Is science scientific?!

[reggieM]

You are putting an unnecessary burden on Faith (if you mean by this the theological virtue). We are naturally disclosive beings. We do not need God to intervene in a direct way to buttress our ideas. This was Descartes’ mistake. He assumed that every one of our ideas could be untrue (e.g., through the machinations of an evil demon). He then brought God in to validate our ideas as long as they were “clear and distinct”.

Again, you may be fully correct and my counter-responses are not meant as an argument against … much more like questions posed in statement form. I have never had much use for modern philosophy until I recognized the value (and possible truth?) of this idea we’re discussing.

In this case, I wouldn’t say that God needs to intervene in a direct way, but even still, that concept comes from a certain philosophical understanding of “how God works”. We would say “intervene in a direct way”. So, we’d have the universe and God “doing things” and then He “won’t do things” or “won’t intervene directly, only indirectly”.

So, Decartes uses this artificial concept from his understanding of the universe and what he thought God does or doesn’t do.

But the truth cannot exist apart from God. He created the reality we live in - he created all the conditions and ground-rules. Our thoughts and decisions are His gifts to us. We can’t think of something and have that thought not belong to Him.

So, without God, there is no higher principle one can refer to. We would be stuck in this material world of molecules and forces – we couldn’t see beyond it. The truths that we’d gather would be true, but only in a temporal context.

Can anything be really true if there is no purpose to life?

Truth points to purpose which points to God as the necessary Being.

I’m shifting the topic here and I apologize, but I think it’s just as simple as saying again – it’s about “proving” things versus “drawing a reasonable conclusion based on evidence”.

If all of our perceptions were illusory, then none of them are, because we wouldn’t be able to distinguish the illusory from the truthful.

I think you’ve got it exactly here. What you said would be true if we were the only possible means of validating illusion from reality.

But we live inside the world/universe and did not create it.

If all of our perceptions were illusory, then none of them are for us. However, if there is a “real reality” that we cannot perceive, since we are creatures in this world, not outside of it looking in … then we would be living an illusion and all of our thoughts would be illusory. As mentioned before, if bats or dolphins or bacteria could sense “real reality” maybe they would know that we have it all wrong. Or perhaps easier – if angels can see what reality really is, they could tell us that all of our thoughts are illusory, but designed by God as such for a purpose. It’s like when we hear of someone having a mystical experience and “his eyes were opened”. God may not want us all to see things like that – but that means the “partial view” of reality that we have is not really correct or true – and that’s as it should be here and now in this world.

But we couldn’t tell angels that we see true reality and they don’t (without a special and rare revelation from God).

No, this “inside” is transcendental - all encompassing. But why make this move to begin with?

I think it rightly stretches the boundaries of how we think about things – and it provides aspects of the truth that we couldn’t find otherwise.

There are dangers and you’ve done well to point them out (I am far from an expert on this matter).

 

[reggieM]

Nice coincidence … the very first page I looked at after reading here had this quote today. I think this actually supports both my view and levinas’ … agreed?

What do I mean by reality? I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it. That which is real has being in itself. It does not depend upon the observer for its validity.
I am aware that there are those who love to poke fun at the plain man’s idea of reality. They are the idealists who spin endless proofs that nothing is real outside of the mind. They are the relativists who like to show that there are no fixed points in the universe from which we can measure anything. They smile down upon us from their lofty intellectual peaks and settle us to their own satisfaction by fastening upon us the reproachful term “absolutist.” The Christian is not put out of countenance by this show of contempt. He can smile right back at them, for he knows that there is only One who is Absolute, that is God. But he knows also that the Absolute One has made this world for man’s use, and while there is nothing fixed or real in the last meaning of the words (the meaning as applied to God), for every purpose of human life we are permitted to act as if there were. And every man does act thus except the mentally sick. These unfortunates also have trouble with reality, but they are consistent; they insist upon living in accordance with their ideas of things. They are honest, and it is their very honesty which constitutes them a social problem.
The idealists and relativists are not mentally sick. They prove their soundness by living their lives according to the very notions of reality which they in theory repudiate and by counting upon the very fixed points which they prove are not there. They could earn a lot more respect for their notions if they were willing to live by them; but this they are careful not to do. Their ideas are brain-deep, not life-deep. Wherever life touches them they repudiate their theories and live like other men.

A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

 

[tonyrey]

You just previously stated that, “there is no reason to believe such a gratuitous hypothesis.” From this we can draw several conclusions, hypotheses concerning the motives and nature of this being(the Designer) are unreliable. Subsequently your objections to the Design argument being unfalsifiable are now obsolete as you yourself attached a motive and nature to the Designer when you said this;

“to give just one example, the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents could conceivably increase to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds!”

If this were an example of falsification then you have suggested the nature of this ‘Designer’ would prevent this from occurring and that if it did occur we would know the design argument to be false. So if we cannot trust hypotheses that grant the Designer unwarranted characteristics then we know that this argument is unfalsifiable as this being could have almost any characteristic.

How do you reach that conclusion? The immense value of life as it is now precludes a malevolent or incompetent Designer! There is no absolute guarantee that the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents will not increase as soon as tomorrow. Or do you dispute that?

Which part of the brain makes decisions and is responsible for them?

esciencenews.com/articles/200…hoice.behavior

If a** part** of the brain makes decisions it cannot be responsible for them because it is not a person in the recognised sense of the term and its “decisions” have physical causes beyond** its** control.

Occam’s Razor is irrelevant here as it deals with logic, which does not necessarily represent truth.

Occam’s Razor deals with reality: **entities **should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

Given the design argument postulates that a design exists we have no idea what designed it and absolutely no logical basis to claim anything about “it’s” designer(s).

I have pointed out several times that the immense value of life implies benevolence - to which one can add immense wisdom in view of its enormous complexity.

Then their differences are not a reason to believe they are all false!

I never suggested it was but it certainly allows everyone to see that claims of the supernatural are almost always false and should cause others to at least be willing to analyze their own beliefs of the supernatural.

A false deduction! The differences between religions does not imply that most of them are **entirely **false. In his book The Perennial Philosophy Aldous Huxley establishes their common fundamental beliefs and values.

Why is science - which humanity finds reasonable - universally true? What’s sauce for the goose…

I see no reason to believe science is universally true, it simply is the best method we currently possess for achieving our goals.

Then how do you explain its technological achievements throughout the world and in space? Coincidence?

I personally find that many do not value my existence, some do, but majority are completely unaware of my existence and others plain dislike me so this value I attribute to myself is not universal.

Ignorance and dislike have nothing to do with a person’s value - which stems from his or her opportunities, talents, virtues and achievements.

They can’t all be crazy - unless your opinion of humanity (including yourself) is abysmal!

They don’t have to be crazy nor are they necessarily wrong to value existence, none of this makes existence universally valuable though as it is contingent upon life to value it, the value is not inherent or even present without conscious beings to value it.

It is absurd to reject the value of all life apart from that of conscious beings. To value something implies that one has an objective reason unless one is a lunatic! Not all reasons are valid but to reject all reasons is lunacy because it entails rejecting the value of your power of reason - without which all your conclusions are worthless and meaningless…

Because you can’t explain nor can anyone else how a lump of tissue inside the skull has the power of abstract reasoning, free will, conscience and capacity for unselfish love.

Did you read any of the articles on the site I linked you?

None of these articles explain the powers of the mind. They merely link mental activities to specific areas of the brain:

“By forming a thread that connects otherwise separate experiences, integrative encoding permits organisms to generalize across multiple past experience to guide choices in the present.”

To guide choices is not to make choices…

“However, it is still not known how to examine brain mechanisms associated with self-consciousness.”

Ignorance!

“The substitution of perceptual novelty for choice uncertainty represents a distinct, albeit slight, departure from rational choice that, as in our task, introduces the danger of being sold old wine in a new skin,” concludes Dr. Wittmann.

A “slight” departure from rational choice is insignificant.

 

[tonyrey]

Science is scientific insofar as it accepts its “conclusions” are propositions and not rules and is unscientific insofar as it suggests its conclusions are rules not propositions.

Very neat!

 

[tonyrey]

Traditional Catholic theology is built on the idea that what we sense and experience is true impressions of reality. Nobody ever really questioned that for a long time. It was actually an unproven assumption.

With the newer thinking of philosophy, some took a radically skeptical view. But the new thinking is still compatible with Catholic teaching. The only evidence we have comes through our senses and is processed by our mind. The difference now, though, is that people can deny that there is any reality – and that everything is an illusion. That actually strengthens the Hindu ideas – that we live in an illusionary world.

But Our Lord taught the same – “this world is passing away”. “My kingdom is not of this world”.

It doesn’t mean that what we see of reality cannot be trusted, but that it is truly “unreal” in some ways. It was created by God as a temporary reality. It was created for a purpose.

This newer view of philosophy actually refutes materialism much better than the older view. Materialist philosophies hijacked the older view and used assumptions to try to prove that everything has a materialistic foundation.

Right – that’s the important difference. We can’t prove things, but we trust our reasoning power to draw valid conclusions based on the evidence we have.

At the same time, we know that God transcends what we think of as “the only reality” of material things. He gives us clues … for example, when you have a dream and you think you’re really living in the dream and you experience things just like “real reality”.

God spoke to His prophets in dreams – and the dream-world was truly real when it happened.
I think the Western material-oriented philosophies of the past had a harder time dealing with that kind of thing.

I’m delighted you appreciate the value and significance of our “egocentric predicament”.
The isolation of the atheist must be hard to bear without anyone to understand or share his interior life.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

How do you reach that conclusion?

Logical deduction.

The immense value of life as it is now precludes a malevolent or incompetent Designer!

What is the value of life? Why do you think it is inherently valuable?

There is no absolute guarantee that the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents will not increase as soon as tomorrow. Or do you dispute that?

I wouldn’t base my conclusions only upon what I believe to be not “guaranteed”.

If a** part** of the brain makes decisions it cannot be responsible for them because it is not a person in the recognised sense of the term and its “decisions” have physical causes beyond** its** control.

So hang on, you want to know what brain mechanisms produce certain effects and then when I present them, they cannot be responsible because we do not recognize them as individual “persons”? As far as I’[m aware there is no reason to believe free will is an actual reality, it appears that the universe is entirely deterministic bar Quantum mechanics.

Occam’s Razor deals with reality: **entities **should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

No, Occam’s Razor only deals with logic, it’s findings have nothing to do with what is true, it only removes unwarranted assumptions.
tonyrey;7843316:

I have pointed out several times that the immense value of life implies benevolence - to which one can add immense wisdom in view of its enormous complexity.

Yes but you’ve never shown that life has any value in an objective sense.

A false deduction! The differences between religions does not imply that most of them are **entirely **false. In his book The Perennial Philosophy Aldous Huxley establishes their common fundamental beliefs and values.

You misunderstood, I said, “supernatural claims and beliefs,” not religions.

Then how do you explain its technological achievements throughout the world and in space? Coincidence?

I’m pretty sure I said it is the “best” method we have for obtaining truth, this does not inherently make every conclusion made by scientists true, it just allows us to use the scientific method with confidence because it regularly demonstrates truth in one form or another.

Ignorance and dislike have nothing to do with a person’s value - which stems from his or her opportunities, talents, virtues and achievements.

How does value stem from opportunities, talents, virtues and achievements? This seems more like subjective opinion that objective truth.

It is absurd to reject the value of all life apart from that of conscious beings.

I didn’t say they should be rejected. I said that in order to value anything, consciousness is required.

To value something implies that one has an objective reason unless one is a lunatic!

Why?

Not all reasons are valid but to reject all reasons is lunacy because it entails rejecting the value of your power of reason - without which all your conclusions are worthless and meaningless…

My power of reason is only attributed value by other reasonable agents.

None of these articles explain the powers of the mind. They merely link mental activities to specific areas of the brain:

To guide choices is not to make choices…
Ignorance!

A “slight” departure from rational choice is insignificant.

These articles demonstrate that the brain plays a major part in mental activity, there is no evidence that “the mind” is the result of anything other than mental activity and although our understanding of the brain is not complete, it is enough to reasonably expect it to be the physical manifestation of “the mind”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

These articles demonstrate that the brain plays a major part in mental activity, there is no evidence that “the mind” is the result of anything other than mental activity and although our understanding of the brain is not complete, it is enough to reasonably expect it to be the physical manifestation of “the mind”.

Of course mental activity correlates with brain activity.

From Edward Feser, “Against Neurobabble” (emphases in original):

…]Hence the A-T [Aristotelian-Thomistic] theorist affirms that there will always be some material correlate to normal human intellectual activity – not as a reluctant concession forced on the theory by the successes of modern neuroscience, but, on the contrary, precisely as a prediction of the A-T position as it has been understood from the beginning. Were Aristotle and Aquinas to be made familiar with the sorts of neuroscientific discoveries frantically trumpeted by materialists as if they should be an embarrassment to the dualist, they would respond, with a shrug: “Of course. Told you so.”

What A-T denies, again, is that the neurological level of description, however necessary, can ever suffice to account for intellectual activity. There will always in principle be some slack between the neuroscientific facts and the facts about the content of our thoughts – something even materialists like W. V. Quine and Donald Davidson have affirmed on philosophical grounds, and psychologists like Kagan have affirmed on empirical grounds.

(To understand this fully, you may need to read the article from the top:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble.html )

 

[reggieM]

I’m delighted you appreciate the value and significance of our “egocentric predicament”.
The isolation of the atheist must be hard to bear without anyone to understand or share his interior life.

That is a great point, Tony. Once a person can realize that God knows his interior life – then he is never alone.

 

[tonyrey]

That is a great point, Tony. Once a person can realize that God knows his interior life – then he is never alone.

That is why the great saints experienced such misery and desolation when they endured the Dark Night of the Soul, so well described by St John of the Cross. You can imagine, Reggie, what it must be like after having been in ecstasy when they were aware of God’s presence - equivalent to going from heaven to hell!

 

[levinas12]

Their ideas are brain-deep, not life-deep. Wherever life touches them they repudiate their theories and live like other men.

A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God[/INDENT]

Reggie,

“brain-deep” versus “life-deep” - a nice philosophical distinction

 

[levinas12]

Of course mental activity correlates with brain activity.

From Edward Feser, “Against Neurobabble” (emphases in original):

…]Hence the A-T [Aristotelian-Thomistic] theorist affirms that there will always be some material correlate to normal human intellectual activity – not as a reluctant concession forced on the theory by the successes of modern neuroscience, but, on the contrary, precisely as a prediction of the A-T position as it has been understood from the beginning. Were Aristotle and Aquinas to be made familiar with the sorts of neuroscientific discoveries frantically trumpeted by materialists as if they should be an embarrassment to the dualist, they would respond, with a shrug: “Of course. Told you so.”

What A-T denies, again, is that the neurological level of description, however necessary, can ever suffice to account for intellectual activity. There will always in principle be some slack between the neuroscientific facts and the facts about the content of our thoughts – something even materialists like W. V. Quine and Donald Davidson have affirmed on philosophical grounds, and psychologists like Kagan have affirmed on empirical grounds.

(To understand this fully, you may need to read the article from the top:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble.html )

Feser’s helpful … but the connection between neural events and our “truth” activity is still mysterious … “slack” is something of an understatement

 

[tonyrey]

How do you reach that conclusion?

Logical? How so?

The immense value of life as it is now precludes a malevolent or incompetent Designer!

What is the value of life? Why do you think it is inherently valuable?

Ernest Nagel, a famous atheist, pointed out that life is a source of opportunities. I don’t think, I know that it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfilment.

There is no absolute guarantee that the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents will not increase as soon as tomorrow. Or do you dispute that?

I wouldn’t base my conclusions only upon what I believe to be not “guaranteed”.

Nor do I but the assumption that the future will be similar to the past is the basis of the scientific principle of induction - which is highly successful!

If a part of the brain makes decisions it cannot be responsible for them because it is not a person in the recognised sense of the term and its “decisions” have physical causes beyond its control.

So hang on, you want to know what brain mechanisms produce certain effects and then when I present them, they cannot be responsible because we do not recognize them as individual “persons”? As far as I’[m aware there is no reason to believe free will is an actual reality, it appears that the universe is entirely deterministic bar Quantum mechanics.

In that case you’re not responsible for your arguments and their validity is highly dubious!

Occam’s Razor deals with reality: entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

No, Occam’s Razor only deals with logic, it’s findings have nothing to do with what is true, it only removes unwarranted assumptions.- like the existence of unnecessary and superfluous entities…

I have pointed out several times that the immense value of life implies benevolence - to which one can add immense wisdom in view of its enormous complexity.

Yes but you’ve never shown that life has any value in an objective sense.How about opportunities for physical development? Are they imaginary?

A false deduction! The differences between religions does not imply that most of them are entirely false. In his book The Perennial Philosophy Aldous Huxley establishes their common fundamental beliefs and values.

You misunderstood, I said, “supernatural claims and beliefs,” not religions.Supernatural claims and beliefs are the basis of all religions except a few Buddhist and other sects.

Then how do you explain its technological achievements throughout the world and in space? Coincidence?

I’m pretty sure I said it is the “best” method we have for obtaining truth, this does not inherently make every conclusion made by scientists true, it just allows us to use the scientific method with confidence because it regularly demonstrates truth in one form or another.

Ignorance and dislike have nothing to do with a person’s value - which stems from his or her opportunities, talents, virtues and achievements.

How does value stem from opportunities, talents, virtues and achievements? This seems more like subjective opinion that objective truth.If your reasoning is only valuable because of subjective opinion we can safely ignore it as worthless!

It is absurd to reject the value of all life apart from that of conscious beings.

I didn’t say they should be rejected. I said that in order to value anything, consciousness is required.So life is** objectively valuable**… Otherwise there is no reason to value it.

To value something implies that one has an objective reason unless one is a lunatic!

Why?Because a lunatic is unrealistic and bound to come to grief…

Not all reasons are valid but to reject all reasons is lunacy because it entails rejecting the value of your power of reason - without which all your conclusions are worthless and meaningless…

My power of reason is only attributed value by other reasonable agents.- which demonstrates that they are more likely to be right than wrong. Or do you value the opinion of lunatics more highly?

None of these articles explain the powers of the mind. They merely link mental activities to specific areas of the brain.
To guide choices is not to make choices…Ignorance!

These articles demonstrate that the brain plays a major part in mental activity…

They demonstrate only that mental activity is largely **correlated **with brain activity.

… there is no evidence that “the mind” is the result of anything other than mental activity and although our understanding of the brain is not complete, it is enough to reasonably expect it to be the physical manifestation of “the mind”.

There is abundant evidence that the mind controls the brain. The power of hypnosis is well documented.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Reggie,

“brain-deep” versus “life-deep” - a nice philosophical distinction

Which nicely reflects the materialist’s **shallow **view that the mind is merely the brain.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Logical? How so?

We have constructed several points concerning the argument from design.

There is a designer.
We do not know the characteristics of this designer.
There is no reason to assume any characteristics of this designer.
Without knowledge of this designers character or motive we cannot conclude what this designer would or would not do, nor what they would want us to do.

This allows us to conclude that the design argument is unfalsifiable as anything that happens could very well be the intent of the designer. So until motive and character can be proven beyond reasonable doubt it will remain unfalsifiable.

Ernest Nagel, a famous atheist, pointed out that life is a source of opportunities. I don’t think, I know that it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfillment.

Yes but how does this make it objectively valuable? All of these things seem valuable to us but why does that make it universally or objectively valuable.

Nor do I but the assumption that the future will be similar to the past is the basis of the scientific principle of induction - which is highly successful!

Indeed, how is this relevant?

In that case you’re not responsible for your arguments

You’d have to define how you are using the term ‘responsible’ for me to respond to this.

and their validity is highly dubious!

Why is their validity ‘highly dubious’ if I am not meaningfully in control of them?

• like the existence of unnecessary and superfluous entities…

That appears to be an argument against the claim to ‘design’.

How about opportunities for physical development? Are they imaginary?

No, are they valuable? Why?

Supernatural claims and beliefs are the basis of all religions except a few Buddhist and other sects.

Indeed, but what you quoted was about the social and physical similarities and benefits religion shares, it had nothing to do with the supernatural claims.

If your reasoning is only valuable because of subjective opinion we can safely ignore it as worthless!

Depends on how you define ‘worthless’ and what value you subjectively attach to the general concept of reasoning.

So life is** objectively valuable**… Otherwise there is no reason to value it.

Why is there no reason at all to value life? I can think of many. I can’t see how that makes it objectively valuable though, perhaps you could explain?

Because a lunatic is unrealistic and bound to come to grief…

One can have an objective reason to value life, however that does not make life objectively valuable. An objective reason could simply mean something along the lines of, ‘food is objectively valuable for the continuation of life.’ that sets up the objective of, “for the continuation of life.” This is very different from claiming something is objectively or universally valuable. For something to be objectively valuable it makes it has to be valuable beyond our own subjective interpretation, what makes life valuable universally? Not just from the perspective of the living.

• which demonstrates that they are more likely to be right than wrong.

How does my reason being attributed value by other reasonable agents more likely to be right than wrong?

Or do you value the opinion of lunatics more highly?

I don’t see what this has to do with the question.

They demonstrate only that mental activity is largely **correlated **with brain activity.

Yes and without any other credible option, the brain being a physical manifestation of the mind is the most reasonable conclusion at this stage.

There is abundant evidence that the mind controls the brain. The power of hypnosis is well documented.

How does hypnosis support your theory of the mind controlling the brain? What is some of the other evidence?

 

[levinas12]

To return briefly to the distinction between “brain-deep” and “life-deep” - it reminds me of Heidegger (“inauthentic” v. “authentic”) - and of course Kierkegaard - but it is much more ancient, going all the way back to the beginning of philosophy.

It is no less than the engine that drives this forum. Every participant, whether admittedly or not, is seeking ultimate meanings about the ALL, the Totality. But why do human beings feel compelled to do this? The other animals don’t seem to share our obsession. It is not an obvious requirement for biological survival. Look at the impossible number of beetles. They don’t need to seek for explanations.

 

[tonyrey]

To return briefly to the distinction between “brain-deep” and “life-deep” - it reminds me of Heidegger (“inauthentic” v. “authentic”) - and of course Kierkegaard - but it is much more ancient, going all the way back to the beginning of philosophy.

It is no less than the engine that drives this forum. **Every participant, whether admittedly or not, is seeking ultimate meanings about the ALL, the Totality. **But why do human beings feel compelled to do this? The other animals don’t seem to share our obsession. It is not an obvious requirement for biological survival. Look at the impossible number of beetles. They don’t need to seek for explanations.

I would love to know how the sceptics explain their constant quest for the truth!

 

[tonyrey]

We have constructed several points concerning the argument from design.

There is a designer.
We do not know the characteristics of this designer.
There is no reason to assume any characteristics of this designer.

The immense value of existence and incredible complexity of the universe are evidence that the Designer is benevolent and rational.

Without knowledge of this designers character or motive we cannot conclude what this designer would or would not do, nor what they would want us to do.

The immense value of existence implies that we should have reverence for life.

This allows us to conclude that the design argument is unfalsifiable as anything that happens could very well be the intent of the designer. So until motive and character can be proven beyond reasonable doubt it will remain unfalsifiable.

The vast majority of living beings are not diseased or deformed.

Ernest Nagel, a famous atheist, pointed out that life is a source of opportunities. I don’t think, I know that it is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfillment.

Yes but how does this make it objectively valuable? All of these things seem valuable to us but why does that make it universally or objectively valuable.

Because we are not the only ones who have these opportunities.

Nor do I but the assumption that the future will be similar to the past is the basis of the scientific principle of induction - which is highly successful!

Indeed, how is this relevant?

Because the order and regularity of the universe require explanation.

In that case you’re not responsible for your arguments

You’d have to define how you are using the term ‘responsible’ for me to respond to this.

You are not the one who is making the arguments. In fact according to you “you” don’t even exist! There is only a brain which is producing signals…

Why is their validity ‘highly dubious’ if I am not meaningfully in control of them?

Because their causes are not conscious or rational.

- like the existence of unnecessary and superfluous entities…

That appears to be an argument against the claim to ‘design’.

How do you know which entities are unnecessary and superfluous?

about opportunities for physical development? Are they imaginary?

No, are they valuable? Why?

You would soon find out if you were completely paralysed …

Supernatural claims and beliefs are the basis of all religions except a few Buddhist and other sects.

Indeed, but what you quoted was about the social and physical similarities and benefits religion shares, it had nothing to do with the supernatural claims.

I specified their “common fundamental beliefs and values”.

If your reasoning is only valuable because of subjective opinion we can safely ignore it as worthless!

Depends on how you define ‘worthless’ and what value you subjectively attach to the general concept of reasoning.

You wouldn’t be on this forum if reasoning were valueless!

So life is objectively valuable… Otherwise there is no reason to value it.

Why is there no reason at all to value life? I can think of many. I can’t see how that makes it objectively valuable though, perhaps you could explain?

Do you think **none **of your reasons correspond to reality?

One can have an objective reason to value life, however that does not make life objectively valuable. An objective reason could simply mean something along the lines of, ‘food is objectively valuable for the continuation of life.’ that sets up the objective of, “for the continuation of life.” This is very different from claiming something is objectively or universally valuable. For something to be objectively valuable it makes it has to be valuable beyond our own subjective interpretation, what makes life valuable universally? Not just from the perspective of the living.

That is like asking “What makes science effective - not just from our perspective?”

- which demonstrates that they are more likely to be right than wrong.

How does my reason being attributed value by other reasonable agents more likely to be right than wrong?

Because reasonable agents survive longer without supervision than lunatics!

Or do you value the opinion of lunatics more highly?

I don’t see what this has to do with the question.

Because reasonable agents survive longer without supervision than lunatics!

They demonstrate only that mental activity is largely correlated with brain activity.

Yes and without any other credible option, the brain being a physical manifestation of the mind is the most reasonable conclusion at this stage.

What do you think the mind is?

There is abundant evidence that the mind controls the brain. The power of hypnosis is well documented.

How does hypnosis support your theory of the mind controlling the brain?

The effect of suggestion on physical processes.

What is some of the other evidence?

Your ability to control your impulses and instincts. I’m assuming that you can, of course.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The vast majority of living beings are not diseased or deformed.

What of those that are? Poverty, starvation, pain and suffering? How does any of this existing imply benevolence? It looks less like benevolence to me and more like apathy. It doesn’t seem like any great power that could exist would care, perhaps it’s all just one big experiment.

Because we are not the only ones who have these opportunities.

How does that make them valuable beyond us though? They certainly are valuable to us but why are they universally valuable?

Because the order and regularity of the universe require explanation.

Why? If we cannot explain them does the order and regularity of the universe cease to exist? It may very well be explainable but I’ve found no reason to believe that any human has been able to explain it.

You are not the one who is making the arguments.

Why not? The arguments and my deciding to say them might only be the result of factors out of my control but i am still certainly making them.

In fact according to you “you” don’t even exist! There is only a brain which is producing signals…

I actually don’t recall saying that, I certainly do exist, what makes me me is the brain producing signals. People might call their mind different things but that doesn’t make anybody right, I am just as much me as you are you, whether there really is a soul or whether our mind is the product of brain activity doesn’t change that.

Because their causes are not conscious or rational.

What causes are rational or conscious?

How do you know which entities are unnecessary and superfluous?

I don’t even know what these entities are to any meaningful degree.

You would soon find out if you were completely paralysed …

So it only applies subjectively?

I specified their “common fundamental beliefs and values”.

Correct but none of this relates to the original comment, most claims of the supernatural are false if not all of them. I know this because many are contradictory claims so only one of the claims can be true in many cases. For example, the concept of God or Gods. There are thousands of proposed Gods and then millions of different opinions of those Gods, a vast majority of these claims contradict each other, which means they cannot all be true and in some cases only one of these claims can be true.

You wouldn’t be on this forum if reasoning were valueless!

Valueless to whom? I’ve never come across anything that supports the notion of universal value, I’ve only ever seen it used in a subjective sense or to support a goal.

Do you think **none **of your reasons correspond to reality?

No, many, if not all of my beliefs and reasons are based on my perception of reality. That’s the problem though, my perception is fallible, as is everybodies.

That is like asking “What makes science effective - not just from our perspective?”

The term “effective” can only be used in context with a goal, nothing can be just “effective”. Science for example is effective for accomplishing various goals and uncovering a measure of a truth.

Because reasonable agents survive longer without supervision than lunatics!

Indeed but how does a lunatic have anything to do with the attribution of value by reasonable agents? You’ve just compared reasonable agents and lunatics when i only asked a question about rational agents and I don’t know why.

Because reasonable agents survive longer without supervision than lunatics!

?

What do you think the mind is?

I personally see the mind as a result of the physical processes that occur within the brain.

The effect of suggestion on physical processes.

Isn’t this just as much evidence as the human bodies ability to react to any stimulus? The conscious mind being a result of the brain would obviously have correlation to brain activities so I don’t see how this works towards your suggestion?

Your ability to control your impulses and instincts. I’m assuming that you can, of course.

Our ability to control our actions is just as much an instinct as any other.

 

[tonyrey]

The vast majority of living beings are not diseased or deformed.

How would you ensure that none of these evils occur?

Because we are not the only ones who have these opportunities.

How does that make them valuable beyond us though? They certainly are valuable to us but why are they universally valuable?

Because unlike non-existence existence provides opportunities.

Because the order and regularity of the universe require explanation.

Why? If we cannot explain them does the order and regularity of the universe cease to exist?

No but your view lacks a foundation.

It may very well be explainable but I’ve found no reason to believe that any human has been able to explain it.

Ignorance proves nothing!

You are not the one who is making the arguments.

Why not? The arguments and my deciding to say them might only be the result of factors out of my control but i am still certainly making them.

There is no guarantee that an instrument will be used wisely or well.

In fact according to you “you” don’t even exist! There is only a brain which is producing signals…

I actually don’t recall saying that, I certainly do exist, what makes me me is the brain producing signals.

Exactly! Me = brain activity.

People might call their mind different things but that doesn’t make anybody right, I am just as much me as you are you, whether there really is a soul or whether our mind is the product of brain activity doesn’t change that.

It merely implies that you are a myth! You are just a collection of neural events.

Because their causes are not conscious or rational.

What causes are rational or conscious?

We are.

How do you know which entities are unnecessary and superfluous?

I don’t even know what these entities are to any meaningful degree.

Then your assertion is worthless.

You would soon find out if you were completely paralysed .

…
So it only applies subjectively?

It applies physically - which is also objectively.

I specified their “common fundamental beliefs and values”.

Correct but none of this relates to the original comment, most claims of the supernatural are false if not all of them. I know this because many are contradictory claims so only one of the claims can be true in many cases. For example, the concept of God or Gods. There are thousands of proposed Gods and then millions of different opinions of those Gods, a vast majority of these claims contradict each other, which means they cannot all be true and in some cases only one of these claims can be true.

So what?

You wouldn’t be on this forum if reasoning were valueless!

Valueless to whom? I’ve never come across anything that supports the notion of universal value, I’ve only ever seen it used in a subjective sense or to support a goal.

Not all goals are subjective. The goal to survive is an objective feature of life.

Do you think none of your reasons correspond to reality?

No, many, if not all of my beliefs and reasons are based on my perception of reality. That’s the problem though, my perception is fallible, as is everybodies

In that case we can safely ignore your beliefs and reasons!.

That is like asking “What makes science effective - not just from our perspective?”

The term “effective” can only be used in context with a goal, nothing can be just “effective”. Science for example is effective for accomplishing various goals and uncovering a measure of a truth.

Are all goals unnecessary? You sound like a nihilist…

Because reasonable agents survive longer without supervision than lunatics!

Indeed but how does a lunatic have anything to do with the attribution of value by reasonable agents? You’ve just compared reasonable agents and lunatics when i only asked a question about rational agents and I don’t know why.

If you don’t know why you asked a question I certainly don’t!

Because reasonable agents survive longer without supervision than lunatics!

?

?

What do you think the mind is?

I personally see the mind as a result of the physical processes that occur within the brain.

There there is no “I” - no entity but merely “a bundle of perceptions”, to use Hume’s phrase.

The effect of suggestion on physical processes.

Isn’t this just as much evidence as the human bodies ability to react to any stimulus? The conscious mind being a result of the brain would obviously have correlation to brain activities so I don’t see how this works towards your suggestion?

Correlation implies an entity to which the brain is related…

Your ability to control your impulses and instincts. I’m assuming that you can, of course.

Our ability to control our actions is just as much an instinct as any other.

Instincts are automatic, not intentional or rational.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

How would you ensure that none of these evils occur?

What I would do is irrelevant, the fact that they exist lends doubt to your concept of the designer and until that doubt can be overcome the motives you’ve attributed to the designer cannot be considered true and subsequently the design argument is unfalsifiable.

Because unlike non-existence existence provides opportunities.

How does that make existence or life for that matter valuable? Why are opportunities valuable beyond our subjective opinions of them?

No but your view lacks a foundation.

Which view?

Ignorance proves nothing!

I never suggested that it did, I was merely trying to show you my position. Perhaps you could “cure” my ignorance?

There is no guarantee that an instrument will be used wisely or well.

Indeed, relevance?

Exactly! Me = brain activity.

I would expand that “me” to my entire body but yeah, you’ve pretty much got the gist of my point.

It merely implies that you are a myth! You are just a collection of neural events.

How does that make me a myth?

We are.

I’ve just looked over this little line of discussion and I’ve noticed quite a bit. You see the concept of the brain being a physical manifestation of the mind to make responsibility of the person null and void due to the lack of conscious and rational causes that accompany brain function. Is this correct?

Ok, then you have suggested that we, implying humans, are a cause with consciousness and rationality. Now, what causes consciousness and rationality? Let’s see if we can analyze this little bit here and see if we can’t alleviate some confusion of this discussion.

Then your assertion is worthless.

What assertion? I expressed that your assertion appeared to oppose the design argument and that is because no reasonable definition of a designer has been given, only that the universe is the result of the supernatural. A claim that is unfounded and unnecessary.

It applies physically - which is also objectively.

What? This comment came from your comment of the opportunity for physical development, I asked if it is valuable and why? Then you said that I would find out if I were paralyzed, you made it entirely subjective with that comment. Paralyzation does apply physically and it is objective but that doesn’t make it physical development universally valuable, unless you can show otherwise?

So what?

Nothing, I made my point, supernatural claims are unlikely to be true.

Not all goals are subjective. The goal to survive is an objective feature of life.

Agreed. However, if something is objectively valuable towards a goal that does not make it universally valuable.

In that case we can safely ignore your beliefs and reasons!.

If you so desire but this would apply to everyone.

Are all goals unnecessary? You sound like a nihilist…

Necessity requires a goal. Nothing can just be Necessary, it has to be necessary for something.

If you don’t know why you asked a question I certainly don’t!

I may have poorly phrased that, my, "I don’t know why was in regards to your reference to lunatics, not my question.

?

??

There there is no “I” - no entity but merely “a bundle of perceptions”, to use Hume’s phrase.

That bundle happens to form an entity that can look at itself and say I.

Correlation implies an entity to which the brain is related…

Not necessarily an entity, if we look at the two separately for example, analyze brain function while someone is doing a crossword, then we can analyze the correlation, we could look at many activities and try to better understand the correlation between conscious activity and brain function.

Instincts are automatic, not intentional or rational.

Thoughts are not intentional or rational, they appear to be instinctive, they are not learned, they are a result of the brain forming.