The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

[Archaeopteryx]

Pardon me, Frumious, but like you, I don't have the patience to refute everything you say. You might be some mute inglorious Einstein, but I thnk the odds agaisnt that are astronmcaly high ; so, I'll merely point out to that your reasoning is abject. I particularly like this - which you actually dilate upon at great length without adding anything to your orignalal claim :

(e.g. if a multiverse hypothesis based on sound physical theory is unscientific and therefore unacceptable, a creator hypothesis pulled out of literally nowhere is even less so).

The notion that the Creator explanation is pulled out of nowhere is naive beyond belief. Do you realise how many men and women of extraordinarily high intelligence and erudition in their field, - possibly higher than yours.... - including Nobel laureates and paradigm-changers, such as Planck, have believed this (and with good reason) and that physics increasingly substantiates it, as Robert Jastrow and Arno Penzias, to name but two eminent scientists, explain. And no. Even an eternal universe - which we know is not the case - would not suffice for a team of monkeys to write a Shakespeare sonnet, never mind produce another planet with one of more than a hundred finely-tuned settings needing to be accurate to about an inch in relation to the distance to the moon. Each additional variable compounds the improbability by exponentially orders of magnitude.

Your world-view appears to be based on the scientism paradigm, i.e. that there is no immaterial reality, since the latter could not be measured ... and has to be pulled out of a hat... If you are serious about learning the truth, I recommend you delve into the explanations by the Christian apologists, William Craig and John Lennox, two extraordinarily well-qualified, Christian apologists.

Yes, because people haven't already been parroting Craig and others ad nauseam on this forum. In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, "More asbestos!"

 

[paul becke]

A hypothesis is a potential explanation for some observation or observations. A good (useful) hypothesis should have explanatory power , so it explains observations in terms of concepts and ideas that are informative, i.e. enable us to understand how those observations came about, and use it to explain other observations; it should explain the unexplained in terms of what is known and understood; it should have simplicity (parsimony), explaining observations with a minimal number of assumptions, entities, and forces (Occam's Razor). If it raises more questions than it answers, it isn't simple or explanatory. A good explanation has scope, meaning it can explain many different types of observations (e.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation explains why things fall to the ground, why planets and stars are spherical, and why planets orbit stars).

It should have predictive power, which tells you what new observations you can make about it, and the results you'll get from them; i.e. it should predict something previously unknown.

Those attributes contribute to the crucial one of testability, which means there must be a way of making observations to show whether or not it is likely to be correct - and most importantly, observations that could potentially show it to be incorrect (falsifiability), so that if your hypothesis makes a prediction and that prediction is false, your hypothesis is probably wrong.

These criteria are some of what we should expect from a good hypothesis and part of the criteria for abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) used in science.

The God hypothesis is poor because the 'God' concept is ill-defined - there's no clear, agreed definition of its properties and attributes, and it fails all the criteria (above) for a good hypothesis (except, possibly, scope, which encompasses everything; but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing).

Does that help?

Pardon my butting in, Frumious, but I couldn't help noticing,when scanning this post, what strikes me as characteristic of your lack of logic as expressed in a host of obiter dicta you utter that have the ring of a cliche about them, albeit, entirely vapid and without merit :

'.... but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing). Only if it is ill-defined in such as way as to preclude its explaining the 'thing' in question - which does not have to be the case. 'ill', according to your own definition, is the operative word.

Einstein's famous equation is defined in the most rudimentary way, because it does not need to do otherwise. According to your criterion it is ill-defined, yet its implications (the more closely defined minutiae it predicates) are immense, and have been sedulously incorporated in physical and technological calculations ever since its formulation, and continue to be.

 

[miknik5]

A hypothesis is a potential explanation for some observation or observations. A good (useful) hypothesis should have explanatory power , so it explains observations in terms of concepts and ideas that are informative, i.e. enable us to understand how those observations came about, and use it to explain other observations; it should explain the unexplained in terms of what is known and understood; it should have simplicity (parsimony), explaining observations with a minimal number of assumptions, entities, and forces (Occam's Razor).

I understood that...Which is why I said that what is being studied is based on available tangible things already present...that a man (in any field) can only go back as far as what is available to him to study...after that, he can't.

A man can NOT go back to the very beginning before any thing was created...he can't...he can suggest a hypothesis, a theory, but that is what it is...
As additional information (tangible information) is found, a man can use that to either change, or confirm his hyposthesis/theory...but still he can not assume that he has everything...

If it raises more questions than it answers, it isn't simple or explanatory. A good explanation has scope, meaning it can explain many different types of observations (e.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation explains why things fall to the ground, why planets and stars are spherical, and why planets orbit stars).

It should have predictive power, which tells you what new observations you can make about it, and the results you'll get from them; i.e. it should predict something previously unknown.

Those attributes contribute to the crucial one of testability, which means there must be a way of making observations to show whether or not it is likely to be correct - and most importantly, observations that could potentially show it to be incorrect (falsifiability), so that if your hypothesis makes a prediction and that prediction is false, your hypothesis is probably wrong.

Of course.

These criteria are some of what we should expect from a good hypothesis and part of the criteria for abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) used in science.

The God hypothesis is poor because the 'God' concept is ill-defined - there's no clear, agreed definition of its properties and attributes, and it fails all the criteria (above) for a good hypothesis (except, possibly, scope, which encompasses everything; but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing).

Does that help?

It does help and it means that I understood exactly what your thesis was when you referred to GOD as you had...
Which is why I said that you can only base your theories on what is presently given and known...
But man can't go back to the very beginning before anything was given and known.

And he can suggest (his own theory) that there isn't a GOD...but it doesn't change, just because he can't test his own theory that there is a GOD...
And he can either believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD or he can choose not to believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD...

It still won't, in the end, change the TRUTH about and of GOD.

 

[paul becke]

Wow, any scientist that could "disprove evolution" would be guaranteed a Nobel prize.

I'll expect to hear about the prize winning research next year...

ha. ha. It's never been proved ! Far from it. It's incumbent on you to produce the evidence. Oh, perhaps you're a time-traveller. A really amusing thing to read is the incessant stream of different exclamations of surprise that yet another evolutionary (sub)theory has been found in reality to have been false. 'Well, how about that ! Evolution never ceases to spring surprises on us.' Very funny. The thing about evolution is that it, in the eyes of its 'faithful', it can never be disproved.

 

[miknik5]

ha. ha. It's never been proved ! Far from it. It's incumbent on you to produce the evidence. Oh, perhaps you're a time-traveller. A really amusing thing to read is the incessant stream of different exclamations of surprise that yet another evolutionary (sub)theory has been found in reality to have been false. 'Well, how about that ! Evolution never ceases to spring surprises on us.' Very funny. The thing about evolution is that it, in the eyes of its 'faithful', it can never be disproved.

Why are you angry about this as if you have something to lose?

 

[bhayes]

A mind is a computational process. It takes an input and it gives you an output. But, what we are is much more than that, because much of who we are is a memetic form of information that doesn't get passed on genetically.
Just look up feral children, and see what we really are without memetic programming that we rely on.

Evolution doesn't provide this information. Evolution attempts to explain development. You are talking about neurophysiology.

We aren't just physical bits of information that works according to algorithms. You are not your body, just a body, a brain or anything physical for that matter. You are a soul, in a body. Maybe this can explain it better:

Yes your brain works according to physical laws but that is the body that God created for us which everyone is subject to. Jesus Christ himself came to this earth and was subject to the same body, that he created.

 

[miknik5]

AWESOME POST...now if only the world would get it!~

 

[paul becke]

! Far from it. It's incumbent on you to produce the evidence. Oh, perhaps you're a time-traveller. A really amusing thing to read is the incessant stream of different exclamations of surprise that yet another evolutionary (sub)theory has been found in reality to have been false. 'Well, how about that ! Evolution never ceases to spring surprises on us.' Very funny. The thing about evolution is that it, in the eyes of its 'faithful', it can never be disproved.

Why are you angry about this as if you have something to lose?[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you asked. It's because, you people seem to know so little, not only about about the fraudulent nature of so-called 'evolution', but the associated evidence against it. Worse, is the knowledge that you have an 'a apriori' antipathy to having your atheism undermined. You tend to be fearful of hell and angry at the God you don't want to believe in, for putting you on the spot, and making demands of you. You're conflicted. It doesn't stop a lot of you from posturing absurdly, which only makes it worse.

What is your rationale for posting to these Christian threads ? What motivation drives you to your secular fundamentalism ? I post, not to argue with atheists, but to inform Christians who might not have read the partcular article I post. What I must do, is remember not to respond to atheist posters on science threads. They may be knowledgeable about a lot of things, but science and religion do not figure among them. I just don't get any kind of 'buzz' or sense of fulfilment in responding to posters I know have an a prior disinclination to change their worldview ; certainly on a sixpence, as these forums encourage. I would need to know that an atheist or agnstoc is truly interested, because he understands the inadequacy of his position. For such people, in any case, I could not do better, in any case, than to recommend they follow 'uncommondescent.com'.

As for the 'having something to lose', yes, I resent the thought of the futility, the waste of my time. That's not being snarky, just the reality. I have an 18 hour days, and it's not normally enough, though tiredness sometimes gets the better of me. I do wish you all well. I was a rabid agnostic at one time and much more truculent than you, as I expect you can imagine.....!

PS : I'm sorry. I thought this was a thread I'd started. If I'd noticed it was in a Debate forum I'd have just left it for any who might be interested.

 

[miknik5]

Well can we first correct the quite that I did not say to reflect your name ?
How did "far from it" and afterwards get posted as being said by me?

 

[miknik5]

I have only one thing to say from all that you have said
Which for some reason is now showing also incorrectly as quoted by me.


Why do you need to KNOW anything before deciding to say anything.

Doesn't that already limit God (putting Him into a box which YOU have closed) because you first need to know the outcome and then effect for yourself

 

[devolved]

I have only one thing to say from all that you have said
Which for some reason is now showing also incorrectly as quoted by me.


Why do you need to KNOW anything before deciding to say anything.

Doesn't that already limit God (putting Him into a box which YOU have closed) because you first need to know the outcome and then effect for yourself

Hmm... because not knowing what you talking about and still talking about like you do, doesn't get people very far in terms of solving real problems.

 

[miknik5]

Hmm... because not knowing what you talking about and still talking about like you do, doesn't get people very far in terms of solving real problems.

Who said I don't know what I'm talking about



Because I do it is why I can't STOP talking about it

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Pardon my butting in, Frumious, but I couldn't help noticing,when scanning this post, what strikes me as characteristic of your lack of logic as expressed in a host of obiter dicta you utter that have the ring of a cliche about them, albeit, entirely vapid and without merit :

You're welcome to your opinion.

'.... but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing). Only if it is ill-defined in such as way as to preclude its explaining the 'thing' in question - which does not have to be the case. 'ill', according to your own definition, is the operative word.

'Ill-defined' means 'not having a clear description or limits; vague', which, in my opinion, fits the God concept. YMMV.

Einstein's famous equation is defined in the most rudimentary way, because it does not need to do otherwise. According to your criterion it is ill-defined...

I disagree; Einstein's famous equation is well-defined, although its implications may not be.

But thanks for your contribution anyway.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... he can suggest (his own theory) that there isn't a GOD...but it doesn't change, just because he can't test his own theory that there is a GOD...

I don't quite follow this - he seems to have a theory both that there isn't a God and that there is...

And he can either believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD or he can choose not to believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD...

The 'experts' are making a claim that there is a truth of God. The burden of proof is on them to show this to be the case. Their claim is untestable and unfalsifiable, and has no supporting evidence, so I see no reason to accept it. It's a case of Russell's Teapot, or Hitchen's Razor.

It still won't, in the end, change the TRUTH about and of GOD.

I agree. It remains an imaginative but untestable hypothesis.

 

[miknik5]

I don't quite follow this - he seems to have a theory both that there isn't a God and that there is...
The 'experts' are making a claim that there is a truth of God. The burden of proof is on them to show this to be the case. Their claim is untestable and unfalsifiable, and has no supporting evidence, so I see no reason to accept it. It's a case of Russell's Teapot, or Hitchen's Razor.
I agree. It remains an imaginative but untestable hypothesis.

You are free to believe what you want
But once again your belief (or disbelief) will not change The TRUTH that there is GOD who reveals (or does not reveal) HIMSELF to whom He chooses

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The notion that the Creator explanation is pulled out of nowhere is naive beyond belief. Do you realise how many men and women of extraordinarily high intelligence and erudition in their field, - possibly higher than yours.... - including Nobel laureates and paradigm-changers, such as Planck, have believed this (and with good reason) and that physics increasingly substantiates it, as Robert Jastrow and Arno Penzias, to name but two eminent scientists, explain. And no. Even an eternal universe - which we know is not the case - would not suffice for a team of monkeys to write a Shakespeare sonnet, never mind produce another planet with one of more than a hundred finely-tuned settings needing to be accurate to about an inch in relation to the distance to the moon. Each additional variable compounds the improbability exponentially by orders of magnitude.

The fact that we don't understand everything is no excuse to make stuff up, particularly stuff that has no explanatory or predictive power, has no supporting evidence, and is untestable and unfalsifiable.

Your world-view appears to be based on the scientism paradigm

It's not quite that extreme; I think we should use a scientific approach (i.e. methodological naturalism) when dealing with the natural world.

... there is no immaterial reality, since the latter could not be measured

Near enough; my current view is that if it has no effect at all on the physical world (the interaction problem), it's only relevant or interesting as an idea.

If you are serious about learning the truth, I recommend you delve into the explanations by the Christian apologists, William Craig and John Lennox, two extraordinarily well-qualified, Christian apologists.

I've seen WLC's arguments torpedoed too many times for them to hold any water now - notably by Sean Carroll. I'm not so familiar with John Lennox, but now I look he seems to be a smart guy, so I'll have a browse; thanks.

Everything in our world, as even Dawkins confessed, shouts out 'design'.

Everything? really? rocks and wind and rivers and clouds, etc.? Or are you only talking about living things?

'design' implies intelligence. There is no way round it.

Not sure if the argument is begging the question or an equivocation of 'design'. I guess it depends what you mean by 'design'. Natural processes can produce patterns and symmetries that look designed, so - given your definition of design as implying intelligence, how do you distinguish between what is designed (i.e. the result of intelligence) and what is natural but only looks designed - what are your criteria for distinguishing intelligent design?

Personally, I prefer to see design as a process for generating effective physical solutions to problems. Natural selection is a great designer in that respect - generating effective physical solutions to the problems of survival and reproduction. It uses trial and error, which is a slow business, but it's had 3 billion-odd years to get where it is today. It can come up with all kinds of unexpected solutions - that's why we've started using the underlying principle to design stuff for ourselves that we wouldn't otherwise have thought of.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... your belief (or disbelief) will not change The TRUTH that there is GOD who reveals (or does not reveal) HIMSELF to whom He chooses

So you keep saying. But the truth of an assertion isn't dependent on repetition (or all-caps shouting).

 

[miknik5]

So you keep saying. But the truth of an assertion isn't dependent on repetition (or all-caps shouting).

my caps will only be used for reverence to God and GODLY TRUTHS

I would like to have my personal input now off topic from the discussion:
Please do not take a portion of my post out of context to somehow support or imply something outside of what was said

 

[miknik5]

Asserting your own truth by truncating another's post will not make ones assertion truth

It only makes the person appear to be dishonest or desperate

 

[miknik5]

he can suggest (his own theory) that there isn't a GOD...but it doesn't change, just because he can't test his own theory that there is a GOD...

I don't quite follow this - he seems to have a theory both that there isn't a God and that there is...
===================

The reason you "couldn't quite follow" the above comment made by me was because you truncated my post...here is the full of what was said...
↑

A hypothesis is a potential explanation for some observation or observations. A good (useful) hypothesis should have explanatory power , so it explains observations in terms of concepts and ideas that are informative, i.e. enable us to understand how those observations came about, and use it to explain other observations; it should explain the unexplained in terms of what is known and understood; it should have simplicity (parsimony), explaining observations with a minimal number of assumptions, entities, and forces (Occam's Razor).

I understood that...Which is why I said that what is being studied is based on available tangible things already present...that a man (in any field) can only go back as far as what is available to him to study...after that, he can't.

A man can NOT go back to the very beginning before any thing was created...he can't...he can suggest a hypothesis, a theory, but that is what it is...
As additional information (tangible information) is found, a man can use that to either change, or confirm his hyposthesis/theory...but still he can not assume that he has everything...

If it raises more questions than it answers, it isn't simple or explanatory. A good explanation has scope, meaning it can explain many different types of observations (e.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation explains why things fall to the ground, why planets and stars are spherical, and why planets orbit stars).

It should have predictive power, which tells you what new observations you can make about it, and the results you'll get from them; i.e. it should predict something previously unknown.

Those attributes contribute to the crucial one of testability, which means there must be a way of making observations to show whether or not it is likely to be correct - and most importantly, observations that could potentially show it to beincorrect (falsifiability), so that if your hypothesis makes a prediction and that prediction is false, your hypothesis is probably wrong.

Of course.

These criteria are some of what we should expect from a good hypothesis and part of the criteria for abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) used in science.

The God hypothesis is poor because the 'God' concept is ill-defined - there's no clear, agreed definition of its properties and attributes, and it fails all the criteria (above) for a good hypothesis (except, possibly, scope, which encompasses everything; but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing).

Does that help?

It does help and it means that I understood exactly what your thesis was when you referred to GOD as you had...
Which is why I said that you can only base your theories on what is presently given and known...
But man can't go back to the very beginning before anything was given and known.

And he can suggest (his own theory) that there isn't a GOD...but it doesn't change, just because he can't test his own theory that there is a GOD...
And he can either believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD or he can choose not to believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD...

It still won't, in the end, change the TRUTH about and of GOD.[/quote]