The brain is not sufficient for consciousness

[miknik5]

Then again he also wrote that natural science should be taken into account when interpreting, for example, Genesis:

Spoiler

Augustine’s commentary on Genesis seeks to find the “literal” meaning of creation found in the first two chapters of scripture. What Augustine means by literal, however, is a far departure from the common contemporary meaning: while he insists from the very beginning of the first book that his literal approach differs wholly from a figurative one, it is certainly not what would today be called naïvely literal. Augustine seeks to find a “faithful account of what actually happened” in the creation of the world (2002, 168). This account, however, is not simply communicated by the plain words of the text—the length of the commentary alone demonstrates this fact—but with a careful probing of the words given in Genesis and with a clear method of interpretation. Augustine gives a synopsis of his method at the conclusion of the first book. In the effort to uncover “what actually happened,” Augustine writes that general knowledge of nature has to be considered when determining what the passages mean. A proper interpretation of creation in Genesis involves weighing it not only against the tenets of the faith but also against the knowledge of what the wider world shows to be true about nature. Hence a commentary on Genesis, if it is to be “literal” for Augustine, must engage in natural science, and must also be open to a plethora of possible meanings.

from Augustine, Genesis, and Natural Science by Jarrett Carty.

He was talking about creation? He wasn't discussing the time of the end, was he?
Did he ever mention anything about the time of the end?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did he ever mention anything about the time of the end?

I don't know.

 

[paul becke]

Ah, right. Well good luck with that

You might be interested in this (or not, as the case may be...) :

 

[Larniavc]

To whoever suggested we are struggling to disprove evolution really can know next to nothing about the subject of evolution (not as mere changes ; everything changes.) It's not even science. A layman's prima facie consideration of the lack of evidence of evolution suffices ; There is simply NO evidence FOR evolution. Pardon me, now, but I'm not going to spoon-feed you yet again. Just consult 'uncommondescent.com' and keep up with it. The Cambrian explosion alone disproves evolution !

How does the Cambrian explosion disprove ToE?

Do you even know how long the Cambrian 'explosion' took?

 

[Larniavc]

The TRUTH.
And of course the ONE who is THE TRUTH and has THE TRUTH...

Still gibberish. Are you talking about God, for some reason?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Cambrian explosion alone disproves evolution !

The Cambrian explosion? No, it doesn't. It was a very active period of evolution. That's like pointing to evolution and saying that it disproves evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You might be interested in this (or not, as the case may be...) :

Thanks; it's one of the better made Christian propaganda videos, but it misrepresents a lot of the science; cherry-picks quotes, often out of context, often out of time (i.e. before subsequent discoveries or theories explained a surprising result), and ignores contrary facts (e.g. it describes the universe as vastly larger than we'd ever thought, but then goes on to claim the existence of Earth is incredibly unlikely, when we now know that there are so many planets that even at odds of trillions to one, many Earth-like planets are practically certain); and it makes logical and philosophical errors (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).

I could cover the whole thing point by point, but that would take pages; if you have any particular favourite points from it, I'd be happy to address them.

When all's said and done, both philosophically and scientifically, a creator is simply not a useful hypothesis; it is ill-defined, has no explanatory or predictive power, is untestable, and raises more questions than it answers. There is no shame in saying there are things we don't know, and that there are probably things we can't know; it's certainly no excuse for bundling it all into a vague and mystical magic box called 'God'.

 

[miknik5]

Still gibberish. Are you talking about God, for some reason?

Is philosophy really being discussed here?

 

[miknik5]

Thanks; it's one of the better made Christian propaganda videos, but it misrepresents a lot of the science; cherry-picks quotes, often out of context, often out of time (i.e. before subsequent discoveries or theories explained a surprising result), and ignores contrary facts (e.g. it describes the universe as vastly larger than we'd ever thought, but then goes on to claim the existence of Earth is incredibly unlikely, when we now know that there are so many planets that even at odds of trillions to one, many Earth-like planets are practically certain); and it makes logical and philosophical errors (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).

I could cover the whole thing point by point, but that would take pages; if you have any particular favourite points from it, I'd be happy to address them.

When all's said and done, both philosophically and scientifically, a creator is simply not a useful hypothesis; it is ill-defined, has no explanatory or predictive power, is untestable, and raises more questions than it answers. There is no shame in saying there are things we don't know, and that there are probably things we can't know; it's certainly no excuse for bundling it all into a vague and mystical magic box called 'God'.

whst I find interesting is that there are experts for every field of study and people believe them BECAUSE they are the known experts in these particular fields

But when it comes to GOD and those called by GOD to be witnesses to the TRUTH....these "experts" are not believed

I hate to use the word "experts" in knowing GOD for the very reason that a man (even the experts) can't put "
"GOD in a box"

And that I believe is what is overlooked by every "expert" in every man made field of study

Basically the short of it is this:
It isn't theology vs evolution
It isn't theology vs philosophy
It isn't theology vs science

(And so on and so forth)

When one understands the sovereignty of GOD and His sovereignty over ALL created things then every manmade field of study is just that: man made.

Mans way of explaining by putting into words to define that particular field of study and how it effects him in the world and with other living beings And that also would apply to the field of theology (which is all inclusive and an "ology" to try to explain GOD

However when one understands again that one can't put GOD in a box then the proper way to address any of these debates:

GOD vs theology
GOD vs philosophy
GOD vs science

Kind of changes everything

Nope. You are right
It's no excuse for putting GOD in a box

 

[Larniavc]

Is philosophy really being discussed here?

Sounds more like religion.

 

[miknik5]

GOD vs Religion?

Still doesn't work...
Again, religion is also a man made thought on how to explain man's relationship with a god...not necessarily THE ONE and ONLY GOD.

And men can make mistakes.
GOD doesn't

Therefore, once again...
GOD vs Religion?

It doesn't work.
GOD is sovereign over all man-made things...and thoughts...and ideas...and suggestions...and hypotheses...and every thing and everything.[/QUOTE]

 

[Larniavc]

GOD vs Religion?

Still doesn't work...
Again, religion is also a man made thought on how to explain man's relationship with a god...not necessarily THE ONE and ONLY GOD.

And men can make mistakes.
GOD doesn't

Therefore, once again...
GOD vs Religion?

It doesn't work.
GOD is sovereign over all man-made things...and thoughts...and ideas...and suggestions...and hypotheses...and every thing and everything.

Ok.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nope. You are right
It's no excuse for putting GOD in a box

I agree but you misread my post - I said God is the box, i.e. the box of miracles: "a vague and mystical magic box called 'God'". Sorry if that spoils your thesis.

 

[miknik5]

I agree but you misread my post - I said God is the box, i.e. the box of miracles: "a vague and mystical magic box called 'God'". Sorry if that spoils your thesis.

It doesn't spoil the TRUTH that GOD is sovereign sir...
And it doesn't matter how much men want to get together and discuss things that are things and temporal.
In the end the TRUTH will remain the TRUTH...and will not change.
If it could change, then it would not be UNIVERSAL, ABSOLUTE,UNCHANGING TRUTH...yesterday, today and tomorrow...to all men....yesterday, today and tomorrow.

You didn't "spoil" anything.
And I don't have my own personal thesis...
If it were a personal thesis (especially regarding the TRUTH of GOD) I would keep it to myself...

For who is any man to add to THE TRUTH of GOD.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And I don't have my own personal thesis...
If it were a personal thesis (especially regarding the TRUTH of GOD) I would keep it to myself..

By 'thesis', I simply meant what you'd posted on misreading what I'd said.

 

[miknik5]

By 'thesis', I simply meant what you'd posted on misreading what I'd said.

If I misread what you said I am sorry

 

[miknik5]

When all's said and done, both philosophically and scientifically, a creator is simply not a useful hypothesis; it is ill-defined, has no explanatory or predictive power, is untestable, and raises more questions than it answers. There is no shame in saying there are things we don't know, and that there are probably things we can't know; it's certainly no excuse for bundling it all into a vague and mystical magic box called 'God'.

Please explain then what you meant by your above thesis

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Please explain then what you meant by your above thesis

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?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I misread what you said I am sorry

No need to apologise; my enthusiasm for the language leads me to use less common words and in less common ways

 

[paul becke]

Thanks; it's one of the better made Christian propaganda videos, but it misrepresents a lot of the science; cherry-picks quotes, often out of context, often out of time (i.e. before subsequent discoveries or theories explained a surprising result), and ignores contrary facts (e.g. it describes the universe as vastly larger than we'd ever thought, but then goes on to claim the existence of Earth is incredibly unlikely, when we now know that there are so many planets that even at odds of trillions to one, many Earth-like planets are practically certain); and it makes logical and philosophical errors (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).

I could cover the whole thing point by point, but that would take pages; if you have any particular favourite points from it, I'd be happy to address them.

When all's said and done, both philosophically and scientifically, a creator is simply not a useful hypothesis; it is ill-defined, has no explanatory or predictive power, is untestable, and raises more questions than it answers. There is no shame in saying there are things we don't know, and that there are probably things we can't know; it's certainly no excuse for bundling it all into a vague and mystical magic box called 'God'.

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 exponentially by 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.

We are all capable of great folly as fallen creatures (fastened to a dying animal, It knows not what it is', as Yeats put it), but scientism has to be as close to brain death as it's possible to be. Everything in our world, as even Dawkins confessed, shouts out 'design'. Even a single-cell E-Coli bacterium is of a complexity far beyond man's competence : a vast (nano) factory with ever department of a human factory and much more, all of a breath-taking sophistication. And 'design' implies intelligence. There is no way round it.

Still with the username, Frumious Bandersnatch, you must have a good bit going for you, at least potentially....