Purpose

[hatsoff]

The fact that you have a common goal does not necessarily entail a desire to make others happy. Suppose your happiness conflicts with theirs? What do you decide then?

That depends on the nature of the conflict. Ultimately, though, a rational person acts in his or her self-interests. However, more often than not, our individual self-interests are intimately tied up with the self-interests of others, so we don’t get to act on whims, or otherwise “selfishly” as conventionally understood.

Why should you be concerned about the species rather than individuals? Would you sacrifice individuals for the sake of the species? Do the interests of the individuals always correspond to the interests of the species? Would you put the interests of the species before your own interests?

Sometimes, sometimes not. We are programmed (by both evolution and social conditioning) to respond in varying ways to both our own direct self-interests as well as the interests of our social peers.

God does not have to be assigned a purpose. He is by definition purposeful because He is the Creator and creativity implies purposeful activity.

And how is that any different from our own purposeful creativity? As another poster asked, if we have to be given purpose by another agent, then why doesn’t God also need to be given purpose by a similarly external agent?

God does not need a reason to exist because He is, i.e. He exists necessarily.

Why do we need a reason to exist? Why we can’t just exist–not necessarily, but just exist, period–?

You have already stated “we’re social animals, so it only makes sense that we would be concerned about others”.

He wasn’t asking why we are that way, but why, according to you, we should be that way.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s all very well saying, “blah blah irrational processes blah blah so there must have been a rational Creator…” but where did he come from?

It’s all very well saying, "blah blah irrational processes blah blah so there must have been nothing but irrational processes but where did they come from** and** how did they produce rational beings?

If he had to give us rationality, who gave it to him? And if nobody had to give it to him, why did anybody have to give it to us?

If irrational processes had to give us rationality how did they give it to us and how did they come to exist?

Saying, “God did it” doesn’t answer anything, it’s just another way of saying, “I can’t imagine how I came to be here, functional, conscious and rational.”

Saying, “Irrational processes did it” doesn’t answer anything, it’s just another way of saying, “I can’t imagine how I came to be here, functional, conscious and rational.”

How did God do it?

How did irrational processes do it?

Why did He do it?

Unlike irrational processes He chose to share the immense value of existence.

He’s omnipotent, he can do anything, why bother making us?

Why do you bother to do anything? Do you attach no value to your existence?

And what’s he been up to for the last 15 billion years?

You obviously prefer Instant Creation as well as instant coffee…

Unless we can answer at least some of these questions, then God is not an answer, he’s just a different form of the question.

Unless we can answer at least some of these questions, then science is not an answer, it’s just a different form of the question.

By the way, how does the fact that the processes by which we evolved are, strictly speaking, irrational and purposeless, have any bearing on our rationality?

It demonstrates that the processes by which we evolved are not irrational and not purposeless but designed…

We are all, every one of us, more than the sum of our parts.

Indeed we are. And how did **we **become more than the sum of our parts? How did persons emerge from particles?

The human brain is incredibly complex and science is only just beginning to figure out its most basic functions.

So what?

It’s fantastically bad logic to just assume that rationality isn’t inherent.

I entirely agree! That is precisely why I believe reality is fundamentally rational. To believe the contrary is another aspect of the, “I can’t imagine how it works, so science will explain it by irrational processes” fallacy.

 

[Oreoracle]

The fact that you have a common goal does not necessarily entail a desire to make others happy. Suppose your happiness conflicts with theirs? What do you decide then?

Why should you be concerned about the species rather than individuals? Would you sacrifice individuals for the sake of the species? Do the interests of the individuals always correspond to the interests of the species? Would you put the interests of the species before your own interests?
God does not have to be assigned a purpose. He is by definition purposeful because He is the Creator and creativity implies purposeful activity.
God does not need a reason to exist because He is, i.e. He exists necessarily.
You have already stated “we’re social animals, so it only makes sense that we would be concerned about others”.
It is not a question of enjoyment but of belief. Do you equate the two?
Your presumption is totally false and infantile. Why on earth would I think you are trying to trick me? You, like this child, need to grow up and learn that other people have different ideas to the ones you think they have…
I know you believe your position is rational and meaningful because you are giving reasons why you think I am mistaken. I am simply pointing out that if our existence is ultimately irrational and purposeless our decisions about what purposes to choose must be arbitrary.
Once again you are making a false presumption. You need to realize that I believe we are all ultimately responsible for finding our own meanings - precisely because that is why we were created.
Beliefs about meaning are not only the result of feelings but also of insight. Or are you differentiating subjective and objective meaning? Perhaps imposing meaning on that which is in reality meaningless?

 

[Oreoracle]

Suppose your happiness conflicts with theirs? What do you decide then?

I decide to perform the action that will cause the most happiness.

Why should you be concerned about the species rather than individuals?

You asked me to explain why we do, not why we should. Two different worlds, my friend.

Would you sacrifice individuals for the sake of the species?

That depends on the situation. Could you provide a scenario, so I can show you why?

Do the interests of the individuals always correspond to the interests of the species?

Obviously not. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?

Would you put the interests of the species before your own interests?

That depends on the importance–or “utility value,” if you will–of the interest. Will fulfilling their interests produce more happiness, or will it encourage them to foist their desires on others and cause even more suffering?

He is by definition purposeful because He is the Creator and creativity implies purposeful activity.

You are conflating the nature of God’s actions with the nature of his existence, an understandable error.

You have already stated “we’re social animals, so it only makes sense that we would be concerned about others”.

I admitted that my reasoning is subjective and arbitrary. Explain why nature has objective value or retract your statements.

It is not a question of enjoyment but of belief. Do you equate the two?

When it comes to ethics, we believe whatever makes us feel best. You follow God because it makes you feel best due to your emotional climate.

Your presumption is totally false and infantile.

Infantile? lol okay

I know you believe your position is rational and meaningful because you are giving reasons why you think I am mistaken.

Then it cannot possibly be true that the only conclusions I can reach, given my premises and presumptions, denote an existence devoid of meaning, purpose, and rationality. You said that I was limited to such conclusions given my premises. Care to retract your claim?

I am simply pointing out that if our existence is ultimately irrational and purposeless our decisions about what purposes to choose must be arbitrary.

Is your creator’s idea of right and wrong and his reasons for creating you also arbitrary? I don’t see why God’s will is inherently better than mine or anyone else’s.

 

[mangy_dog]

Is life’s only purpose life itself?

If that makes sense.

If…from the moment we are created, our bodies live 30,40, 70 or 90 years and then die; and our souls continue to exist for all of eternity, without end…then

Wouldn’t that purpose be to love and serve the Lord and be a witness unto others?

 

[tonyrey]

I decide to perform the action that will cause the most happiness.

I am trying to disentangle the subjective and objective elements in your argument. On the one hand you state:
“I wish to make others happy because I notice that my actions and theirs are aimed toward happiness. Why is this important? Well, we’re social animals, so it only makes sense that we would be concerned about others. It’s best for the species.”
(Value judgments based on facts about human nature).
“I decide to perform the action that will cause the most happiness.”
So you seem to be a utilitarian (you explicitly refer to “utility value”) with regard to ethics yet on the other hand you state:
“I admitted that my reasoning is subjective and arbitrary. Explain why nature has *objective value *or retract your statements. When it comes to ethics, we believe whatever makes us *feel *best.”
You also seem to imply that there is no objective reason to respect our human nature:
“And why, exactly, should I respect nature? People seem to think I’m joking when I ask this, but I’m completely serious. What’s the objective reason to respect nature?"
This interpretation is consistent with your statements:
“I admitted that my reasoning is subjective and arbitrary.”
"When it comes to ethics, we believe whatever makes us feel best.”
“It is an *arbitrary *decision made by myself. It is all arbitrary, from what I see.”
So perhaps you can understand why I am confused. I think it is important to sort this out before we proceed to the other questions. Otherwise we are at cross purposes.

 

[tonyrey]

That depends on the nature of the conflict. Ultimately, though, a rational person acts in his or her self-interests.

That sounds like a philosophy of egoism.

However, more often than not, our individual self-interests are intimately tied up with the self-interests of others, so we don’t get to act on whims, or otherwise “selfishly” as conventionally understood.

Not a very flattering view of humanity!

Would you put the interests of the species before your own interests?
Sometimes, sometimes not. We are programmed (by both evolution and social conditioning) to respond in varying ways to both our own direct self-interests as well as the interests of our social peers.

Can we break out of the ways in which we have been programmed? If so how?

*God does not have to be assigned a purpose. He is by definition purposeful because He is the Creator and creativity implies purposeful activity. *
And how is that any different from our own purposeful creativity? As another poster asked, if we have to be given purpose by another agent, then why doesn’t God also need to be given purpose by a similarly external agent?

Your question implies that purposes are arbitrarily imposed on us. They are not. We are created with free will so that, like God, we can establish our own purposes. That is the whole point of our existence as persons.

Why do we need a reason to exist? Why we can’t just exist–not necessarily, but just exist, period–?

Because we are creative, **rational **beings with a capacity for love.

He wasn’t asking why we are that way, but why, according to you, we should be that way.

Please refer to my reply to him.

 

[Oreoracle]

I am trying to disentangle the subjective and objective elements in your argument.

You are right that this is important and that we will be unable to understand one another until we make some sort of connection here…

On the one hand you state:
“I wish to make others happy because I notice that my actions and theirs are aimed toward happiness. Why is this important? Well, we’re social animals, so it only makes sense that we would be concerned about others. It’s best for the species.”

I should have switched these statements around, so that you can see the process. Let’s separate them for now:

Firstly, I believe that we have evolved to empathize with our species (and some others). This is a belief pertaining to concrete reality. As such, it is either true or false. I also believe that we always pursue pleasure/happiness. This is another assertion that possesses a truth value.

Secondly, this knowledge causes me to feel certain ways about our actions. These feelings cause me to express myself. The verbal expressions of my desires, or how I want the world to be, are called ethics. Ethics don’t exist as part of the concrete world, they are merely expressions of our desires.

So you are right when you say ethics are partially based on facts, but it is your dissatisfaction with the world as it is that causes you to complain and vocalize your ethical sentiments. “Humans should not kill humans” is not a fact of reality, it is merely something we say because we disapprove of killing. It’s a very simple observation.

(Value judgments based on facts about human nature).

…based on facts, inspired by emotions. This makes ethics subjective.

So you seem to be a utilitarian

Correct. I’m glad you are familiar with the philosophy.

…yet on the other hand you state:
“I admitted that my reasoning is subjective and arbitrary. Explain why nature has *objective value *or retract your statements. When it comes to ethics, we believe whatever makes us *feel *best.”

Yes, utilitarianism is subjective and arbitrary because its axioms are derived from emotion (pleasure isn’t objectively good and pain isn’t objectively bad, we only feel that they are this way given what we know, i.e., that all sentient beings seek pleasure and avoid pain).

I hope this cleared some things up.

 

[hatsoff]

That sounds like a philosophy of egoism.

It may be. I’m not familiar enough with the nuances of egoism to say for sure whether or not my assessment is identical, but it is at the very least quite similar.

Not a very flattering view of humanity!

Facts are facts, whether or not we find them palatable.

Can we break out of the ways in which we have been programmed? If so how?

Yes and no. If matter behaves randomly on some level, then chance may lead us from our programming. However, I’m not sure that any voluntary decision could rightfully be characterized as programming-independent.

Your question implies that purposes are arbitrarily imposed on us. They are not. We are created with free will so that, like God, we can establish our own purposes. That is the whole point of our existence as persons.

It seemed to me that you were suggesting we need God to explain why we have purpose. Now you have clarified, saying that we are the creators of purpose. That sounds fine to me. However, I prefer to leave God out of it, since there is no good evidence He exists.

 

[tonyrey]

If matter behaves randomly on some level, then chance may lead us from our programming. However, I’m not sure that any voluntary decision could rightfully be characterized as programming-independent.

If chance leads us from our programming how can we be responsible for our decisions?

Now you have clarified, saying that we are the creators of purpose. That sounds fine to me. However, I prefer to leave God out of it, since there is no good evidence He exists.

Purpose is good evidence He exists. It is a more adequate explanation than purposeless processes…

 

[hatsoff]

If chance leads us from our programming how can we be responsible for our decisions?

Society holds us responsible.

Purpose is good evidence He exists. It is a more adequate explanation than purposeless processes…

Wait a minute…

You just said that we create our own purpose, thus explaining why it’s here. So then how does our self-created purpose constitute evidence for the existence of God?

 

[tonyrey]

Society holds us responsible.

So we are not really responsible for our thoughts or actions? It’s just the view of society…

You just said that we create our own purpose, thus explaining why it’s here. So then how does our self-created purpose constitute evidence for the existence of God?

My exact words were:
“We are created with free will so that, like God, we can establish our own purposes.”
We use our intelligence and free will to choose what purposes to pursue. Without those gifts we would not be able to establish any purposes at all.

How did our intelligence and free will originate? In processes which lack intelligence and free will? That is clearly an inadequate explanation… All life is purposeful but its purposes are unconscious, programmed purposes for which living organisms are not responsible. How can we infringe the law of conservation of energy to override our physical nature and choose our own purposes? Certainly not by any physical means…

If you deny that we have free will you are faced with the problem not only of responsibility but also of rationality. If we cannot choose what to think why should our thoughts be reliable and trustworthy? If they are no more than the products of past events they need not correspond to reality. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

 

[hatsoff]

So we are not really responsible for our thoughts or actions? It’s just the view of society…

What do you mean, “really responsible”?

My exact words were:
“We are created with free will so that, like God, we can establish our own purposes.”
We use our intelligence and free will to choose what purposes to pursue. Without those gifts we would not be able to establish any purposes at all.

So intelligence and free will explain our creative power for purposes, but only God explains intelligence and free will?

How did our intelligence and free will originate?

Evolution.

In processes which lack intelligence and free will? That is clearly an inadequate explanation…

On the contrary, it is an elegant and satisfying explanation. It sounds to me like your religious beliefs are preventing you from appreciating it.

All life is purposeful but its purposes are unconscious, programmed purposes for which living organisms are not responsible.

That is nothing like what I said.

How can we infringe the law of conservation of energy to override our physical nature and choose our own purposes? Certainly not by any physical means…

Who says we need to “override our physical nature”? We are physical machines ourselves! To say that we have purpose is to say that we have a certain functional roles in this physical world.

If you deny that we have free will you are faced with the problem not only of responsibility but also of rationality. If we cannot choose what to think why should our thoughts be reliable and trustworthy? If they are no more than the products of past events they need not correspond to reality. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

That we are (somewhat) rational is assumed from the onset. We have no choice but to make that assumption, regardless of how you define “free will.”

 

[tonyrey]

What do you mean, “really responsible”?

If you have to appear in a law court you will soon understand what it means!

So intelligence and free will explain our creative power for purposes, but only God explains intelligence and free will?

God explains intelligence, free will and our creative power.

How did our intelligence and free will originate?
Evolution.

Yes. Evolution by design.

On the contrary, it is an elegant and satisfying explanation.

It will be if you explain the precise mechanisms by which intelligence and free will developed.

All life is purposeful but its purposes are unconscious, programmed purposes for which living organisms are not responsible.
That is nothing like what I said.

That is what it amounts to.

How can we infringe the law of conservation of energy to override our physical nature and choose our own purposes? Certainly not by any physical means…
Who says we need to “override our physical nature”?

We cannot have free will if we cannot override our physical nature.

We are physical machines ourselves!

Do you regard physical machines as responsible for their activity?

To say that we have purpose is to say that we have a certain functional roles in this physical world. It is not to say that we have free will and are responsible for our behaviour.
If you deny that we have free will you are faced with the problem not only of responsibility but also of rationality. If we cannot choose what to think why should our thoughts be reliable and trustworthy? If they are no more than the products of past events they need not correspond to reality. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!
That we are (somewhat) rational is assumed from the onset.

It may be assumed by you but its origin.still requires an explanation.

We have no choice but to make that assumption, regardless of how you define “free will.”

Not at all. Some philosophers have regarded and do regard human beings as irrational.

 

[hatsoff]

God explains intelligence, free will and our creative power.

God doesn’t explain anything. But even if he did, he would be a superfluous explanation, since we can explain all those things quite nicely without appealing to a hypothetical disembodied mind.

Yes. Evolution by design.

Again, this is superfluous. Evolution without design is far more parsimonious than evolution with design.

It will be if you explain the precise mechanisms by which intelligence and free will developed.

Natural selection is the mechanism of biological evolution.

That is what it amounts to.

If you think this is an important point, you will have to provide some justification, since I have made a point of rejecting it. Otherwise, let’s move on.

We cannot have free will if we cannot override our physical nature.

So you say. I have no reason to believe that, however.

Do you regard physical machines as responsible for their activity?

That depends on what you mean by “responsible.” At the very least, I hold those biological machines we call human beings responsible for many of their actions. I hold non-biological machines responsible for their actions in varying ways.

It may be assumed by you but its origin.still requires an explanation.

In what sense is an explanation “required”? If you found yourself unable to explain why you should be rational, would you then stop being rational? I sure wouldn’t! We can’t help but think rationally, regardless of our ability or inability to explain why that is the case.

Not at all. Some philosophers have regarded and do regard human beings as irrational.

I doubt any serious philosopher would attempt to make a case against any and all rational thought. But if you manage to find one, their academic authority will not convince me we are incapable of rationality.

 

[wanstronian]

It’s all very well saying, "blah blah irrational processes blah blah so there must have been nothing but irrational processes but where did they come from** and** how did they produce rational beings?
If irrational processes had to give us rationality how did they give it to us and how did they come to exist?
Saying, “Irrational processes did it” doesn’t answer anything, it’s just another way of saying, “I can’t imagine how I came to be here, functional, conscious and rational.”
How did irrational processes do it?

Well, you and I have been here before, Tony, and you’re well aware that science doesn’t have all the answers. But at least Science is honest about it and doesn’t just invent something to cover the gaps in knowledge. Instead, it tries to find the answers. Real answers.

Unlike irrational processes He chose to share the immense value of existence.

A convenient answer for theists, but with zero evidence to support it.

Why do you bother to do anything? Do you attach no value to your existence?

I don’t bother to do anything which is unnecessary and for which I know the outcome in advance. Nor do I use a long-winded method if I can accomplish something directly. Why did God create the human race for this elusive ‘purpose’ if he can achieve it by a metaphorical snap of the fingers?

You obviously prefer Instant Creation as well as instant coffee…

Not sure how this comment is relevant to the question it purports to answer. Can you explain?

Unless we can answer at least some of these questions, then science is not an answer, it’s just a different form of the question.

Indeed. As stated countless times, science does not pretend to have all the answers. Why do theists consistently fail to grasp this simple concept? Saying that, “God did it” is akin to answering the age-old question of, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” with, “Because it was Tuesday.” No answer at all.

It demonstrates that the processes by which we evolved are not irrational and not purposeless but designed…

No, it doesn’t. You just wish it did!

Indeed we are. And how did **we **become more than the sum of our parts? How did persons emerge from particles?

Nobody knows. Yet. But there’s no evidence of a supernatural influence (other than by a definition of ‘supernatural’ which means, “something that science is not currently able to document.”)

So what?

If you really can’t grasp my point, I’ll spell it out. Because we have such a very tiny knowledge of the workings of the brain, it is unreasonable to just assume that the attributes you reason must have come from a creator, could not be contained within those processes. Just because we don’t understand how the brain works, that doesn’t mean that you can discount it as a probable source of free will, consciousness, emotion and so on. Yet that is what you implicitly do every time you claim that these attributes can only have been granted by God. Do you understand my point now?

I entirely agree! That is precisely why I believe reality is fundamentally rational. To believe the contrary is another aspect of the, “I can’t imagine how it works, so science will explain it by irrational processes” fallacy.

The fallacy, of course, is yours, because as you well know, science doesn’t attempt to claim an in-depth knowledge of this process. That is why scientific research progresses while theology stays dogmatically static.

It must be very frustrating for the theist who, when asked to provide evidence of his claim, can only respond with, “Well, you don’t know either!”

 

[Dameedna]

Saying, “God did it” doesn’t answer anything, it’s just another way of saying, “I can’t imagine how I came to be here, functional, conscious and rational.” How did God do it? Why did he do it? He’s omnipotent, he can do anything, why bother making us? And what’s he been up to for the last 15 billion years?

Unless we can answer at least some of these questions, then God is not an answer, he’s just a different form of the question.

Exactly. God, for many people is a comfortable answer to the unknowns. I think people need this comfort but it isn’t really an answer is it?

Why did God create something for the purpose of loving him?

Why did God create something for the purpose of needing him?

Why did God create something through a very slow process, then reveal we came from one man and one woman?

God, is not an answer , God is just a possibility that once you dive into it you get more mystery. Some people love the mystery and draw conclusions that help human society. Most, simply use God as an answer because the unknowns are too painful to deal with.

At the end of the day, if you dont’ have an answer? God will sort it out. This is their faith and it gives them comfort. Some of us, don’t take comfort in non-answers.

 

[Dameedna]

If…from the moment we are created, our bodies live 30,40, 70 or 90 years and then die; and our souls continue to exist for all of eternity, without end…then

Wouldn’t that purpose be to love and serve the Lord and be a witness unto others?

No.

That purpose is taught to you, it’s not a given.

If you died at 2yrs of age, then this would not be possible. It is not therefore, the purpose of life if life has a purpose at all

 

[tonyrey]

Well, you and I have been here before, Tony, and you’re well aware that science doesn’t have all the answers.

You should be well aware that science cannot explain everything and never will have all the answers. What makes you believe science can explain rationality?

But at least science is honest about it and doesn’t just invent something to cover the gaps in knowledge. Instead, it tries to find the answers. Real answers.

Are scientific answers the only **real **answers? Can science explain the basis of reality and the foundations of science? Theism doesn’t invent something to cover the gaps in knowledge: it provides a foundation for the richness of reality and for scientific knowledge, a foundation based on the rational nature of the universe and the power of reason. Science is based on a one-dimensional perspective of reality for which it gives piecemeal explanations and leaves many unfilled gaps - which are of the most important aspects of reality.

Unlike irrational processes He chose to share the immense value of existence.
A convenient answer for theists, but with zero evidence to support it.

The evidence is the immense value of existence and the power of the human mind which is responsible for the amazing success of science. How much value do you attach to your existence and the existence of the universe with all its contents?

*Why do you bother to do anything? *
I don’t bother to do anything which is unnecessary and for which I know the outcome in advance.

Why do you bother to do anything?

Nor do I use a long-winded method if I can accomplish something directly.

What evidence do you have that the process of evolution could be accomplished directly? Do you have any experience of designing and creating universes or processes of evolution?

Why did God create the human race for this elusive ‘purpose’ if he can achieve it by a metaphorical snap of the fingers?

You are assuming that the universe was created solely for the purpose of creating human beings.You are assuming that the process itself is valueless…

You obviously prefer Instant Creation as well as instant coffee…
Not sure how this comment is relevant to the question it purports to answer. Can you explain?

You have made it clear you believe evolution is an unnecessarily long-winded method and are imposing a human criterion of economy on reality as a whole.

Saying that, “God did it” is akin to answering the age-old question of, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” with, “Because it was Tuesday.” No answer at all. You just wish it did!

Saying “Science will explain everything eventually” is an act of faith for which there is no justification whatsoever. No answer at all. You just wish it did!

And how did we become more than the sum of our parts? How did persons emerge from particles?
Nobody knows. Yet.

Your act of faith in science is again evident. You assume particles are prior to persons even though persons are clearly more powerful and more valuable than particles.

But there’s no evidence of a supernatural influence (other than by a definition of ‘supernatural’ which means, “something that science is not currently able to document.”)

Your act of faith in science is again evident. Your criterion of reality is physicality which is self-evident nonsense. Is the truth physical?

Because we have such a very tiny knowledge of the workings of the brain, it is unreasonable to just assume that the attributes you reason must have come from a creator, could not be contained within those processes.

Why do you believe the mind can be explained **entirely **in terms of the workings of the brain?

Just because we don’t understand how the brain works, that doesn’t mean that you can discount it as a probable source of free will, consciousness, emotion and so on.

You are returning to your argument from ignorance - based on the assumption that reality is primarily physical and that science can in principle explain everything. It is not only improbable but physically impossible for a set of particles **which lack **rationality consciousness, free will and purpose to be **a source of **rationality, consciousness, free will and purpose: in short, for a set of particles to become a person…

Yet that is what you implicitly do every time you claim that these attributes can only have been granted by God.

Would you stake your life on the ability of irrational particles to become rational? That is what you do you implicitly every time you claim that these attributes cannot have been granted by God.

I entirely agree! That is precisely why I believe reality is fundamentally rational. To believe the contrary is another aspect of the, “I can’t imagine how it works, so science will explain it by irrational processes” fallacy.
The fallacy, of course, is yours, because as you well know, science doesn’t attempt to claim an in-depth knowledge of this process.

I’m glad you admit science doesn’t attempt to claim an in-depth knowledge of this process. It doesn’t have in-depth knowledge of any of the most important aspects of reality.

That is why scientific research progresses while theology stays dogmatically static.

On the contrary theology takes into account scientific discoveries and refines its explanations accordingly. For example, it views evolution as a process of development designed by God rather than a haphazard sequence of events largely due to random mutations which originated in the fortuitous combination of atomic particles. Science, of course, does not takes into account any non-scientific discoveries or progress in any other field of knowledge. It is restricted to atomistic, mechanistic and materialistic explanation.

It must be very frustrating for the theist who, when asked to provide evidence of his claim, can only respond with, “Well, you don’t know either!”

It must be very frustrating for the atheist who, when asked to provide evidence of his claim that there is no God, can only respond with , “Well, we don’t know yet but we do know that science will eventually provide an explanation!”

 

[wanstronian]

You should be well aware that science cannot explain everything and never will have all the answers. What makes you believe science can explain rationality?

Er, that’s what I said. Glad you agree with me

Are scientific answers the only **real **answers?

Yes. They’re the only answers that can be repeatably, objectively demonstrated.

Can science explain the basis of reality and the foundations of science?

Science has a hypothesis with limited supporting evidence, yes.

Theism doesn’t invent something to cover the gaps in knowledge: it provides a foundation for the richness of reality and for scientific knowledge, a foundation based on the rational nature of the universe and the power of reason.

No, it doesn’t, it simply says, “Stop asking difficult questions, God did it and we can never understand why so stop trying”

Science is based on a one-dimensional perspective of reality for which it gives piecemeal explanations and leaves many unfilled gaps - which are of the most important aspects of reality.

The gaps that are left unfilled are admitted by science, and science endeavours to understand what is in those gaps. Religion just encourages you to stop trying

The evidence is the immense value of existence and the power of the human mind which is responsible for the amazing success of science. How much value do you attach to your existence and the existence of the universe with all its contents?

None of this is evidence of God, as you know.

Why do you bother to do anything?

I’ve answered this question in the context in which it was originally framed; please don’t try to cast me as disingenuous.

What evidence do you have that the process of evolution could be accomplished directly?

None - as you know, that’s not the point

Do you have any experience of designing and creating universes or processes of evolution?

No - do you? Because you don’t understand it, it had to be done by God?

You are assuming that the universe was created solely for the purpose of creating human beings.You are assuming that the process itself is valueless…

How do you infer that assumption? Read what I said again and then read up on basic set theory. And then maybe take a minute to realise that your comment actually has no bearing on my original point of God’s assumed om(name removed by moderator)otence.

You have made it clear you believe evolution is an unnecessarily long-winded method and are imposing a human criterion of economy on reality as a whole.

Oh come on, you’re clutching at straws a bit here!

Saying “Science will explain everything eventually” is an act of faith for which there is no justification whatsoever. No answer at all. You just wish it did!

You’re absolutely right. Only I didn’t say that.

Your act of faith in science is again evident. You assume particles are prior to persons even though persons are clearly more powerful and more valuable than particles.

Yes, this is clearly true. In the same way that an internal combustion engine is more powerful and valuable than its component parts laid out on a table. You have a problem with this concept?

Your act of faith in science is again evident. Your criterion of reality is physicality which is self-evident nonsense. Is the truth physical?

No, my criterion of reality is “that which is observable.” In fact I would probably have several criteria, but that will do for now.

Why do you believe the mind can be explained **entirely **in terms of the workings of the brain?

You’re putting words in my mouth again - all I said was that there is no reason to assume that it can’t. Please be honest when you’re debating with me

You are returning to your argument from ignorance - based on the assumption that reality is primarily physical and that science can in principle explain everything. It is not only improbable but physically impossible for a set of particles **which lack **rationality consciousness, free will and purpose to be **a source of **rationality, consciousness, free will and purpose: in short, for a set of particles to become a person…

Can you prove this? Or is it just that you can’t imagine how it could happen? Ref my internal combustion engine analogy - what you seem to be claiming is effectively that a set of pistons, valves etc. cannot possibly be put together in such a way that rotational drive is produce. Do you own a car?

Would you stake your life on the ability of irrational particles to become rational? That is what you do you implicitly every time you claim that these attributes cannot have been granted by God.

Well, actually it’s not, but I’ll leave you to understand the flaws in your reasoning. But as it happens, I would stake my life on it. In fact, I believe my life has resulted from it.

I’m glad you admit science doesn’t attempt to claim an in-depth knowledge of this process. It doesn’t have in-depth knowledge of any of the most important aspects of reality.

Perhaps not. That’s no reason to postulate God.

On the contrary theology takes into account scientific discoveries and refines its explanations accordingly.

It back-pedals furiously as science proves its falsehoods, yes.

For example, it views evolution as a process of development designed by God rather than a haphazard sequence of events largely due to random mutations which originated in the fortuitous combination of atomic particles.

Well originally, it viewed evolution as non-existent and that God knocked the universe together in six days. It’s (largely) changed its view as science pointed out the nonsense of such a scenario and provided a sensible, evidence-based alternative

Science, of course, does not takes into account any non-scientific discoveries or progress in any other field of knowledge. It is restricted to atomistic, mechanistic and materialistic explanation.

There is not other field of knowledge, only fields of speculation. That’s the point. God is speculation, conjecture, hypothesis. There is no evidence. Maybe if you stopped thinking of science as people in white coats with test tubes, you might feel less hostile towards it.

It must be very frustrating for the atheist who, when asked to provide evidence of his claim that there is no God, can only respond with , “Well, we don’t know yet but we do know that science will eventually provide an explanation!”

Well, you do love to rephrase other people’s comments as if you think it proves your point, but yet again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the simple concept that atheism does not claim to know the answers. The funy thing is, I know that you do understand it, but yet you still consistently demonstrate otherwise, undermining your own intellect.