My proof for God. Critiques please

[greylorn]

Ah yes, I recognize it now. Another devotee of the Don Rickles School of Humor.

Absolutely!

His success came because he recognized the inherent and irrelevant arrogance of the human ego. He was able to insult people in a way that helped others see themselves as if they were not quite the target of the insult, and to recognize themselves more honestly in the process. Rickles was a genius. He worked straight up from himself, without memorized jokes or teleprompters. Few have the mind qualified to do that, to put themselves on the line night after night. I don’t. You don’t. Respect that man’s mind, arrogance, and courage. Don’t even implicitly insult a mind like that by comparing him inferentially to me until you’ve put yourself on a public stage and gotten people to laugh, or to think.

I have. It was instructive.

It must have been extremely difficult for Rickles’ immediate targets to step back and get the same value from his insults as other might, but they were suitably rewarded nonetheless, with 10 seconds of fame. There are a lot of individuals who would prefer to be insulted than ignored, and some are participating in this very thread.

We should all be honored at their attendance. As some other prophet said, “Blessed be the nitwits, for they make us all look good by comparison.”

 

[tonyrey]

In that case you’re not justified in regarding the self - or the mind - as a natural phenomenon, especially in view of its extraordinary powers.

It is not just a construct - as you yourself have admitted with regard to self-motivation. It is a fact that is the very basis of all our reasoning. Moreover it is a fact that has to be taken in conjunction with other intangible facts like truth, goodness, justice, love, beauty, purpose and development.

And I see no reason whatsoever to believe it is natural. For one thing self-motivation infringes the law of the conservation of energy. For yet another it implies foresight - whereas physical events are strictly restricted to the present moment…

It does not infringe the law of conservation of energy. The human brain uses 25% of the energy we injest. Compared to other animals that is a disproportionate amount. That energy explains, in natural terms, our enhanced pattern recognition filtering.

Consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making cannot be explained in terms of “enhanced pattern recognition filtering”. They presuppose a form of energy unknown to science. Your mechanistic notion of thought is hopelessly inadequate because it reduces you to a biological computer** programmed entirely** by heredity and environment. That is where your personal activity infringes the law of the conservation of energy.

For another it presupposes an intangible entity.

You have ignored this inconvenient fact!

Incidentally, most animals can self-motivate.

If most animals can self-motivate they must have an intangible self!

Foresight occurs in the present moment. That is why it is called foresight.

Of course occurs in the present. How could it occur in the future if it is foresight?! The point is that it refers to the future whereas no physical reaction takes the future into account.

 

[Moonstruck888]

]It is not just a construct - as you yourself have admitted with regard to self-motivation. It is a fact that is the very basis of all our reasoning. Moreover it is a fact that has to be taken in conjunction with other intangible facts like truth, goodness, justice, love, beauty, purpose and development.

It is a construct. Whether it is metaphysical or physical, it is a construct that neither you or I fully understand.

Consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making cannot be explained in terms of “enhanced pattern recognition filtering”. They presuppose a form of energy unknown to science.

That is an assumption.

Your mechanistic notion of thought is hopelessly inadequate because it reduces you to a biological computer** programmed entirely** by heredity and environment. That is where your personal activity infringes the law of the conservation of energy.

Rubbish. The law of conservation of energy states that in a closed system the net energy will always be equal to zero. The planet Earth is not a closed system. The Sun is constantly directing massive amounts of energy our way.

You have ignored this inconvenient fact!

Hardly. It isn’t a fact, it’s an assumption, again. You assume rather a lot.

If most animals can self-motivate they must have an intangible self!

Why? Where did you obtain this information?

Of course occurs in the present. How could it occur in the future if it is foresight?! The point is that it refers to the future whereas no physical reaction takes the future into account.

Again, that is an assumption. How do you know this?

 

[Neo_Scotist]

@ Bonzerdad:

I’ve thought it over and I do think you’re correct in stating that a continuum cannot be divided. However, how do you account for this discrepancy?

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot be created by successive addition
2. The past has been created by successive addition
3. Therefore, the past is finite.

Now that is deductive reasoning, so if the premises are true (which I believe they are), then the conclusion must be true.

So how do you account for this?

I don’t see why you spend so much time defending abstract arguments like actual infinities. wouldn’t it be easier to say; "it has been empirically established that our universe began some 13.5 billion years ago…just a thought.

 

[greylorn]

Yes, I did. I didn’t consider your pathetic insults worth responding to. I still don’t.

I’ll take that to mean, that you were unable to respond to my comments by defending the silly quote. My comments could not have been personal insults, since they only applied to the quoted nitwit.

No problem. The odds are one in one. We’re here, incase you hadn’t noticed. The process of evolution is not random and I would never suggest that it is.

That was reflective of your inability to read and conceptualize ideas from anything you’ve read. It takes some practice, more so than, say, simply passing gas.

Of course we are here, and the probability of our existence is exactly 1. (Not 1 in 1.)

The question is, by what process did we get from point A, a period in which no life existed on earth, to Point B, a planet full of people who think that they are intelligent because some of their population can outwit an occasional hamster? (Don’t worry— I’m not proposing to include you in that population.)

Last I noticed, the only mechanisms Darwinists have advanced for the mutation of DNA are random. What do you know that they do not? What are the mechanisms you would propose for genetic change?

What do you want me to do, take the fact that you’re a silver haired dotard into account and give you a sporting chance?

Please, do exactly that, youngster. Though I must confess, it does not seem fair.

Now, while this has been great fun, I have a book to write, and before I get on with that I must drive my power chair to the nearest supermarket for my week’s supply of “Depends,” get my chainsaw blade sharpened, and take care of my ex-stripper lady friends.

 

[tonyrey]

]It is not just a construct - as you yourself have admitted with regard to self-motivation. It is a fact that is the very basis of all our reasoning. Moreover it is a fact that has to be taken in conjunction with other intangible facts like truth, goodness, justice, love, beauty, purpose and development.

Your typo “meatphysical” could be interpreted as a Freudian slip! After all, you believe metaphysics is a load of balderdash…
The inability to understand a fact does not imply that it is not a fact. We cannot understand how the universe exists but it exists nevertheless. Self-motivation is in the same category.

Consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making cannot be explained in terms of “enhanced pattern recognition filtering”. They presuppose a form of energy unknown to science.

That is an assumption.

In that case the onus is on you to demonstrate how and why they utilise a form of energy known to science…

Your mechanistic notion of thought is hopelessly inadequate because it reduces you to a biological computer programmed entirely by heredity and environment. That is where your personal activity infringes the law of the conservation of energy.

The law of conservation of energy states that in a closed system the net energy will always be equal to zero. The planet Earth is not a closed system. The Sun is constantly directing massive amounts of energy our way.

That is irrelevant to consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making - unless you can explain how and why they utilise physical energy.

You have ignored this inconvenient fact!

Hardly. It isn’t a fact, it’s an assumption, again. You assume rather a lot.

You assume more than I do, e.g. that everything whatsoever is composed of matter - a gross assumption that has never been justified and contradicts your own personal experience of self-motivation…

If most animals can self-motivate they must have an intangible self!

Why? Where did you obtain this information?

On this occasion from you! You have failed to explain the nature of the self and to demonstrate that it is tangible…

Of course fore

sight occurs in the present. How could it occur in the future if it is foresight?! The point is that it refers to the future whereas no physical reaction takes the future into account.
Again, that is an assumption. How do you know this?

Quite simple.

1. Can you produce an example of a physical reaction which takes the future into account?
2. Can you explain how you can jump (mentally) from the present and take the future into account?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’ll take that to mean, that you were unable to respond to my comments by defending the silly quote. My comments could not have been personal insults, since they only applied to the quoted nitwit.

You can take that to mean that I am not going to waste my time, and for that matter yours, engaging in an argument over nothing.

That was reflective of your inability to read and conceptualize ideas from anything you’ve read. It takes some practice, more so than, say, simply passing gas.

If you ever happen to be visiting Scotland, just name your time and place and I’ll show you just how mindless I actually can be.

Of course we are here, and the probability of our existence is exactly 1. (Not 1 in 1.)

Exactly one? One what? One apple? One Bananna? One dancing pink unicorn?

The question is, by what process did we get from point A, a period in which no life existed on earth, to Point B, a planet full of people who think that they are intelligent because some of their population can outwit an occasional hamster? (Don’t worry— I’m not proposing to include you in that population.)

I don’t know. At the time of writing, nobody does.

Last I noticed, the only mechanisms Darwinists have advanced for the mutation of DNA are random. What do you know that they do not? What are the mechanisms you would propose for genetic change?

The change occurs within the laws of Chemistry. Chemistry is not random. The mutations that occur in humans are clearly understood. There are two classes of mutation, spontaneous mutations (molecular decay) and induced mutations caused by mutagens.

This of course was not known in Darwin’s time as the structure of the gene was not discovered until 1953 by Francis Crick and Jim Watson, with help from Maurice Wilkins and Rosiland Franklin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

This article contains a list of mutations and their causes.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

The change occurs within the laws of Chemistry. Chemistry is not random. The mutations that occur in humans are clearly understood. There are two classes of mutation, spontaneous mutations (molecular decay) and induced mutations caused by mutagens.

This of course was not known in Darwin’s time as the structure of the gene was not discovered until 1953 by Francis Crick and Jim Watson, with help from Maurice Wilkins and Rosiland Franklin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

This article contains a list of mutations and their causes.

All spontaneous and induced mutations are random. P.S. Don’t quote Wikipedia for Info.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Your typo “meatphysical” could be interpreted as a Freudian slip! After all, you believe metaphysics is a load of balderdash…
The inability to understand a fact does not imply that it is not a fact. We cannot understand how the universe exists but it exists nevertheless. Self-motivation is in the same category.

Actually, I corrected that typo. You seem very willing to come out and state that you understand self motivation. Why don’t you explain it to me?

In that case the onus is on you to demonstrate how and why they utilise a form of energy known to science…

It’s all here. The mechanism used by the cells of living organisms, including those in the human brain to release energy is known as the Cytochrome Chain or Electron Transport Chain. Happy reading.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_transport_chain

That is irrelevant to consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making - unless you can explain how and why they utilise physical energy.

So what you’re saying is that if i can’t explain how freedom of choice utilizes physical energy, that means the supernatural exists?

You assume more than I do, e.g. that everything whatsoever is composed of matter - a gross assumption that has never been justified and contradicts your own personal experience of self-motivation…

I’ve never said everything is composed of matter.

On this occasion from you! You have failed to explain the nature of the self and to demonstrate that it is tangible…

I can’t explain it. That does not mean that the only two options are my knowledge or the supernatural.

Quite simple.

1. Can you produce an example of a physical reaction which takes the future into account?

Yes. Thought.

1. Can you explain how you can jump (mentally) from the present and take the future into account?

Can I explain it? No, I can’t.

 

[Moonstruck888]

All spontaneous and induced mutations are random. P.S. Don’t quote Wikipedia for Info.

Wikipedia, as long as there are citations, is an excellent source of information. I see little point in quoting biological articles that no one who without a biology degree will understand.

As far as all mutations being random go, kindly present me with an example of one mutation that does not conform to the laws of Chemistry.

When and where a mutation will take place is non deterministic, but the nature of mutations is not random at all.

I have no respect for people who resort to denigrating a wikipedia article with citations in lieu of presenting a reasoned argument.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Wikipedia, as long as there are citations, is an excellent source of information. I see little point in quoting biological articles that no one who without a biology degree will understand.

As far as all mutations being random go, kindly present me with an example of one mutation that does not conform to the laws of Chemistry.

There are thousands of readable essays on the net that do not depend on the volatile nature (and amateurish nature) of wikipedia, but, do what you wish with your research.

I fail to see why I should oppose you on a relationship between chemistry and mutations; I know mutations have chemical causes. But, it’s another thing to say that these cause are organized and non-random.

 

[Moonstruck888]

There are thousands of readable essays on the net that do not depend on the volatile nature of wikipedia, but, do what you wish with your research.

I fail to see why I should oppose you on a relationship between chemistry and mutations; I know mutations have chemical causes. But, it’s another thing to say that these cause are organized and non-random.

I never said they were organized. I said that they occur in accordance with Chemistry. You’re not going to wake up tomorrow and find that random chance has vouchsafed you a third eye over night. Mutations only occur within the confines of what is physically and chemically possible.

Mutations are random in that it is impossible to determine when, where and what type will occur, but the nature of mutations is quite specific.

 

[Moonstruck888]

There are thousands of readable essays on the net that do not depend on the volatile nature of wikipedia, but, do what you wish with your research.

Wiki articles are quick and easy to find. I’m pretty sure my interlocutors don’t want me to respond to them a week next Tuesday after pouring over the back catalogue of the Harvard Review for long interminable hours.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

I never said they were organized. I said that they occur in accordance with Chemistry. You’re not going to wake up tomorrow and find that random chance has vouchsafed you a third eye over night. Mutations only occur within the confines of what is physically and chemically possible.

Mutations are random in that it is impossible to determine when, where and what type will occur, but the nature of mutations is quite specific.

Alright, fair enough.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Wiki articles are quick and easy to find. I’m pretty sure my interlocutors don’t want me to respond to them a week next Tuesday after pouring over the back catalogue of the Harvard Review for long interminable hours.

Tthere are thousands of easy to read articles on the net, specially on evolution. It sounds that you linked to the first site that came to your mind; wikiality, I mean Wikipedia. No harm ,though, everybody does it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

 

[Moonstruck888]

Tthere are thousands of easy to read articles on the net, specially on evolution. It sounds that you linked to the first site that came to your mind; wikiality, I mean Wikipedia. No harm ,though, everybody does it.

I did read through it to check that it was a reasonable article before posting it. I like wiki for forum banter, but yeah, if I was doing research (not that I have in biology for many years now) I would not be using these kinds of articles.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’d also like to point out that the Gospel of John (it is true that authorship is questionable) is not the only book in the Bible that was traditionally written by a direct witness to Jesus (personally, I am of the opinion that St. John wrote the original Gospel that his disciples added more to it after his death, but this is far from proven). The 1st letter of Peter was quite possibly written by St. Peter himself, and he was the leader of Christ’s apostles. The 2nd Letter of PEter was almost certainly not actually written by Peter.

 

[momor]

Now, while this has been great fun, I have a book to write, and before I get on with that I must drive my power chair to the nearest supermarket for my week’s supply of “Depends,” get my chainsaw blade sharpened, and take care of my ex-stripper lady friends.

And here I thought you were going to get this thread back on track with your evidence that God does not exist. I guess you expect us to buy your book instead.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

And here I thought you were going to get this thread back on track with your evidence that God does not exist. I guess you expect us to buy your book instead.

Actually, greylorn is theistic.