Mindless thought!

[tonyrey]

Our primary datum and sole certainty is that we have a mind. We infer

Then it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to explain how it happened. The deist God is becoming less and less powerful and replaced by the blind Goddess. It’s only a question of time before he disappears altogether…

 

[oldcelt]

Then it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to explain how it happened. The deist God is becoming less and less powerful and replaced by the blind Goddess. It’s only a question of time before he disappears altogether…

You know Tony…I don’t insult your God…

Anyway, here goes. The singularity from which all developed was either preexisting or created by the creator of our universe. The precise how is not recorded, because there was no one there to write it down. The universe has been expanding ever since and matter has been combining at the same time.

Our little planet is about 4 billion years old. If God is so hand’s on…where was he all those 9 billion years. Then ask, what about the next nearly 4 billion years until intelligent, sentient life arose here?

To me, vast expanses of time are a far more logical approach to our development than predetermined, sudden creation that leaves the Christian God essentially inactive…

 

[Beryllos]

How did impersonal, mindless, purposeless processes produce persons?

…
How can we have free will, moral responsibility or the capacity for unselfish love if our consciousness and thoughts exist wholly in the biological/material realm?

… Materialism… amounts to believing mindless objects have accidentally become capable of knowing they exist and understanding themselves!

In the material world, we see certain kinds of order come from disorder by “impersonal, mindless, purposeless processes.” As a small example, nearly perfect crystals grow from molten or dissolved minerals in the earth. Are there intelligent agents who sort and arrange the atoms into periodic arrays and mold them into large, polyhedral, solid shapes? No. Mindless atoms organize themselves by virtue of the regularity of their properties: atoms come in different sizes, all atoms of a given element have the same size, and the forces between atoms depend in a regular way on the electric charge (which defines “element”) of their nuclei.

God endowed the material universe with other kinds of regularity which promote order at higher levels, e.g., the order among living things. Who is to say that he did not design the universe so that it would, neither accidentally nor improbably, but naturally and inevitably, raise up his children? (cf. Matthew 3:9 ???)

 

[N0X3x]

Our primary datum and sole certainty is that we have a mind. We infer the existence of matter. So it is reasonable to explain the universe as the product of rational, creative activity rather than purposeless molecules. Materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality. It amounts to believing mindless objects have accidentally become capable of knowing they exist and understanding themselves!

The fact that our primary datum is that we have a mind does not indicate that the mind is somehow greater than matter and has very little bearing on whether or not mind comes from matter or matter comes from mind. The only reason it has any bearing at all is that one could go the silopsist route and deny the existence of matter at all. But to the extent that a person believes matter is real, they cannot give prefrence to the mind in the creative process.

 

[tonyrey]

Then it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to explain how

I haven’t insulted anyone. I have simply explained the implications of belief in a God who does nothing apart from create the universe.

Anyway, here goes. The singularity from which all developed was either preexisting or created by the creator of our universe. The precise how is not recorded, because there was no one there to write it down. The universe has been expanding ever since and matter has been combining at the same time.

Our little planet is about 4 billion years old. If God is so hand’s on…where was he all those 9 billion years. Then ask, what about the next nearly 4 billion years until intelligent, sentient life arose here?
To me, vast expanses of time are a far more logical approach to our development than predetermined, sudden creation that leaves the Christian God essentially inactive…

The development of the universe implies that it was directed rather than haphazard. It could have remained chaotic rather than increase in complexity and provide a orderly basis for life. The fact that nearly 4 billion years elapsed before living organisms appeared simply proves how miraculous it is that in a very hostile environment they succeeded in overcoming all the obstacles. The fact that so many more advanced forms of life have become extinct is overwhelming evidence that there are overwhelming odds against survival let alone constant development. At the moment of the Big Bang no one could have predicted the astonishing richness and beauty of nature that exist today. Any unbiased person must admit that only a constant sequence of miracles could not only have preserved but controlled and guided the sequence of events. To attribute the entire process to a series of unintended accidents is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of personality, consciousness, insight, self-control and the capacity for love. A far more logical approach is to admit that logic itself cannot possibly be the product of mindless meanderings of molecules…

 

[tonyrey]

In the material world, we see certain kinds of order come from disorder by “impersonal, mindless, purposeless processes.” As a small example, nearly perfect crystals grow from molten or dissolved minerals in the earth. Are there intelligent agents who sort and arrange the atoms into periodic arrays and mold them into large, polyhedral, solid shapes? No. Mindless atoms organize themselves by virtue of the regularity of their properties: atoms come in different sizes, all atoms of a given element have the same size, and the forces between atoms depend in a regular way on the electric charge (which defines “element”) of their nuclei.

God endowed the material universe with other kinds of regularity which promote order at higher levels, e.g., the order among living things. Who is to say that he did not design the universe so that it would, neither accidentally nor improbably, but naturally and inevitably, raise up his children? (cf. Matthew 3:9 ???)

Please refer to my previous post which explains the overwhelming improbability that **natural causes alone **are an adequate explanation.

 

[tonyrey]

Our primary datum and sole certainty is that we have a mind. We infer

The power of our minds alone is sufficient evidence to disprove the hypothesis that matter is capable of making itself capable of insight and knowledge. There is not one jot of evidence that mindless molecules have ever produced rational beings. The onus is on the materialist to explain precisely how this alleged miracle has been accomplished…

 

[StrawberryJam]

I haven’t insulted anyone. I have simply explained the implications of belief in a God who does nothing apart from create the universe.

The development of the universe implies that it was directed rather than haphazard. It could have remained chaotic rather than increase in complexity and provide a orderly basis for life. The fact that nearly 4 billion years elapsed before living organisms appeared simply proves how miraculous it is that in a very hostile environment they succeeded in overcoming all the obstacles. The fact that so many more advanced forms of life have become extinct is overwhelming evidence that there are overwhelming odds against survival let alone constant development. At the moment of the Big Bang no one could have predicted the astonishing richness and beauty of nature that exist today. Any unbiased person must admit that only a constant sequence of miracles could not only have preserved but controlled and guided the sequence of events. To attribute the entire process to a series of unintended accidents is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of personality, consciousness, insight, self-control and the capacity for love. A far more logical approach is to admit that logic itself cannot possibly be the product of mindless meanderings of molecules…

You did insult OldCelt, and you never answered him with anything more than rubbish.
You say you have facts.
Let’s evaluate them one by one.

 

[Beryllos]

I’ve said the same thing over and over. So have you. Time to call it a night.

 

[tonyrey]

You did insult OldCelt, and you never answered him with anything more than rubbish.
You say you have facts.
Let’s evaluate them one by one.

You have ignored every point I have made and made the false accusation that I have insulted OldCelt - which I have already refuted.

If you reject the following facts without justification your objections are worthless:

1. The power of our minds alone is sufficient evidence to disprove the hypothesis that matter is capable of making itself capable of insight and knowledge.
2. **There is not one jot of evidence that mindless molecules have ever produced rational beings. **The onus is on the materialist to explain precisely how this alleged miracle has been accomplished.
3. The development of the universe implies that it was directed rather than haphazard. It could have remained chaotic rather than **increase in complexity **and provide a orderly basis for life.
4. The fact that nearly 4 billion years elapsed before living organisms appeared simply proves how miraculous it is that in** a very hostile environment** they succeeded in overcoming all the obstacles.
5. The fact that so many more advanced forms of life have become extinct is overwhelming evidence that **there are overwhelming odds against survival **let alone constant development.
6. At the moment of the Big Bang no one could have predicted the astonishing richness and beauty of nature that exist today.
7. Any unbiased person must admit that only a constant sequence of miracles could not only have preserved but controlled and guided the sequence of events.
8. To attribute the entire process to a series of unintended accidents is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of personality, consciousness, insight, self-control and the capacity for love.
9. A far more logical approach is to admit that logic itself cannot possibly be the product of mindless meanderings of molecules.

 

[oldcelt]

You have ignored every point I have made and made the false accusation that I have insulted OldCelt - which I have already refuted.

If you reject the following facts without justification your objections are worthless:

1. The power of our minds alone is sufficient evidence to disprove the hypothesis that matter is capable of making itself capable of insight and knowledge.
2. **There is not one jot of evidence that mindless molecules have ever produced rational beings. **The onus is on the materialist to explain precisely how this alleged miracle has been accomplished.
3. The development of the universe implies that it was directed rather than haphazard. It could have remained chaotic rather than **increase in complexity **and provide a orderly basis for life.
4. The fact that nearly 4 billion years elapsed before living organisms appeared simply proves how miraculous it is that in** a very hostile environment** they succeeded in overcoming all the obstacles.
5. The fact that so many more advanced forms of life have become extinct is overwhelming evidence that **there are overwhelming odds against survival **let alone constant development.
6. At the moment of the Big Bang no one could have predicted the astonishing richness and beauty of nature that exist today.
7. Any unbiased person must admit that only a constant sequence of miracles could not only have preserved but controlled and guided the sequence of events.
8. To attribute the entire process to a series of unintended accidents is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of personality, consciousness, insight, self-control and the capacity for love.
9. A far more logical approach is to admit that logic itself cannot possibly be the product of mindless meanderings of molecules.

You make it sound as if the meandering molecules suddenly came together. They had 13.7 billion years. Just look at amino acids…critical components in all human life. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11543531

 

[oldcelt]

I haven’t insulted anyone. I have simply explained the implications of belief in a God who does nothing apart from create the universe.

Nothing but create the universe. That’s a pretty big accomplishment in my world, especially considering that it is an ongoing process.

 

[tonyrey]

• 1. The power of our minds*

Time alone is not an adequate explanation. The very fact that God has so much power implies that He played a part in subsequent events. Otherwise:

1. Why did He suddenly lose interest in what He created?
2. Did He have any reason for what He did?
3. Did He even know what He was doing?
4. Does He know what is happening now?
5. Does He even care what is happening on earth?

In the absence of an answer to these questions there is no reason to distinguish God from a mindless, purposeless source of energy - or deism from materialism.

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing but create the universe. That’s a pretty big accomplishment in my world, especially considering that it is an ongoing process.

Might is not right! If it doesn’t serve any useful purpose it’s not even an “accomplishment”. There is nothing to distinguish it from a sceptic’s description:

Look round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated and organised, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How contemptible or odious to the spectator!** The whole presents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature**, impregnated by a great vivifying principle, and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her maimed and abortive children!

afterall.net/quotes/david-hume-on-blind-nature/

 

[oldcelt]

Might is not right! If it doesn’t serve any useful purpose it’s not even an “accomplishment”. There is nothing to distinguish it from a sceptic’s description:

afterall.net/quotes/david-hume-on-blind-nature/

I guess I’m the eternal optimist. I see beauty in the universal chaos…things working together in a less than perfect way. That’s life.

 

[tonyrey]

I guess I’m the eternal optimist. I see beauty in the universal chaos…things working together in a less than perfect way. That’s life.

I agree that it’s absurd to expect perfection in a physical world but there isn’t universal chaos. There is an element of randomness with a framework of order without which life could not have developed or survived. The laws of nature are an essential foundation for stability and purposeful activity. The very fact that things work together at all is powerful evidence of Design. Fortuitous events do not produce co-ordination and cohesion - nor harmony and beauty…

 

[N0X3x]

1. The power of our minds alone is sufficient evidence to disprove the hypothesis that matter is capable of making itself capable of insight and knowledge.

1. **There is not one jot of evidence that mindless molecules have ever produced rational beings. **The onus is on the materialist to explain precisely how this alleged miracle has been accomplished.

We know that we have minds. Given that knowledge, it does seem vanishingly improbable that minds appeared without some form of direction, so I’ll grant you that matter coming from mind is more likely than mind coming from matter. Yet mind coming from matter is still a theoretical possibility, and if the dice is rolled enough, any possibility, no matter how improbable, will occur. and given the number of stars in the universe (which may be spatially infinite anyway) and the possibility that we might live in a multiverse, maybe the odds aren’t stacked against matter creating mind–even minds as powerfull as ours–after all.

1. The development of the universe implies that it was directed rather than haphazard. It could have remained chaotic rather than **increase in complexity **and provide a orderly basis for life.

A system can spontaneously increase in order and complexity if energy is supplied. In our case, energy comes from the sun.

1. The fact that nearly 4 billion years elapsed before living organisms appeared simply proves how miraculous it is that in** a very hostile environment** they succeeded in overcoming all the obstacles.

It was actually closer to just a half billion years, at least according to wikipedia, from the formation of earth to the first life. Not sure where four billion comes from.

1. The fact that so many more advanced forms of life have become extinct is overwhelming evidence that **there are overwhelming odds against survival **let alone constant development.

agreed, but I covered this above.

1. At the moment of the Big Bang no one could have predicted the astonishing richness and beauty of nature that exist today.

Perhaps true, but I fail to see how being unable to predict the rise of life means that life could not possibly have arisen.

1. Any unbiased person must admit that only a constant sequence of miracles could not only have preserved but controlled and guided the sequence of events.

Actually, I tend to think that God was able to set up the initial conditions of the universe such that life arose without his intervention afterwards.

1. To attribute the entire process to a series of unintended accidents is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of personality, consciousness, insight, self-control and the capacity for love.

This is basically the same “odds objection” as point five.

1. A far more logical approach is to admit that logic itself cannot possibly be the product of mindless meanderings of molecules.

I would say that logic can possibly the mindless meanderings of molecules, but the probability that the mindless meanderings of molecules would produce molecules is vanishingly small. This reduces this point to the same “odds objection” as 8 and 5.

 

[N0X3x]

I would say that logic can possibly the mindless meanderings of molecules, but the probability that the mindless meanderings of molecules would produce minds is vanishingly small. This reduces this point to the same “odds objection” as 8 and 5.

my bad.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

What about spiritual energy?

That is also energy, only ‘other’ dimensional

IMHO, the brain/mind interface is the portal through which matters spiritual intercommunicate.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is physical energy an adequate explanation of intelligent activity? What is your opinion - and why?

Yes there really are people who believe that, I know its hard to believe, but its true. God wanted to make a material world, he wanted to make men, animals, and inanimate materials. What was he supposed to make them of if not atoms, molecules, and genetic material? So along comes our materialist or naturalist or mechanist and declares that nothing exists except the afore mentioned particles and components. What they fail to notice is that without man, animals, vegatation, minerals, individual existing natures and substances, the world has absolutely no meaning, truth, or significance.

Yes indeed. Men have a human nature, a body and an intellecutal soul. And the atoms, molecules, genes which serve as his constituent matter are what God used to make men. They, all together, mixed and combined is a specific way, constitute the particular matter which God determined was suited to the kind of soul he was going to unite with the bodies of men. So man is a specific substance, a specific nature which just happens to have a body constructed the way and out of the materials God deemed best. And that is the total significance of man’s material parts, they are suited to the nature of man, they serve the purposes of his nature. And thus they serve God’s purposes.

strangenotions.com/body-s…rain-question/

Linus2nd