How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[excubitor]

Start with the simple. There has never been any historially proved withness accounts of the mythical creatures you mention. No bones, writings, or actifacts of any witnesses.

The holy lands hold a vast amount of evidence supporting the existance of the men who witnessed extrordinary events. The life of Jesus and his disciples is a historial fact. Their words have been recorded to the best memories of those able to record them in a time when few could read and write.

Faith is trusting. Without trust there is no faith.

I think what you are saying is that our faith has some support from the historical evidence. It would be a mistake that everything about our faith can be proven and I don’t think that’s what you are saying anyway.

However I disagree with your logic about the Unicorn. You logic goes as follows:

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

The logic is flawed because

1. We have no evidence that unicorns must and should be in the fossil record. The horns could be made out of a fleshy substance which does not fossilise
2. Just because fossils have not been found does not prove that they do not exist and that we just have not found them yet. I doubt that an evolutionist would advance this argument and if he did then we could point to the absence of all the transitional fossils missing from the evolutionary fossil record.

There are no fossils of dodos either. Does this mean dodos never existed. What if in a thousand years all the surviving samples of dodos are lost and all is left is the stories of dodos, does that mean that dodos never existed?

In fact we do have such surviving evidence from Plinie, a Roman naturalist
He describes it as. Strong, wild, and fierce, it was impossible to tame by man. records it as “a very ferocious beast, similar in the rest of its body to a horse, with the head of a deer, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, a deep, bellowing voice, and a single black horn, two cubits in length, standing out in the middle of its forehead.”

In fact, we have scriptural support that Unicorns did at one time exist. They are mentioned in the scriptures 4 times in the Psalms and once in Isaiah. However these passages could be referring to a one horned animal quite different to the mythical creature. The Latin has (rinoceros) rhinoceros in several places where the Greek has monokeros so perhaps in ancient times these terms were interchangeable. This seems to make sense because the scriptures often refer to the great strength of the Unicorn. However none of this is evidence, it is all just conjecture and probability judgments.

Personally, I believe Pliny’s description. His Historia Naturalis was a serious scholaraly work which is highly regarded to this day. It was not just a story of tales.

However this creature is quite different in description to the graceful horse with the twirly horn. But it is also quite different to a rhinoceros because its horn is 3 feet long.

So I believe in Unicorns but not as they are commonly portrayed in mythology.

So also in our religion there are many bizarre and fantastic stories which have sprung out of Christianity. We still need to moderate our beliefs to ensure that we stick to the core of the gospel and history without embellishing it with mythical fancies.

 

[R_Daneel]

Since induction leads only to probable conclusions there is no reason to believe the principle of conservation of matter/energy is absolute or necessary.

Yes. As I said, if there would be one experiment which would show that this principle is invalid, it would be discarded. Mind you, the same applies for causality. There has been zillions of causative relationships observed, but that does not make the principle of causality ironclad, absolute or necessary.

Can you explain how tangible objects have produced intangible abstractions? In what way are abstractions insubstantial?

That is not a metaphysical question. Consider yourself standing in front of a mirror. You are an ontological object, and so is the mirror. You see you reflection in the mirror, which is not an ontological object. In other words, the image does not “exist”. To explain the formation of the image you need to turn to physics and chemistry. You must investigate the reflective property of the smooth surface of the material which forms the mirror. The same applies to the image formed by the mind, except that the sciences required are more complicated, besides physics and chemistry, you need also electronics, neurophysics, and a whole lot of other disciplines.

Your notion of observation is arbitrarily restricted to the senses. Why do you exclude observation of your intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions? Are they less real than tangible objects? If they are equally real why do they depend on tangible objects?

How do you plan to observe someone else’s thoughts, feelings and perceptions? Theoretically it could be done, since they are all brain-states, special configurations of the neurons and their elecro-chemical interactions. Currently we are very far from actually doing it, and besides, there is no reason to even attempt to do it. Why bother? Sheer curiousity might lead to such research, for sure.

The hypothesis that there are only physical objects and their epiphenomena is not supported by evidence. The superior power of the mind is compelling evidence that the mind is independent and not derived from matter which lacks consciousness, insight, autonomy and purpose. The hypothesis itself is intangible and formulated by the mind not by the body!

All those are the activity or product of the brain, which is called the mind. Just like the image in the mirror does not call for some supernatural explanation, what you mentioned can be adequately explained by resorting to the natural sciences - and in this case the investigation process is still ongoing for some of the details. Consider the physical object of the legs, their muscles. When the muscles contract and expand, they produce walking. Yet walking is not an ontological object, but it is the activity of the ontologically existing muscles. We should not confuse the objects and their activity.

 

[R_Daneel]

What do you mean when you say that the physical world “exists?” What does existence mean?

You cannot go any “deeper” than existence. Linguistically we say that “this apple exists” or “this apple is”. We can play with different words, but they all mean the same thing. Physical existence is something that is separate from our consciousness, which manifests itself to us via our senses. It is accessible to our senses, or their extentions.

Existence is not an empty term. It denotes something. “Existence itself” is nothing other than what the term denotes.

The phrase “existence itself” is the same as “existence”. The term “itself” is superfluous. Again at the deepest level we must resort to a tautology.

Existence is something. Not necessarily a “thing,” but there is ____ behind the human term “existence.”

I disagree.

When you say that “STEM exists” there are two possible meanings to your statement. One is “STEM is real because it exists.” The other is “STEM is what existence is,” i.e. what the term denotes. In what sense do you mean it?

In the first case, existence is something that lies in addition to STEM- STEM has the property of existence, but existence is still a property to be had. In the second case, STEM is identical with existence, therefore incurring the problems I mentioned.

Existence is not a property, which is either present of absent. I say that STEM and existence can be used interchangably, just like “something exists” and “something is”.

The problem is as follows- existence as a “thing” must be uniform, because we cannot conceive of distinct existences operating at an equal level. For example, we could argue that there are two distinct existences- but then we would also be obliged to argue that those existences are real. If those two existences are real, then we would have to say that two distinct existences exist. In that case, the two distinct existences would both exist relative to each other- therefore, both partaking in a single existence. If two distinct existences were to be proved, then they would be proved to be real and to exist- which would take us right back to the uniform existence they were both proved to have.

Ok. In that case I say that “existence” and “physical existence” are the same. There is just one existence. Theists assert that there are two different kinds of existence, “physical existence” and “non-physical existence”. Their “non-physical” existence is not the same what we call concepts, which are the mental equivalents or abstractions of physical objects. You can ask them about this dichotomy. For atheists this dichotomy is meaningless.

The problem is then explaining how that unified substance becomes different forms. If STEM is existence, and existence is necessarily unified, then how can STEM appear in different forms?

Some things, like existence, are at the basic level, they cannot be reduced to anything “deeper”. Now we can ponder the different mainfestations of STEM, and that belongs to particle physics. Once upon a time, the concept of the atom was considered fundamental. The very word “atom” means that it cannot be divided into something “smaller”. Then the view changed, and it turned out that atoms are not “solid” consturcts, they are made up of even smaller particles, protons, electrons, neutrons, etc… Then this turned out to be insufficient. Today we have quarks of different flavors. Are they the final building blocks? Who knows? It may very well be that the particles “go down” infinitely, and there are no “final”, elementary particles. Or maybe there are. Whatever STEM “really” is, is under investigation. The jury is still out. One thing is certain. Our perception of what “reality” is and the actual reality may be different. We construct all sorts of little boxes, and try to “squeeze” reality into them. Sometimes we are wrong.

I return to the starting point. For atheists STEM is the final level of reality, which cannot be explained, which requires no explanation, which is a brute fact. For theists this final level of reality is God, which requires no explanation, which cannot be explained, which is a brute fact. Our stances are identical in a formal manner. I don’t ask theists what is God “made of”? I understand that this question is meaningless for them. I wonder why do you ask me the same types of questions? They are meaningless for me.

 

[c4thy]

Your latest discussion is reflective of the very fundamental question regarding the act of observation. If by revealling or viewing changes the very essence of that which is has been seen. I know in my bones that the sun will shine again, yet its beauty when it returns with the dawn is both uplifting and different every time I see it. And I see it every day.
To drawn down to the smallest of the small and the greatest of the great does not change a closed mind or an open heart. Both will embrace only that which they deem to be within their reason.
One will call on a fairy another an angel. Both have hope in their heart.

 

[ContegoFides]

I find it ironic that the atheist demands proof for God. No proof is sufficient to the positivist, as there is always another reason to be skeptical.

At a fundamental level, the atheist is extremely hard of heart because the atheist really only believes in skepticism. Even the most rigorously tested scientific theory is subject to question and challenge, so long as another experiment can “prove” that a theory is wrong. The result will be another theory that is potentially subject to question and challenge. Much the same way that Newton’s laws were shown to be inadequate for high energy physics, leading to relativity. Einsteins relativity is also flawed, we know, because it conflicts with quantum mechanics (or, more accurately, either or both of relativity and quantum mechanics are one or both of incomplete or inaccurate). Even once that is resolved, the result will be subject to question, challenge, and experimentation. The quest for the “theory of everything” will never really be completed because there will always be another experiment to be performed, a question to be answered, a problem to be solved.

So, even if I could submit what appears to be “compelling” evidence for belief in God, the atheist would likely dispute the evidence. Why? Because even the most accepted theories are subject to skepticism and challenge. More importantly, the atheist doesn’t want to believe in God. The only thing the atheist believes in is lack of belief (skepticism). That’s pretty shaky ground to stand on; and the natural result is lack of trust in anything.

God, on the other hand, asks us to trust. Not 99.9999999% confidence in accuracy “for now” until another experiment can be performed - but 100% trust in our relationship with Him. It is for this reason that no scientific proof will ever be sufficient to the atheist, and it is also reason why scientific proof is unncessary to the person of faith. I believe it is for this reason God does not perform miracles except in a way that allows the atheist an easy point of attack to assert the “reasonability” of disbelief. God wants 100% trust, not 99.99999% certainty “for now.”

Why does God want 100% trust? Because that is His nature; anything that truly exists exists is from Him and in Him. Additionally, belief in God involves a relationship with God, a relationship built on trust, not skepticism. Mere belief is not sufficient.

For example, even if you could “prove” God, there’s no reason why you would automatically obey Him. Even in Christian theology, Adam and Eve knew God immediately, personally, and intimately - and yet disobeyed Him. So, even if I were to submit proof to the atheist of God’s existence, I’m not sure what the atheist would do about it.

In any case, I believe that the above are the reasons why atheists are so hard of heart when it comes to faith. The atheist intrinsically, at the deepest levels of the psyche and soul, digs in his or her heels at anything that is not subject to question and test - to skepticism. The atheist starts from this position, a-priori, as being true - and then finds arguments for the rationality of skepticism or lack of belief.

In the end, what converts hearts and minds is the Holy Spirit. It takes a personal experience and relationship with the Lord, something that will move the deep seated reliance on skepticism and fear of being wrong. That relationship might possibly start with an argument as a means of beginning introspection and that relationship - but it will never never end with an argument, but rather it ends with trust.

In the meantime, as I asserted above, I can show that faith is reasonable and I can show that the fairy argument is a misplaced analogy. I can also show that the fruits of following atheism, culturally, are really bad - and that the fruits of truly following the Church are always good. If that is not enough, then there’s really not much that can be done by our efforts to convince the atheist.

You never know, though. The Holy Spirit has converted some extremely hardened atheists, so it’s possible.

 

[tonyrey]

Since induction leads only to probable conclusions there is no reason to believe the principle of conservation of matter/energy is absolute or necessary.

Then you are not justified in assuming the universe is necessary or eternal.

Can you explain how tangible objects have produced intangible abstractions? In what way are abstractions insubstantial?

That is not a metaphysical question. Consider yourself standing in front of a mirror. You are an ontological object, and so is the mirror. You see you reflection in the mirror, which is not an ontological object. In other words, the image does not “exist”. To explain the formation of the image you need to turn to physics and chemistry. You must investigate the reflective property of the smooth surface of the material which forms the mirror. The same applies to the image formed by the mind, except that the sciences required are more complicated, besides physics and chemistry, you need also electronics, neurophysics, and a whole lot of other disciplines.

There is a vast difference between a reflection in a mirror which can be explained scientifically and realities like the mind, truth, freedom, beauty, equality, harmony, purpose and love.

BTW What is your concept of a metaphysical question? Can you give an example?

Your notion of observation is arbitrarily restricted to the senses. Why do you exclude observation of your intangible thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions? Are they less real than tangible objects? If they are equally real why do they depend on tangible objects?

How do you plan to observe someone else’s thoughts, feelings and perceptions? Theoretically it could be done, since they are all brain-states, special configurations of the neurons and their elecro-chemical interactions. Currently we are very far from actually doing it, and besides, there is no reason to even attempt to do it. Why bother? Sheer curiosity might lead to such research, for sure.

I am referring to observation of your own thoughts! Don’t you reach valid conclusions from introspection?

The hypothesis that there are only physical objects and their epiphenomena is not supported by evidence. The superior power of the mind is compelling evidence that the mind is independent and not derived from matter which lacks consciousness, insight, autonomy and purpose. The hypothesis itself is intangible and formulated by the mind not by the body!

All those are the activity or product of the brain, which is called the mind. Just like the image in the mirror does not call for some supernatural explanation, what you mentioned can be adequately explained by resorting to the natural sciences - and in this case the investigation process is still ongoing for some of the details. Consider the physical object of the legs, their muscles. When the muscles contract and expand, they produce walking. Yet walking is not an ontological object, but it is the activity of the ontologically existing muscles. We should not confuse the objects and their activity.

How do the natural sciences explain consciousness, insight, autonomy and purpose?
What is the physical explanation of a hypothesis?

 

[R_Daneel]

I find it ironic that the atheist demands proof for God. No proof is sufficient to the positivist, as there is always another reason to be skeptical.

At a fundamental level, the atheist is extremely hard of heart because the atheist really only believes in skepticism. Even the most rigorously tested scientific theory is subject to question and challenge, so long as another experiment can “prove” that a theory is wrong. The result will be another theory that is potentially subject to question and challenge. Much the same way that Newton’s laws were shown to be inadequate for high energy physics, leading to relativity. Einsteins relativity is also flawed, we know, because it conflicts with quantum mechanics (or, more accurately, either or both of relativity and quantum mechanics are one or both of incomplete or inaccurate). Even once that is resolved, the result will be subject to question, challenge, and experimentation. The quest for the “theory of everything” will never really be completed because there will always be another experiment to be performed, a question to be answered, a problem to be solved.

So, even if I could submit what appears to be “compelling” evidence for belief in God, the atheist would likely dispute the evidence. Why? Because even the most accepted theories are subject to skepticism and challenge. More importantly, the atheist doesn’t want to believe in God. The only thing the atheist believes in is lack of belief (skepticism). That’s pretty shaky ground to stand on; and the natural result is lack of trust in anything.

God, on the other hand, asks us to trust. Not 99.9999999% confidence in accuracy “for now” until another experiment can be performed - but 100% trust in our relationship with Him. It is for this reason that no scientific proof will ever be sufficient to the atheist, and it is also reason why scientific proof is unncessary to the person of faith. I believe it is for this reason God does not perform miracles except in a way that allows the atheist an easy point of attack to assert the “reasonability” of disbelief. God wants 100% trust, not 99.99999% certainty “for now.”

Why does God want 100% trust? Because that is His nature; anything that truly exists exists is from Him and in Him. Additionally, belief in God involves a relationship with God, a relationship built on trust, not skepticism. Mere belief is not sufficient.

For example, even if you could “prove” God, there’s no reason why you would automatically obey Him. Even in Christian theology, Adam and Eve knew God immediately, personally, and intimately - and yet disobeyed Him. So, even if I were to submit proof to the atheist of God’s existence, I’m not sure what the atheist would do about it.

In any case, I believe that the above are the reasons why atheists are so hard of heart when it comes to faith. The atheist intrinsically, at the deepest levels of the psyche and soul, digs in his or her heels at anything that is not subject to question and test - to skepticism. The atheist starts from this position, a-priori, as being true - and then finds arguments for the rationality of skepticism or lack of belief.

In the end, what converts hearts and minds is the Holy Spirit. It takes a personal experience and relationship with the Lord, something that will move the deep seated reliance on skepticism and fear of being wrong. That relationship might possibly start with an argument as a means of beginning introspection and that relationship - but it will never never end with an argument, but rather it ends with trust.

In the meantime, as I asserted above, I can show that faith is reasonable and I can show that the fairy argument is a misplaced analogy. I can also show that the fruits of following atheism, culturally, are really bad - and that the fruits of truly following the Church are always good. If that is not enough, then there’s really not much that can be done by our efforts to convince the atheist.

You never know, though. The Holy Spirit has converted some extremely hardened atheists, so it’s possible.

Unfortunately you are seriously mistaken. The skeptics do not dispute facts, they dispute the explanation of those facts. The difference is enormous. If God came down, and demonstrated his power, no one would dispute it. It would become a cold, hard, undisputable, brute fact… just like dropping a stone and observe that it did hit the ground.

About trust: trust has to be earned. One may start with a trusting disposition, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a bad strategy to start with granting a provisional trust to a claim. But to stick to that claim and keep on trusting, even when the evidence to the contrary becomes overwhelming is nonsensical. How many times would you have to catch your spouse in bed with someone else, before your trust would start to wither? Precious few, I guess. How many times do you have to pray for something with that prayer going unanswered before you start to doubt? Why don’t you use the same standard in both cases?

If God wants a 100% trust without giving any sign that this trust is merited, then he knows nothing about human nature. Maybe your trust will never be shattered in the face of overwhelming evidence, but then your trust is simply gullibility.

 

[R_Daneel]

Then you are not justified in assuming the universe is necessary or eternal.

Why not? By the way, I did not use the word “eternal”.

There is a vast difference between a reflection in a mirror which can be explained scientifically and realities like the mind, truth, freedom, beauty, equality, harmony, purpose and love.

Only in complexity. As I said, in theory all those concepts and emotions can be mapped onto brain-states. By physically influencing the brain - emotions can be atrificially induced. Place some electrodes into the brain, and you can induce love, happiness, sadness, even memory, or whatever. That is sufficient for me and the neuro-scientists.

BTW What is your concept of a metaphysical question? Can you give an example?

Sure: “what exists?” is a question of metaphysics. “How do we know it?” is a question of epistemology. On the other hand: “how does the brain work?” is a question for medical science and neuro-physics. “How does the mirror reflect the image” is a question for physics and chemistry.

I am referring to observation of your own thoughts! Don’t you reach valid conclusions from introspection?

To a degree, yes. But most of out thought processes take place in the subconscious, which is not accessible to the “little grey cells” as Poirot would say it.

How do the natural sciences explain consciousness, insight, autonomy and purpose?
What is the physical explanation of a hypothesis?

You have to dig really deep into neuro-physics.

 

[tonyrey]

Then you are not justified in assuming the universe is necessary or eternal.

You agreed that you think the universe will never cease to exist. The provisional conclusions of science do not justify that assumption which has metaphysical implications anyway. The question of physical necessity takes us beyond the scope of science.

There is a vast difference between a reflection in a mirror which can be explained scientifically and realities like the mind, truth, freedom, beauty, equality, harmony, purpose and love.

Only in complexity. As I said, in theory all those concepts and emotions can be mapped onto brain-states.

Theories have to be supported by conclusive evidence if they are to be credible…

By physically influencing the brain - emotions can be artificially induced. Place some electrodes into the brain, and you can induce love, happiness, sadness, even memory, or whatever. That is sufficient for me and the neuro-scientists.

For you and **some **neuro-scientists… Your criterion is inadequate - in addition to the fact that genuine love, happiness, sadness and memory cannot be induced! If they could we would be robots! Physical symptoms cannot be equated so easily with intangible emotions.The ability to induce such phenomena is merely evidence of what we already know - that there is interaction between the mind and the brain. Why do you differentiate them if the mind is no more than the activity of the brain? How do you think the brain - which is a set of electrical impulses - controls itself? Where is its control-centre located?How does the brain know it exists? Why should a physical organ be held responsible for what it does?

“what exists?” is a question of metaphysics. “How do we know it?” is a question of epistemology. On the other hand: “how does the brain work?” is a question for medical science and neuro-physics. “How does the mirror reflect the image” is a question for physics and chemistry.

In that case “What is a person?” and “Do abstractions exist?” are metaphysical questions.

I am referring to observation of your own thoughts! Don’t you reach valid conclusions from introspection?

To a degree, yes. But most of our thought processes take place in the subconscious, which is not accessible to the “little grey cells” as Poirot would say it.

It remains true that you observe many of your intangible thoughts and you reach valid conclusions from introspection. Therefore evidence is not restricted to the senses. In fact introspection, intuition and inspiration are the only forms of direct knowledge we have. We can doubt everything else but we cannot doubt our thoughts. Or if we do we undermine all our knowledge and are reduced to total scepticism. Science is based entirely on inference from our perceptions.

How do the natural sciences explain consciousness, insight, autonomy and purpose?
What is the physical explanation of a hypothesis?

You have to dig really deep into neuro-physics.

I’m afraid that is not an explanation… In the meantime we have to regard it as an act of faith on your part that the natural sciences can in principle explain everything.

 

[R_Daneel]

You agreed that you think the universe will never cease to exist. The provisional conclusions of science do not justify that assumption which has metaphysical implications anyway. The question of physical necessity takes us beyond the scope of science.

I still don’t see what your point might be.

Theories have to be supported by conclusive evidence if they are to be credible…

No #%^@, Sherlock. The evidence is there, all you have to do is learn about it.

For you and **some **neuro-scientists… Your criterion is inadequate - in addition to the fact that genuine love, happiness, sadness and memory cannot be induced!

Haha. And just how do you differentiate between “genuine” and “not-so-genuine” love, happines, pain etc?

Physical symptoms cannot be equated so easily with intangible emotions.

And what is your evidence for that?

The ability to induce such phenomena is merely evidence of what we already know - that there is interaction between the mind and the brain. Why do you differentiate them if the mind is no more than the activity of the brain? How do you think the brain - which is a set of electrical impulses - controls itself? Where is its control-centre located?How does the brain know it exists? Why should a physical organ be held responsible for what it does?

Ever heard of distributed processes? The brain is not like a “sequential” computer, with a central processing unit and a memory. It is a parallel processing, cellular machine, where there is no separate processing unit and memory. I advise you to read up on cellular automata - though it is not easy reading.

In that case “What is a person?” and “Do abstractions exist?” are metaphysical questions.

In a matter of speaking. “What is a person” is more a matter of definition, than something that can be defined objectively.

It remains true that you observe many of your intangible thoughts and you reach valid conclusions from introspection. Therefore evidence is not restricted to the senses. In fact introspection, intuition and inspiration are the only forms of direct knowledge we have. We can doubt everything else but we cannot doubt our thoughts. Or if we do we undermine all our knowledge and are reduced to total scepticism. Science is based entirely on inference from our perceptions.

The fact remains, most of our thoughts reside in the subconscious, which are inaccessible to our “introspection”.

I’m afraid that is not an explanation… In the meantime we have to regard it as an act of faith on your part that the natural sciences can in principle explain everything.

You expect simplistic answers to complex problems.

 

[tonyrey]

You agreed that you think the universe will never cease to exist. The provisional conclusions of science do not justify that assumption which has metaphysical implications anyway. The question of physical necessity takes us beyond the scope of science.

That there is no evidence that the universe is necessary and not contingent.

The evidence is there, all you have to do is learn about it.

Do we have to take your word that it is conclusive? Evidence is needed that it is conclusive evidence!

And just how do you differentiate between “genuine” and “not-so-genuine” love, happiness, pain etc?

Please refer to my next response.

Physical symptoms cannot be equated so easily with intangible emotions.

And what is your evidence for that?

The very fact that qualia are intangible and irreproducible! Thomas Nagel (an atheist) wrote a famous article, “What is it like to be a Bat?”, in which he pointed out that qualia are inherently subjective and cannot be accommodated by physicalism:
**“Every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.” **

The ability to induce such phenomena is merely evidence of what we already know - that there is interaction between the mind and the brain. Why do you differentiate them if the mind is no more than the activity of the brain? How do you think the brain - which is a set of electrical impulses - controls itself? Where is its control-centre located?How does the brain know it exists? Why should a physical organ be held responsible for what it does?

Ever heard of distributed processes? The brain is not like a “sequential” computer, with a central processing unit and a memory. It is a parallel processing, cellular machine, where there is no separate processing unit and memory. I advise you to read up on cellular automata - though it is not easy reading.

No need. You refer to the brain as a machine - which confirms my statement that you are reducing persons to robots who lack autonomy and responsibility because they are programmed by their genes and their environment. Do you really believe we are robots?

In a matter of speaking. “What is a person” is more a matter of definition, than something that can be defined objectively.

In other words you believe a person is indefinable. Why? There can be only two reasons: either a person is an illusion or a brute reality.

What about abstractions? Are they illusions or terms which refer to aspects of reality?

It remains true that you observe many of your intangible thoughts and you reach valid conclusions from introspection. Therefore evidence is not restricted to the senses. In fact introspection, intuition and inspiration are the only forms of direct knowledge we have. We can doubt everything else but we cannot doubt our thoughts. Or if we do we undermine all our knowledge and are reduced to total scepticism. Science is based entirely on inference from our perceptions.

The fact remains, most of our thoughts reside in the subconscious, which are inaccessible to our “introspection”.

I’m afraid that is not an explanation… In the meantime we have to regard it as an act of faith on your part that the natural sciences can in principle explain everything.

You expect simplistic answers to complex problems.

It’s not a question of what I expect but of whether science has the answers…

 

[ContegoFides]

Unfortunately you are seriously mistaken. The skeptics do not dispute facts, they dispute the explanation of those facts. The difference is enormous. If God came down, and demonstrated his power, no one would dispute it. It would become a cold, hard, undisputable, brute fact… just like dropping a stone and observe that it did hit the ground.

About trust: trust has to be earned. One may start with a trusting disposition, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a bad strategy to start with granting a provisional trust to a claim. But to stick to that claim and keep on trusting, even when the evidence to the contrary becomes overwhelming is nonsensical. How many times would you have to catch your spouse in bed with someone else, before your trust would start to wither? Precious few, I guess. How many times do you have to pray for something with that prayer going unanswered before you start to doubt? Why don’t you use the same standard in both cases?

If God wants a 100% trust without giving any sign that this trust is merited, then he knows nothing about human nature. Maybe your trust will never be shattered in the face of overwhelming evidence, but then your trust is simply gullibility.

Even observations or “facts” themselves may be subject to dispute, and in fact often are, due to the limits of observation. Anyone who has ever tried a legal case knows that “facts” may not be nearly so easy to establish as you might think; and often they must be inferred. For example, it may be a “fact” that I fired a gun and, as a result, blew up a watermelon. However, establishing this event as a “fact” after the event has occurred may be extremely difficult when all we have is the remains of the watermelon. Was it “I” who fired? Was it a gun or a baseball bat? The questions go on. I haven’t even begun to get into questions of why I supposedly shot the watermelon, I’m still on establishing so-called “hard” facts.

So, “facts” are not nearly so powerful as the skeptic would make them out to be. In a simple case, where you and I are both observing a rock simultaneously and both of us see it hit the floor, we might agree that a fact has been established: a rock hit the floor. However, this kind of simplification is the non-interesting case. What is interesting is the conclusions that we may deduce from watching the rock hit the ground. However, more interesting still is the question of what kind of policies shall we create with regard to our behavior, knowing that rocks hit the ground when dropped? No agreement can be reached on THAT based on “cold-hard” facts; so even if the fact is established, it may be useless.

That’s what I’m getting at. Establishing God as a “fact” is useless, because doing so does not accomplish the desired end. Just as what is interesting about the observation of the rock hitting the ground is not the fact alone, but rather the conclusions we draw from the observation - what is of interest to God his His relationship with each of us. “Proving” God exists from the position of skepticism is counter productive to God’s stated purpose. (Sure, you could argue this is a tautology - but if God does exist, as it is reasonable to believe, then one can proceed down a chain of logic that takes you to the teachings of the Catholic Church in a way that no other religion can - so it isn’t really a tautology).

I want to address your issues with “signs.” How about the creation of the universe? There’s a sign, a fact, a demonstration of power. Sure, this is a speculation as to cause - not measurement the thing itself - but we make this kind of speculation all the time. It is an interesting question, the answer to which has profound implications for philosophy and why you believe anything. What is it that breathed fire into the equations and made a universe for them to describe?

The skeptic, at best, can say “I don’t know.” As a leap of faith, based on his deep seated position of mistrust in the spiritual, he may say, “something physical.” However, when reason is applied, without an a-priori assumption that only physical things exist, one can find rational reasons to believe that perhaps it was God who created the universe.

Why would you refuse to believe the sign of First Cause? The reason is that the skeptic cannot ever measure the First Cause directly, and so cannot ever trust what it may be. Without this intrinsic ability to trust, a relationship with God is pretty difficult.

Thus, it remains true that the position of the skeptic is essentially one of non-trust, and for this reason ultimately can’t really be sure that anything is true except for what he immediately observes. This is especially important when the skeptic wishes to decide upon his philosophy or course of action - why will you choose one policy or belief over another?

 

[ContegoFides]

Unfortunately you are seriously mistaken. The skeptics do not dispute facts, they dispute the explanation of those facts. The difference is enormous. If God came down, and demonstrated his power, no one would dispute it. It would become a cold, hard, undisputable, brute fact… just like dropping a stone and observe that it did hit the ground.

About trust: trust has to be earned. One may start with a trusting disposition, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a bad strategy to start with granting a provisional trust to a claim. But to stick to that claim and keep on trusting, even when the evidence to the contrary becomes overwhelming is nonsensical. How many times would you have to catch your spouse in bed with someone else, before your trust would start to wither? Precious few, I guess. How many times do you have to pray for something with that prayer going unanswered before you start to doubt? Why don’t you use the same standard in both cases?

If God wants a 100% trust without giving any sign that this trust is merited, then he knows nothing about human nature. Maybe your trust will never be shattered in the face of overwhelming evidence, but then your trust is simply gullibility.

As for trust, God knows human nature better than we do. That’s why, in my personal opinion, God does not announce “provable” miracles. The goal is not proof in God’s existence, but rather a relationship with God. Because God is not measurable, you will have to trust (based on reasonability of observation) that He exists. Again, skepticism will not allow this relationship, so any belief based on a “fact” will not accomplish within the Human heart what God wants.

As for trust issues with God, you seem to assume that God may be measured by Human standards. Even if measured by Human standards, we lack full information and therefore cannot come to solid decisions. However, it is God that defines what is good - not us. Time and again we, as humans, come to some pretty horrific decisions as to what is “good.”

You posit a hypothetical about catching your spouse in bed with another, and compare that to praying without receiving an answer. The problem with the analogy is that the adultery proceeds from malfeasance, but there’s no way to judge what you mean by unanswered prayers. Of what malfeasance do you accuse God?

Additionally, the analogy proceeds from the position of “me.” It assumes we or you know best, and that you are the judge, and that might not be true. It assumes that what you are asking for is just in the view of the eternal. It assumes you have grown impatient because you have not received an answer on the time scale you.

You said that if God wants 100% trust without giving any sign, he knows nothing about human nature. That assumes that you start from a skeptical position. It also assumes that He hasn’t given you a sign. He has, many of them such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but the skeptic rejects them all (and the whole) because on one level these signs do not comport with a measuring stick established by the created creature.

On a deeper level, the skeptic refuses these signs because the skeptic starts, a-priori, with the assumption that the only kind of reality is the one where the stone hits the floor. However, that assumption is not warranted in view of the fact that even the skeptic believes in unprovable value judgments, or in view of the existence of abstract concepts.

Finally, you said that maybe my trust will be shattered in the face of overwhelming evidence, but then my trust is simply gullibility.

Please, what is your overwhelming evidence for lack of trust in God? This sounds like it could be a statement of anger. If so, I’d like a chance to address it.

 

[neophyte]

…Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

By pointing out that while there isn’t a shred of evidence for the existance of fairies, there most certainly is evidence for the existance of God. The problem for so many is that they insist on a special pleading in this case, they insist on a standard of evidence that they do not demant for the existance of any other person. They’ll believe in God only if he rips open the space next to them, steps into the room, and does some sort of medical miracle in their presence.

That’s like refusing to believe in Beethoven unless he walks out of the closet and composes a piano concerto in their family room.

 

[Sarpedon]

I disagree.

“Physical existence is something that is separate from our consciousness.”

All I’m saying is that existence is not an empty term. At this point, I haven’t defined what existence is. You don’t really disagree with me at this point- you do describe existence as something. That’s all I’m saying thus far.

Existence is not a property, which is either present of absent. I say that STEM and existence can be used interchangably, just like “something exists” and “something is”.

Okay, so identify STEM with existence?

Theists assert that there are two different kinds of existence, “physical existence” and “non-physical existence”.

That’s not what we assert. An angel does not have some sort of existence distinct and separate from that of a man. Existence refers to real things, not material things. Being equally real, a man and an angel are not distinct in this respect. Real things exist, and existent things are real- no matter what those “things” are. The distinction between natural and supernatural in terms of existence only holds if existence is tied to materiality- which of course we do not assert.

Some things, like existence, are at the basic level, they cannot be reduced to anything “deeper”. Now we can ponder the different mainfestations of STEM, and that belongs to particle physics. Once upon a time, the concept of the atom was considered fundamental. The very word “atom” means that it cannot be divided into something “smaller”. Then the view changed, and it turned out that atoms are not “solid” consturcts, they are made up of even smaller particles, protons, electrons, neutrons, etc… Then this turned out to be insufficient. Today we have quarks of different flavors. Are they the final building blocks? Who knows? It may very well be that the particles “go down” infinitely, and there are no “final”, elementary particles. Or maybe there are. Whatever STEM “really” is, is under investigation. The jury is still out. One thing is certain. Our perception of what “reality” is and the actual reality may be different. We construct all sorts of little boxes, and try to “squeeze” reality into them. Sometimes we are wrong.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It’s not a matter of finding out what STEM is, or refining our understanding of STEM. It’s a question of whether STEM is real because it exists, or whether existence is real because it is STEM.

I return to the starting point. For atheists STEM is the final level of reality, which cannot be explained, which requires no explanation, which is a brute fact

I know. That’s exactly what I said in my post. My post was a compare and contrast post, where I characterized both positions and drew some implications from the atheist position. All you have done is rehash your position, which I am well aware of. What do you say to the implications I drew from your well established position?

I don’t ask theists what is God “made of”? I understand that this question is meaningless for them. I wonder why do you ask me the same types of questions? They are meaningless for me.

Because there clear differences between the two examples. God is completely uniform, perfect, and uncaused. The world of STEM is fundamentally particular and distinct. Even if STEM is uniform energy or something like that, STEM still has an uncanny tendency to form into things. That’s one crucial difference. In addition, God is without change, while the world of STEM changes all the time.

Atheists and theists are the same in that they both have a final principle. Despite this, they have very different final principles. Atheists question the theist principal all the time. I am doing the same to yours. I am well aware of what you believe. I am asking you to consider the implications and consequences that I have drawn from your position.

Although I outlined my implications more in depth in my prior post, they go like this- if particularity (meaning distinctness, having ontological limits) and change are intrinsic to STEM, and STEM is identical with existence, then:

1. Is existence fundamentally particular and changing? In that case, what is the basis for our knowledge?
2. If STEM changes, and therefore existence changes, how can we judge that change if nothing lies behind it?
3. Lastly, and most importantly, what is it in STEM that leads to change? Why would existence change its manifestation? If STEM is existence, and therefore perfectly real, why would that STEM change into varying forms? I know that when things change, STEM does not come into or out of being, according to most physics, but the problem remains- if STEM does not come into or out of being, why does it manifest itself in different forms? In a perfectly uniform, stable, STEM/existence, why would we observe diversity? Where does the diversity come from?

 

[KyivAndrew]

I return to the starting point. For atheists STEM is the final level of reality, which cannot be explained, which requires no explanation, which is a brute fact. I don’t ask theists what is God “made of”? I understand that this question is meaningless for them. I wonder why do you ask me the same types of questions? They are meaningless for me.

O.K. R Daneel. Is the question of morality meaningless to you? You argue that materialism and Space/Time/Energy/Matter are the only reality. What do you use (and believe should be used by society) to judge good from evil if all that exists in our head are neurochemicals and matter which can be manipulated to feel love, etc.

Do you R. Daneel believe in the concept of good and evil or is that religious hogwash?

On what grounds would you object to the Communist or Nazi Genocides of the 20th Century in which tens of millions of human beings died? Were these genocides evil in your view and how could you define evil in strictly materialist terms or in terms based on a simply materialistic reality? If there is no harm to you or your loved ones, why should you care? And I am not asking for evolutionary biology explanations of why one might feel altruism at times, as if this explanation would make one’s reaction “correct” or justified. I am asking why should you care about the welfare of other human beings? They are “simply” mass with intelligence, but why not just go through life pleasing yourself without limitation? Guilt is just a chemical reaction in your head right?

Barring any direct or familial harm, why should one care of the annihilation of, for lack of a better term in the STEM universe, millions of material beings (i.e. humans) on the other side of the world? They all just consist of matter and energy anyway. How does one value matter? Why should one necessarily care more for the human than the animal? By the way, are humans and animals different in kind or degree?

To reiterate: do you believe in morality and, if yes, are there certain grounds for morality and in what do they consist? Thanks.

 

[R_Daneel]

Even observations or “facts” themselves may be subject to dispute, and in fact often are, due to the limits of observation. Anyone who has ever tried a legal case knows that “facts” may not be nearly so easy to establish as you might think; and often they must be inferred. For example, it may be a “fact” that I fired a gun and, as a result, blew up a watermelon. However, establishing this event as a “fact” after the event has occurred may be extremely difficult when all we have is the remains of the watermelon. Was it “I” who fired? Was it a gun or a baseball bat? The questions go on. I haven’t even begun to get into questions of why I supposedly shot the watermelon, I’m still on establishing so-called “hard” facts.

If I arrive at the scene later, then the the fact is simple: “there is a shattered watermelon”. The cause of the fact (how did the watermelon get into this state) belongs to the “explanation part”. If I am at the scene at the time when you fire the gun, then the fact is “I observe you to fire a gun, and the watermelon is blown apart”. The fact is what we we can observe. As I said, skeptics do not deny the facts, only the explanation part can be reasonably questioned.

That’s what I’m getting at. Establishing God as a “fact” is useless, because doing so does not accomplish the desired end. Just as what is interesting about the observation of the rock hitting the ground is not the fact alone, but rather the conclusions we draw from the observation - what is of interest to God his His relationship with each of us.

I don’t disagree. If I knew for a fact, that God exists, it would not compel me to do something (like worshipping that God). (Now, I must diverge here for a second. Many times people said that God does not want to establish his existence, because that would “rob” us from freely choosing him or reject him. Based upon what you said, this argument is total nonsense.)

“Proving” God exists from the position of skepticism is counter productive to God’s stated purpose.

There is no “stated” purpose that I can recognize. of course many people attest to God’s “purpose”, but I am skeptical, if they really have a direct line to God, and if God personally advised them about this “purpose” .

I want to address your issues with “signs.” How about the creation of the universe? There’s a sign, a fact, a demonstration of power.

There is an ongoing discussion about this very question, and I include a link to my post over there: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6883685&postcount=118 It deals with the first cause or cosmological argument. Let’s not repeat it in this thread.

Thus, it remains true that the position of the skeptic is essentially one of non-trust, and for this reason ultimately can’t really be sure that anything is true except for what he immediately observes. This is especially important when the skeptic wishes to decide upon his philosophy or course of action - why will you choose one policy or belief over another?

Essentially true, but don’t read too much into it. Skeptics also accept lots of unobserved asserions without a demand to have an explicit demonstration, just like you do. We both have an internal dividing line which is subjective and which allows one to decide: “I will accept this claim without verification” but “I will only accept that claim if it can be verifed”. The difference is where we draw this line. I bet if someone would come to you and say that he invented a new medication to cure cancer, and would ask you to support the marketing and he would need all your money and all your propery to do it, you would become a skeptic. If you would not want some verification before you would fork over your money, back account, your house and your car, then I hereby officially make the above claim.

 

[R_Daneel]

As for trust, God knows human nature better than we do. That’s why, in my personal opinion, God does not announce “provable” miracles. The goal is not proof in God’s existence, but rather a relationship with God. Because God is not measurable, you will have to trust (based on reasonability of observation) that He exists. Again, skepticism will not allow this relationship, so any belief based on a “fact” will not accomplish within the Human heart what God wants.

I cannot think about establishing a relationship with someone, whose very existence is questionable.

As for trust issues with God, you seem to assume that God may be measured by Human standards. Even if measured by Human standards, we lack full information and therefore cannot come to solid decisions. However, it is God that defines what is good - not us. Time and again we, as humans, come to some pretty horrific decisions as to what is “good.”

Oh brother! This short paragraph would need pages and pages to reply. What other measuring rod is there than our, human one? Here is a link for you to read: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html Do not be offended.

You posit a hypothetical about catching your spouse in bed with another, and compare that to praying without receiving an answer. The problem with the analogy is that the adultery proceeds from malfeasance, but there’s no way to judge what you mean by unanswered prayers.

You concentrated too much on the particlars of this example, and not on what it represents. The spouse tells you that she has been forced by some threat and she never failed to love you. And then about 100 times the same thing happens with 100 different partners. Every time she asserts that she has been forced. It is even possible that she tells the truth every time. You only have your trust in her word. How many times does this have to happen before your trust is shattered (like that watermelon)?

Additionally, the analogy proceeds from the position of “me.” It assumes we or you know best, and that you are the judge, and that might not be true.

Yes, it might not be true. But whom should I trust more than my own judgment?

It assumes that what you are asking for is just in the view of the eternal.

Read the link above about the 12 officers.

It assumes you have grown impatient because you have not received an answer on the time scale you.

Yes. Sixty four years seems to be a long enough time. But this also contradicts that God did not want to reveal himself to me up until this day, but may do so sometime in the future. What would change God’s immutable mind?

You said that if God wants 100% trust without giving any sign, he knows nothing about human nature. That assumes that you start from a skeptical position. It also assumes that He hasn’t given you a sign. He has, many of them such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but the skeptic rejects them all (and the whole) because on one level these signs do not comport with a measuring stick established by the created creature.

Sure. What other measuring stick is there?

On a deeper level, the skeptic refuses these signs because the skeptic starts, a-priori, with the assumption that the only kind of reality is the one where the stone hits the floor. However, that assumption is not warranted in view of the fact that even the skeptic believes in unprovable value judgments, or in view of the existence of abstract concepts.

Value judgments and abstract concepts have no ontological existence. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Please, what is your overwhelming evidence for lack of trust in God? This sounds like it could be a statement of anger. If so, I’d like a chance to address it.

Anger? At what? There is no anger here, just the lack of a sign, which I can recongize as a sign.

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s not what we assert. An angel does not have some sort of existence distinct and separate from that of a man. Existence refers to real things, not material things. Being equally real, a man and an angel are not distinct in this respect. Real things exist, and existent things are real- no matter what those “things” are. The distinction between natural and supernatural in terms of existence only holds if existence is tied to materiality- which of course we do not assert.

What is “real” in your opinion?

Although I outlined my implications more in depth in my prior post, they go like this- if particularity (meaning distinctness, having ontological limits) and change are intrinsic to STEM, and STEM is identical with existence, then:

1. Is existence fundamentally particular and changing? In that case, what is the basis for our knowledge?
2. If STEM changes, and therefore existence changes, how can we judge that change if nothing lies behind it?
3. Lastly, and most importantly, what is it in STEM that leads to change? Why would existence change its manifestation? If STEM is existence, and therefore perfectly real, why would that STEM change into varying forms? I know that when things change, STEM does not come into or out of being, according to most physics, but the problem remains- if STEM does not come into or out of being, why does it manifest itself in different forms? In a perfectly uniform, stable, STEM/existence, why would we observe diversity? Where does the diversity come from?

You see, these questions are similar to “why does a carbon atom have 4 chemical bonds, while hydrogen has only one?”. Such questions cannot be answered, and should not be asked. There are brute facts which are not susceptible to questioning. You say that God is eternal and immutable, etc… If I would ask what is the reason for that, you would reject my question on the grounds, that God’s attributes are what they are, they belong to the “brute fact” category, and therefore they cannot be questioned ot answered. You do the same thing with STEM, which is a “brute fact” for me, and expect an answer. There is none. STEM is what it is, its attributes are what they are.

 

[R_Daneel]

O.K. R Daneel. Is the question of morality meaningless to you? You argue that materialism and Space/Time/Energy/Matter are the only reality. What do you use (and believe should be used by society) to judge good from evil if all that exists in our head are neurochemicals and matter which can be manipulated to feel love, etc.

Do you R. Daneel believe in the concept of good and evil or is that religious hogwash?

On what grounds would you object to the Communist or Nazi Genocides of the 20th Century in which tens of millions of human beings died? Were these genocides evil in your view and how could you define evil in strictly materialist terms or in terms based on a simply materialistic reality? If there is no harm to you or your loved ones, why should you care? And I am not asking for evolutionary biology explanations of why one might feel altruism at times, as if this explanation would make one’s reaction “correct” or justified. I am asking why should you care about the welfare of other human beings? They are “simply” mass with intelligence, but why not just go through life pleasing yourself without limitation? Guilt is just a chemical reaction in your head right?

Barring any direct or familial harm, why should one care of the annihilation of, for lack of a better term in the STEM universe, millions of material beings (i.e. humans) on the other side of the world? They all just consist of matter and energy anyway. How does one value matter? Why should one necessarily care more for the human than the animal? By the way, are humans and animals different in kind or degree?

To reiterate: do you believe in morality and, if yes, are there certain grounds for morality and in what do they consist? Thanks.

This does not really belong to this thread, so I will only give a short and not an exhaustive answer. If you want details, you should start a new thread, or visit some of the existing ones. Yes, there is objective morality, where objective means that it is independent of what I (personally) may consider moral. No, there is no absolute morality, which would be true across all places and times. And I am not going into details. This thread is not the proper place to discuss it.