find her moral precepts to be thoroughly sure. But please do not confuse me with a fundamentalist simpleton.

 

[liquidpele]

I also subscribe to the idea that we can explain everything on Earth via naturalistic processes. As such, I understand that we have observed evolution happening, I do not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old., etc.

You and tonyrey should go at it then.

 

[SonofMonica]

You and tonyrey should go at it then.

I’m not really as militant as all that. Science, at its best, is inquisitive and seeks to discover, not to brow beat and indoctrinate. If tonyrey does not seek to understand things from the physical perspective, I cannot fault him for that. I probably read more science news and peer reviewed articles than I do religious material. tonyrey may see that as fault, and again, I will not fault him for that. It’s a matter of priority. I just hate to see people who are inquisitive about God turn vile and browbeat those who are inquisitive about God’s creation. AND vice versa.

 

[tonyrey]

I love using cartoons for argument … the mistake would be rejecting the point just because it’s in the form of a cartoon.

It’s good to have a joke but I for one would like something more substantial… like at least one answer to my questions… Otherwise we’re getting nowhere very fast.

 

[liquidpele]

I’m not really as militant as all that. Science, at its best, is inquisitive and seeks to discover, not to brow beat and indoctrinate. If tonyrey does not seek to understand things from the physical perspective, I cannot fault him for that. I probably read more science news and peer reviewed articles than I do religious material. tonyrey may see that as fault, and again, I will not fault him for that. It’s a matter of priority. I just hate to see people who are inquisitive about God turn vile and browbeat those who are inquisitive about God’s creation. AND vice versa.

Well I was joking of course, but that was a very mature reply.

 

[liquidpele]

It’s good to have a joke but I for one would like something more substantial… like at least one answer to my questions… Otherwise we’re getting nowhere very fast.

Well… CD said:

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin View Post
“1. My hypothesis is that my mind and other minds exist.
2. I observe my thoughts and perceptions at regular intervals.
3. I note that my thoughts and perceptions are consistent and coherent.”

How do you get from that ^^^^^

to this…

“4. I conclude that there is an intangible entity which produces these thoughts.”

To which you replied:

Do you really believe you are mindless?

So maybe you should answer the question my comic referred to in the same detail that you keep asking for from CD. How exactly does you having thought mean that some intangible entity produced the thoughts? That’s like saying that I see lights in the sky, thus it must be aliens visiting from another planet.

 

[kk23wong]

Sigh, i really can’t be bothered. If i searched out the papers would you even read them? I have tried to explain to you countless times what the word atheist means an you wouldn’t even accept that. So can you really blame me, if you wont even correct your misunderstanding of a word what chance will you have with detailed papers?? If you don’t think that brain activity (thoughts/emotions) can be measured then you clearly need to read up a little on the subject.

“1. My hypothesis is that my mind and other minds exist.
2. I observe my thoughts and perceptions at regular intervals.
3. I note that my thoughts and perceptions are consistent and coherent.”

How do you get from that ^^^^^

to this…

“4. I conclude that there is an intangible entity which produces these thoughts.”

Minds come from Brain. It is nothing miracle.

After doctors have certified your death, you are still conscious (with limited response to the outside world) for one day or more.
That is the reason why the God does not encourage us to donate organs.

The God exists.
Differences in-between the God and we created imaginations.
The God is our mother-in-common in nature (from biological prospective).

Teru Wong

 

[liquidpele]

Minds come from Brain. It is nothing miracle.

After doctors have certified your death, you are still conscious (with limited response to the outside world) for one day or more.
That is the reason why the God does not encourage us to donate organs.

The God exists.
Differences in-between the God and we created imaginations.
The God is our mother-in-common in nature (from biological prospective).

Teru Wong

I’m trying to be nice here, but I don’t know how else to say this. If you’re not trolling then perhaps you should refrain from posting in the philosophy section as you don’t seem to be able to contribute.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I’m not playing word games. I’m trying to demonstrate one simple concept. Predictive models are just that, and only that. They are predictive. They cannot tell us what happened in the past. You can say that “Under the X conditions, Y will happen.” This is observable, repeatable, and as scientists we can rely on it. But using scientific principles, you will never be able to prove that “Because Y happened, X conditions must have existed at that time.” That is neither observable, nor repeatable. That is not science, it is faith.

How on earth is it a faith, if you can prove under any natural conditions that live can arise then there is no need for the involvement of a creator as far as life is concerned.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

When did I display less than mastery of the word “theory?” I don’t think I used the word at all.

The origin of the cosmos has everything to do with abiogenesis. Are they studying different events with different outcomes? Obviously. But the results of one bleed into the cause of the other. Unless you want to say that God intervened in the process. Abiogenesis begins where the results of the origin cosmos end, so to speak. One bleeds over into the other, and provides the elements for the other. That’s all I’m talking about. In other words, it makes no sense to talk about life coming from elements, unless you realize (or at least take for granted) how those elements were put into place and how they interact with each other, which necessarily involves an understanding of our solar system and how it came to support the conditions for abiogenesis.

Well as a self proclaimed scientist you should understand that a theory explains a specific set of facts. Abiogenesis says nothing about the origin of the universe, and has no (for want of a better word) “interest in it”. It seeks to explain the synthesis of self replicating molecules and how they developed into RNA then unicellular organisms. For all it cares the early earth could have been magically created by a pink rabbit. It deals with what happens AFTER we have the primordial soup.

This is very basic science i would have though you would have know that. Seems I’m not the only one that need to “learn something about the subject” .

 

[shoewindow3000]

Atheist is an utterly pointless word, it tells you nothing about a persons beliefs. It’s like me calling you a invisible pink unicorn rejectionist, while the description fits it does not actually tell me anything about what you do believe.

I would call that arrogance.

You and I are no different. We are both human beings, both in the same world. We both have the same emotions, desires, etc.

You mind is not greater than mine, nor is mine greater than yours!

So, from where I am standing, you believe that God doesn’t exist. You just want to lump the true God in with false religions.

Like Richard Dawkins, you imply that Christianity is no better than any other religion.​

(The reason why the hot air condescends to the top is because it is lighter than everything else, if ya catch my drift…don’t be hot air!)

 

[shoewindow3000]

How on earth is it a faith, if you can prove under any natural conditions that live can arise then there is no need for the involvement of a creator as far as life is concerned.

How can you “prove” the rising of living material from non-living? If it has been “proven” that the first forms of life on earth arose from non-living matter, then please, I beg of you, do explain this mystery to us!!!

Allow me to cut through the bs…No, you cannot explain it. Nobody can.

For the atheist, the only possible explanation is evolution from non-living matter.
Why?

Simple:

Because to say otherwise would contradict their preconceived notions about reality.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Well as a self proclaimed scientist you should understand that a theory explains a specific set of facts. Abiogenesis says nothing about the origin of the universe, and has no (for want of a better word) “interest in it”. It seeks to explain the synthesis of self replicating molecules and how they developed into RNA then unicellular organisms. For all it cares the early earth could have been magically created by a pink rabbit. It deals with what happens AFTER we have the primordial soup.

This is very basic science i would have though you would have know that. Seems I’m not the only one that need to “learn something about the subject” .

So, correct me if I am wrong, but what you are implying is that scientists do NOT try to learn these things?

Scientists just “look over” this, according to you?

 

[SonofMonica]

How on earth is it a faith, if you can prove under any natural conditions that live can arise then there is no need for the involvement of a creator as far as life is concerned.

Thanks for the question. I will do my best to give you an illustration. Keep in mind that all analogies break down at some level–that’s why they’re only analogies. Try to be mature and grasp the main point that I’m making, please.

Thanks to modern science, there are multiple ways to achieve conception in human beings. One, of course, is the “old fashioned” way of having vaginal sexual intercourse with your spouse. Another is the “artificial insemination,” involving the placement of sperm directly into the uterus or cervix of a woman. Because of our scientific experimentation and observation, we can comfortably say that “under any natural conditions, life can arise without need for the involvement of sexual intercourse.” But what we cannot say is that all humans came about without sexual intercourse. Bottom line: if you subscribe to the idea that because something is possible, then it must have happened in the past, then you are not simply using science.

Now, I do believe that abiogenesis is possible, and I do believe it did happen. But I don’t believe it happened merely because it has been shown to be possible. And I don’t believe it happened without a creator. Why?

Much in the same vein as artificial insemination, the experiments involving abiogenesis were all conducted and begun by human beings, who have the power to create the “natural conditions” and set the stage for the processes to occur. Merely because something happens as a result of a natural process does not rule out an entity putting those conditions into place. If I were to place a kitten under a rock teetering on a cliff, I would not feel comfortable that the laws of physics were completely responsible for what happened to the poor thing.

One more interesting thought: Abiogenesis deals with the possibility that life can arise from previously inanimate material(s). This is precisely what Christianity holds did happen.

 

[SonofMonica]

Well as a self proclaimed scientist you should understand that a theory explains a specific set of facts. Abiogenesis says nothing about the origin of the universe, and has no (for want of a better word) “interest in it”. It seeks to explain the synthesis of self replicating molecules and how they developed into RNA then unicellular organisms. For all it cares the early earth could have been magically created by a pink rabbit. It deals with what happens AFTER we have the primordial soup.

This is very basic science i would have though you would have know that. Seems I’m not the only one that need to “learn something about the subject” .

Do you think that because you think you’ve read all the right books, it entitles you to be “cute” in a sarcastic way, and therefore I will just cower down and hide behind my Bible? Give me a break.

Abiogenesis, by itself, cannot explain the origins of human life. It must be taken into the proper context. Abiogenesis cannot occur without the “proper” conditions, and therefore the origin of those conditions must be taken into account, especially if you’re going to have the end result of your argument be that there is or is not a creator.

Moreover, you are completely incorrect when you say that abiogenesis assumes the validity of a “primordial soup.” The soup theory is merely one among many. Are you now beginning to understand why you can’t simply start at abiogenesis as a focused discipline and attempt to answer any big questions like, is there a God?

 

[tonyrey]

                                              Originally Posted by Charles Darwin  View Post

“1. My hypothesis is that my mind and other minds exist.
2. I observe my thoughts and perceptions at regular intervals.
3. I note that my thoughts and perceptions are consistent and coherent.”

How do you get from that ^^^^^

to this…

“4. I conclude that there is an intangible entity which produces these thoughts.”
How exactly does you having thought mean that some intangible entity produced the thoughts?

You overlooked #1. The intangible entity which produces these thoughts is my mind…

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5701898

 

[tonyrey]

We don’t have to settle on any single account of The-Way-Things-Really-Are.

This implies that the truth is established simply by the principle of utility. Yet false beliefs sometimes produce useful results. The problem is that in the long run false beliefs lead to disaster.

Instead we can use lots of different sorts of descriptions of experience for whatever purposes they are useful for without worrying about metaphysical desires of finding the one true account that is supposed to be the final word on reality.

Suppose different people have different ideas of what is useful. How would you determine who is right and who is wrong?

Since none of us think that the universe speaks any particular language or demands that any particular words be spoken about it, we don’t feel like we are losing anything by giving up on metaphysics.

According to that argument the origin and nature of the universe is unimportant. You think you are giving up on metaphysics but in fact you are restricting yourself to one particular metaphysical theory - that physical reality is the basis of everything that exists, as you illustrated with your example of the mind being dependent on the brain.

We are just more comfortable with our lack of certainty than theists are, and we are unwilling to claim certainty where our understanding of our epistemic situation doesn’t justify claims of access to a God’s-Eye-View or perspectiveless perspective on reality.

In actual fact you are comfortable because you limit your perspective of reality to the physical world. But to value comfort above truth is a recipe for disaster.
There is far less certainty in theism because we are faced with the Deus absconditus, that Rudolf Otto described as the “mysterium tremendum” in his book “The Idea of the Holy”, and the prospect of an afterlife in eternity, so memorably described by Hamlet as “the bourne from which no traveller returns”. It is far cosier to limit your horizon to the things that are dealt with by science and ignore everything else: it gives you a false sense of security. The finality of death may be unpleasant but it rules out the uncertainty of what may happen after death.

On the other hand if you agree that they do not exist anywhere in particular you imply that they are beyond the scope of science, i.e. they are real but intangible and their activity cannot be explained scientifically. And, as you have pointed out, they have attributes the brain lacks.
You are taking a very narrow view of science to say that ideas are beyond the scope of science.

I am referring to the thoughts, emotions and decisions in a person’s mind. Do you believe they are within the province of science? Don’t you regard them as subjective?

Science as a body of knowledge is simply the set of things that we have good reason to believe.

There are many things we have good reason to believe that are not scientific, e.g. the fact that we love certain people and they love us.

Science as a method is simply our best attempts at distinguishing what we have good reason to believe from what we merely wish were true.

If that were true everything you believe would be scientific. Do you really believe that?

 

[tonyrey]

But you are still faced with the problem of their unity and apparent independence. Do you regard yourself as an autonomous agent? If so you are emancipated from the determinism of the physical world. The question remains as to how this integration and liberation have been achieved. You may not consider it important but the answer does affect our view of ourselves and others. So it is important even from the pragmatist’s point of view because it concerns such issues as whether we have **a right to life. **That is hardly a minor detail!

The Cartesian self does have such a problem. It’s a good thing that I am not interested in playing metaphysics or it would be a problem for me as well. Ok, I like to play a little bit, but the project of trying to get all are ideas to cohere in a philosophical system is just one among lots of other human projects. If I think about metaphysics, I am thinking of it as such a human project rather than as an attempt to get myself in the proper relation to something great, nonhuman, and ahistorical like God or Reality.
I don’t see anyway to stand outside of history like Descartes thought he could in making himself the source of ultimate reality.

You misinterpret Descartes. He simply pointed out that our starting point is the fact that we are thinking. Reality does not begin there nor end there.

I see the “emancipation from the physical world” as an evolutionary process rather than the absurdity of mind emerging out of matter.
Molecules emerged from atoms, and cells emerged from molecules, and organisms emerged from cells and later organized into societies. Such societies were dynamically created by organisms to preserve themselves, but societies eventually were “emancipated” enough from biology to pursue purposes of their own.

All this amounts to a metaphysical view of reality because it gives a** physical **account of the origin of living organisms and societies, taking it for granted that nothing else is involved.

Social values are somewhat independent of biology just as biological life has been emancipated from the determinism of physical laws.

You take it for granted that biological life has been emancipated but you cannot explain how that has occurred. It is certainly unscientific to say the question is unimportant because it falsifies your attitude to reality by giving this world a self-sufficiency it does not possess.

Societies dynamically created ideas to help preserve and create better societies…

Was it individuals or societies that created ideas?

…but intellect has found purposes of its own as well such as the search for truth regardless of what impact that truth has on society.

Are you implying that the intellect has found purposes of its own by accident? And that the truth is really important only in relation to its impact on society? Or that the intellect evolved in response to the need to survive? Once again evolution becomes a **metaphysical **theory when it is used to explain the origin and nature of human beings and their powers.

So this “emancipation” has actually been gradual and has occurred in stages rather than a leap from atoms to mind. This Cartesian self that is somewhat emancipated from such patterns is supposed to be completely independent of physical, biological, and social patterns. Such a Cartesian self is an absurd fiction.

Your metaphysical speculations continue! You obviously regard the self as a product of physical processes and subscribe to neo-Darwinism.

As Robert Pirsig wrote in Lila, "Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” was a historically shattering declaration of independence of the intellectual level of evolution from the social level of evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a seventeenth century Chinese philosopher?

It is ironic you write that soon after an atheist on this forum used Descartes’s argument as evidence that he exists. Whether Descartes would have said that or not does not affect the validity of his argument. Perhaps you would care to disprove it?

The mind-body problem is only a problem if you buy into the Cartesian subject-object metaphysical constructions that presuppose that the world is composed of mind and matter–of two types of substance, mental substance and material substance in which all the properties that are ascribed to rocks, trees, and minds are supposed to inhere. But what is this substance outside of all its properties?

What is matter outside of all its properties? Phenomenalism is yet another metaphysical theory! And a very insubstantial one at that!

In considering the question, we find ourselves thinking of nothing at all.

Can’t you think of yourself without thinking of your body? Are your mind and your thoughts nothing?

So why make such metaphysical assertions for the reality of essences or substances that properties are supposed to adhere to? Why not instead just drop the idea of such essences and substances in favor of a web of relations of properties and thereby drop all the philosophical problems that essences create such as the philosophical platypi of appearance-reality, mind-body, free will-fatalism, and objectivity-subjectivity, essential-accidental, and absolute-relative–all the “nest and brood of Greek dualisms” that Dewey railed against.

Do you really think that **you **are a web of relations of properties? Your family is certainly a web of relations but it is not a web of webs of relations of properties!!! If there is no difference between appearance and reality what you dream is as real what you see when you are awake. If there is no difference between subject and object you are the same as what you observe. If there is no difference between free will and fatalism freedom must be an illusion and people have died fighting for nothing…