Why are WE here?

[Lui]

“Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”
–John 12:25

Is quoting the Bible your answer to everything?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Is quoting the Bible your answer to everything?

Well, yes, in many ways it is a favorite source!

 

[You]

You’re intellectualizing. You’re bowing out because there are no passages of scripture, prayers, or writing of great saints that document our enjoying this miserable and corrupt life.

You could enjoy being miserable, which is warned against in the bible.

 

[wanstronian]

1. Irrelevant.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Irrelevant.
4. Irrelevant.
5. Irrelevant.
6. Irrelevant.
7. Irrelevant.
8. Irrelevant.

Please confine yourself to the topic:

Is materialism based on faith in the power of purposeless particles to create absolutely everything that exists - apart from themselves?

Ooh, a brand new rabbit-hole topic that you’re going to pretend was the subject all along?

How about, in the interest of intellectual honesty, you answer my question first? Here it is again:

“If you’re so sure that …] naturalism is wrong, put your money where your mouth is. Tell us what really happened.”

Over to you. Instead of just dismissing what you can’t understand, tell us what you think did happen. How did we get here?

I can’t put it any plainer than this. You’ve obviously been dodging the issue for a few posts. If you continue to do so now, then it’s clear to me, and to the thread audience to whom you love to showboat with your empty rhetoric, that not only are you ignorant, but you couple your ignorance with cowardice.

 

[wanstronian]

How do you** know** this?

Oh dear, you’re still representing everything I say. I don’t know how you can look at yourself in the mirror. Do you think you’ll ever have an honest debate with someone with whom you disagree? I’m certainly losing hope.

I don’t know it - I said that it’s been shown beyond reasonable doubt. We’ve discussed this before and I cited my sources - sources of scientific evidence. Are you now going to pretend I didn’t?

How do you **know **a person ceases to exist?

Please re-read my previous post on the subject. That will provide your answer.

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian;8509956:

A neologism which implies blind faith in the magical power of that which is most obviously **under **

our feet.

Oh, I see. You made up a word. Clever you.

False and irrelevant.

Not at all - you made a big show of trotting out a string of “sub”-prefixed words with the clear intent of implying such a prefix to denote inferiority. Proving that the only thing really inferior is your grasp of word meanings.

Irrelevant.

But true.

Irrelevant invective which infringes forum conduct rule 1.

Get off your high horse. It’s not irrelevant, it’s true. You misrepresent naturalism. You commit the fallacy of “Poisoning the well.” At least it’s a change from your normal fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.

Superfluous.

You’re really clutching at straws now? How about you attack my argument, rather than my style? Oh, I forgot - it’s because you can’t!

1. The success of science demonstrates that the creative power of the mind is incomparably more efficient and consistent than the blind meanderings of purposeless particles.

2 .The most adequate explanation of the universe is its creation by one Supreme Being who is reflected in its highest aspects: consciousness, rationality, morality, autonomy, purpose and love.

No - I said, “Tell us what really happened.” All you’ve done is continue to misrepresent the scientifically established concensus on reality (in Point 1), and wave some meaningless rhetoric around (in Point 2).

TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

 

[wanstronian]

Yes, there are religions with superstitions.

In fact, all of 'em are founded on superstitions beliefs, which prevail even today.

General definition of “superstition” (from OED): “Widely held but irrational or unfounded belief; a common but unjustifiable idea of the effects or nature of a thing.”

Sounds like a description of religion to me. Belief in a deity is unfounded and irrational, because such a deity is unnecessary, and utterly unproven; ideas about the nature of God (as an intervening prayer-answerer, for example) are common, but unjustifiable.

Religion is a branch of superstition. There’s no more reason to believe in a deity, than there is to believe that walking under a ladder is bad luck.

 

[wanstronian]

Arbitrary?

Uh no. - the bound is a calculation of all the computational resources of the universe since its beginning.

An atheist will not like it when a targeted search comes up higher then the UPB because they know what it means to their own faith.

But I welcome what you think the bound number should be.

No, you’re not thinking. The point is that there is no scientifically or intellectually justifiable threshold for such a number. Not only is the actual number invented, but the **concept **is pure fabrication. It’s meaningless. It’s woo made to sound like science, and you’ve fallen for it.

 

[wanstronian]

Another book reviewer that says it is nonsense without reading it. You are in good company with Ayala and his review of Signature in the Cell.

You’re still not thinking.

I didn’t review the book, nor did I claim to. I passed comment on what I understand is the principle argument within the book - the principle of a universal moral code. Not only is such a moral code undemonstrable, but it says nothing about the existence of deities.

If this fabled “universal moral code” is D’Souza’s central argument, then the book is not worth wasting money on, because it cannot meet the criteria set out in its title.

 

[wanstronian]

Uh no - evolutionary explanations of consciousness have failed.

We understand the soul expresses itself in this dimension through the brain. A sick brain constrains the souls expression. A dead brain - no expression.

You’re taking observations which don’t contradict your chosen belief and mis-using them to try and support your chosen belief.

Which is an approach about as scientific as IDC. So at least you’re consistent!

Can you point me towards a non-theistically-biased source that demonstrates how “evolutionary explanations of consciousness have failed,” because somebody clearly forgot to tell the evolutionary biologists, neurologists etc.

 

[wanstronian]

So you don’t know. You assume. How do you know something of your consciousness cannot survive death?

Please refer to my response to Tony’s same predictable question above.

 

[buffalo]

In fact, all of 'em are founded on superstitions beliefs, which prevail even today.

General definition of “superstition” (from OED): “Widely held but irrational or unfounded belief; a common but unjustifiable idea of the effects or nature of a thing.”

Sounds like a description of religion to me. Belief in a deity is unfounded and irrational, because such a deity is unnecessary, and utterly unproven; ideas about the nature of God (as an intervening prayer-answerer, for example) are common, but unjustifiable.

Religion is a branch of superstition. There’s no more reason to believe in a deity, than there is to believe that walking under a ladder is bad luck.

I would agree with you about belief in a deity being unfounded. However, God revealed Himself to us. That is the big difference. If He had not done so there would be many more pagans around.

 

[You]

Please refer to my response to Tony’s same predictable question above.

This?

wanstronian:

Oh dear, you’re still representing everything I say. I don’t know how you can look at yourself in the mirror. Do you think you’ll ever have an honest debate with someone with whom you disagree? I’m certainly losing hope.

I don’t know it - I said that it’s been shown beyond reasonable doubt. We’ve discussed this before and I cited my sources - sources of scientific evidence. Are you now going to pretend I didn’t?

tonyrey:

How do you know a person ceases to exist?

Please re-read my previous post on the subject. That will provide your answer.

 

[buffalo]

No, you’re not thinking. The point is that there is no scientifically or intellectually justifiable threshold for such a number. Not only is the actual number invented, but the **concept **is pure fabrication. It’s meaningless. It’s woo made to sound like science, and you’ve fallen for it.

Uh no - the probability bound is the top end of all the events and computational power the universe could produce since its beginning. Yes, I have fallen for it.

Evo’s cannot admit this number, so you are lock step with them. Once admitted then the house of cards falls. Keep right on trying though.

 

[buffalo]

You’re still not thinking.

I didn’t review the book, nor did I claim to. I passed comment on what I understand is the principle argument within the book - the principle of a universal moral code. Not only is such a moral code undemonstrable, but it says nothing about the existence of deities.

If this fabled “universal moral code” is D’Souza’s central argument, then the book is not worth wasting money on, because it cannot meet the criteria set out in its title.

Read the book. The you are in a position to argue it.

 

[buffalo]

You’re taking observations which don’t contradict your chosen belief and mis-using them to try and support your chosen belief.

Which is an approach about as scientific as IDC. So at least you’re consistent!

Can you point me towards a non-theistically-biased source that demonstrates how “evolutionary explanations of consciousness have failed,” because somebody clearly forgot to tell the evolutionary biologists, neurologists etc.

Let us start here:

I will give you an atheist:

The unnatural selection of consciousness - Ray Tallis argues that there is no evolutionary explanation of consciousness

 

[Lui]

Well, yes, in many ways it is a favorite source!

As a Catholic you don’t just rely on the Bible because many things can be interpreted wrong. I’m sure the Church does not teach a person to hate this life or view life the way you see it.

 

[Lui]

However, God revealed Himself to us. That is the big difference. If He had not done so there would be many more pagans around.

Somehow I don’t consider this as a valid argument in a philosophical discussion. If we would be discussing alien abduction, would you consider the claim “however the aliens revealed themselves to us” as a valid argument?

 

[buffalo]

Somehow I don’t consider this as a valid argument in a philosophical discussion. If we would be discussing alien abduction, would you consider the claim “however the aliens revealed themselves to us” as a valid argument?

Depends on the evidence.

Christ lived and died - no serious historian denies that. His works were witnessed. God the Father Revealed Himself to us. Connect the dots…

Catholics have a lot of evidence.

 

[wanstronian]

Individuals find individual value in things, yes, but my whole point is that if God doesn’t exist, all “purpose” is left up to the individual.

Yes, that’s right.

That means we all make up our own moral codes that fit ourselves because we would be the arbiters of what we interpret as “truth”. So if I really wanted to, because there would be no “Ultimate Truth” I could go around doing whatever the heck I want for the fact that nothing has a higher goal than what I or the rest of humanity can come up with.

Well, you’re being slightly ambiguous there. First you say that we all make up our own moral codes, which implies that we do that as individuals. This is what I was referring to when I said, ‘The two options aren’t “what God says”, and “what I, the individual, happen to fancy doing.”’ It’s not either the individual or God. I’ll address your specific objection to that comment later, but for now it’s enough to point out that you still seem to believe that secular morality translates as individual selfishness. However, to your credit you do at least go on to acknowledge that society has a role to play.

Without an ultimate arbiter that holds all beliefs together, humanity has no real purpose but that which it defines.

Yes, as you said before.

If God doesn’t exist, there is no relevant force that dictates whether or not murder is wrong [which God has, btw, if you’ve heard of the Ten Commandments] - thus theoretically, as I have stated, murder [regardless of its reason] is not objectively evil if there is no God.

Well now you’re applying specificity to a more general argument. We were discussing “unnecessary damage,” upon which God has not, as far as I’m aware, spoken. And yet, if the OT is to be believed, then “unnecessary damage” undoubtedly occurred, sanctioned by God.

Regarding “objectively,” it depends on your definition. If you take “objectively” to mean that overwhelming consensus of opinion, then fine. If you take it to mean “universally true no matter what” (ie. absolutism) then you have a real problem. Either you have to define what makes it so, and explain why, in the case of morality (which is what we’re discussing here, when you get down to it), it has so clearly changed even in the few thousand years or so since the God hypothesis has existed; or you have to define it in terms of “what God says,” which is just begging the question.

So what, are you suggesting objective truth is decided by majority-vote or something?

I don’t think it’s quite as simplistic as that, but you’re not far off. Although I hesitate to apply the word “truth” to anything other than in a colloquial sense.

Or randomness?

Perhaps, at a basic level - given that we are the end result of chance occurrences, then our concepts of truth, morality, love etc. are also the end result of chance occurrences. However, I should point out that I’m not talking about the “Boeing 747” version of “chance.”

Or even something that we don’t know or haven’t defined? Because this makes as much sense to me as it seems my post makes sense to you…

Hopefully I’ve clarified.

No offense, but your viewpoint is just as heinous, if not more - you appear to be looking at the issue of God ordering the death of people from some sort of secular…ish point of view, but it can only make sense if you look at it through the eyes of a Jew or Christian - which, by the way, is only commonsensical when having a debate with a Jew or Christian, if I may say so. As in, it can’t make sense if you don’t see or at least theoretically interpret God as the ultimate arbiter in the scenario…

Yes, I’m looking at it from a secular point of view - that’s the only way one can be objective about it. As I said (or implied), “God told me to do it” is not a reasonable defence (although I note you disagree - more on that later). Was Ronald E. Gay justified in murdering seven people? Were Matthew and Tyler Williams acting on God’s word? What about Blair Donnelly? And so on, and so on… Were any of these people acquitted because God told them to? No. But how do we know that God didn’t tell them to kill?
This is why courts of law are secular in nature (apart from the outmoded habit of making people swear on a book). Because “God told me to” is NOT a good defence, even if it might seem like it to the person wielding the sword. If you can’t prove that God exists, you can’t use him as an excuse to commit immoral acts.

[continues…]