Hey, Atheists...

[BCP1928]

But your conflating the naturalistic view which doesn't conform with the belief in God view. For one thiestic evolution supports teleology. It doesn't support that variation is caused by random mutations natural selection as the main drivers of evolution. Thus the interpretation of the same evidence is completely different. They are not the same thing.

But atheists will use material deterministic naturalism and gradualism as the assunption and hammer thiests with it that they are deluded and there is teleology to evolution. That it can all be explained by naturalistic and deterministic processes. Its all pseudoscience.

No, your problem is not pseudoscience, it's your pseudotheology. The argument is not about whether there is teleology to evolution. Determinism doesn't come into it.

 

[stevevw]

If your interpretation of the evidence is different to mine then so be it. If you think that God is guiding evolution then go for it. But evolution is not a proof that God either exists or doesn't. 'Theistic evolution' is an assumption that God controls it. You need to believe in God to even suggest that it's the process. It's beging the question. So we'll ignore that.

Actually its not begging the question because we can arrive at the same view of teleology without invoking God. Its just an observation of behaviour within living creatures. Its how they think and believe and therefore act.

Its just that atheists or material naturalists will not see the teleology and will assume all behaviour is random or directed by material and deterministic processes. But its an assumption and really defies oberservations.

Its like Dawkins saying that evolution has the appearence of design and purpose but its not. It can be explained by natural selection. But that view is well outdated. The appearence of purpose is not just an appearence but a reality.

It certainly can. Maybe God is controlling what we'd describe as natural. The tides and the weather are what we'd describe as natural. But if God exists then he either controls that 'natural' process or allows it to proceed. Either way, there's no way to tell, so we'll have to ignore that as well.

Its not that God is using the same epistemic and ontological basis for atheists and materialist who limit reality to naturalism in denying there needs to be a God behind evolution. The whole idea is to explain the creation and evolution of life without God.

Its the metaphysical basis one being material and naturalistic the other though acted out in the world is primarily ordered to Gods creation and therefore teleological in nature. Big difference and I think material athiests would not go along with such a basis.

I'll be looking at what you'll be presenting as evidence. We haven't had any yet.

I actually did when I said that things like consciousness, phenomenal belief, God and His moral laws are lived outs reality. THis is a form of evidence in the form of lived experience (how people actually behave) throughout history.

Phenomenal belief which is properly justified even though it has no objective evidence. For example the experience of colors. We have no evidence that there colors are real. Yet we experience colors as real. We have no evidence that low is real yet we live like love is real.

The stories that have been passed down such as the flood myth based on legend which has been dismissed as superstition but now verified across many cultures. Which shows that testimony and the stories of experiences have a real basis for knowledge about reality. The biblical stories and teachings which cannot be scientifically verified and yet in all cases but are still testimony and evidence that people believe and use.

Again, you are assuming that God exists in the first place so that you see nature as having purpose. You're begging the question again. So, yet again, I'll ignore that.

Yet so are you. I am only doing what you are doing but on the other side of the coin. Your assuming material naturalism is all there is to explain things. So you will see everything in non purpose deterministic processes. Even if they are teleological. Why should your assumption trump those who assume God and purpose.

But the theists is not just seeing purpose because their prior assumption biases them. They are really seeing purpose and this is supported by the fact that non Christian scientists, biologists are also supporting the idea of agency and purpose in evolution. Thats there actually is inbuilt self organisation and that agents are self adapting and directing evolultion. This evidence has naturally come out of the data and not religion.

I'll see the evidence that you present. When you eventually present it.

I am sure I have gone through this before with you. Rather than go through all that lets do a thought experiement. Lets start with consciousness as this is the basis for belief in transcedent gods and other phenomena.

Can you explain what the experience of say love or colors say the color red is in material and deterministic terms. What is the evidence.

It's an extreme example of what people believe about God. You and I both disagree with such a position. But then again, you'd disagree with not only other religions, but what people from your own religion believe. In fact, you probably disagree with many of your own denomination. You and I are together in dismissing these other views.

Its an extreme example which is no different to non religious situations like politics. Or even footy lol where fans get so passionate that they attack other teams and wreck football stadiums. So its nothing special about religious belief in that regard to use as evidence that its a religious thing that is causing this.

I think your creating a red herring that there is such great disagreement between Christians or that some who disagree are obviously wrong based on the fact that they actually reject core Christian tennets that if rejected disqualifies you from being Christian. But that can happen in politics as well.

For those who actually follow the core tennets apart for a couple like JW and Mormons I think all denominations agree with the core tennents because they are clearly taught in the bible.

For example some Protestent denominations support SSM based on a compromised interpretation of the clear teachings that everyone has agreed with for 2000 years. Christ clearly teaches that God created man and women and they become one flesh in marriage. So its an obvious breah. So its not as if there are allowable disagreements that co exists that conflict with the core teachings.

In fact I think you will find that these core teachings will be the same no matter what culture or context. I could go to Chian and find a Christian and we will agree on the core beliefs.

As I said, if there was only one religion and everyone believed exactly the same thing, then it would be quite difficult to reject. Your personal views are just that. Evidence for your views have yet to be presented.

Actually the research shows that the core beliefs are remarkable the same throughout the world regardless of culture and relative context. That a Jewish religion can find common beliefs with a German, American, Australian, Chinese, Russian or Turk is pretty amazing.

But what they also found that despite the different religions they are not all that different. Relativists cite disagreement on beliefs or morals as evidence for why there is no truth to belief and morals. Yet what they actually find is similarities and its only the way that belief and morals are applied in the context that is actually different.

So this lends overall support that humans are natural theists and are all tuned to the same human need of belief in a moral God.

Then present your evidence.

I have so lets see how we go with that. We can get more specific in these examples I have given.

 

[stevevw]

No, your problem is not pseudoscience, it's your pseudotheology. The argument is not about whether there is teleology to evolution. Determinism doesn't come into it.

Not sure what you mean by pseudotheology. I doin't think Christianity is pseudo. You may but I don't. And of course determinism comes into it when where talking about the differences in belief and Gods and transcedent phenomena like consciousness beyond brain.

Determinism represents keeping all the explanations within the causal closure of the physical. So is antitheistic and transcedent. It wants everything to remain in the world of determinism, gradualism, materialism and naturalism to replace any trandedent influence like God or gods which require additional dimensions of lnowing reality beyond the material processes. It requires agency and teleology which material sciences reject as it opens the door to guidence and design.

 

[BCP1928]

Actually its not begging the question because we can arrive at the same view of teleology without invoking God. Its just an observation of behaviour within living creatures. Its how they think and believe and therefore act.

Its just that atheists or material naturalists will not see the teleology and will assume all behaviour is random or directed by material and deterministic processes. But its an assumption and really defies oberservations.

Its like Dawkins saying that evolution has the appearence of design and purpose but its not. It can be explained by natural selection. But that view is well outdated. The appearence of purpose is not just an appearence but a reality.

Its not that God is using the same epistemic and ontological basis for atheists and materialist who limit reality to naturalism in denying there needs to be a God behind evolution. The whole idea is to explain the creation and evolution of life without God.

Its the metaphysical basis one being material and naturalistic the other though acted out in the world is primarily ordered to Gods creation and therefore teleological in nature. Big difference and I think material athiests would not go along with such a basis.

I actually did when I said that things like consciousness, phenomenal belief, God and His moral laws are lived outs reality. THis is a form of evidence in the form of lived experience (how people actually behave) throughout history.

Phenomenal belief which is properly justified even though it has no objective evidence. For example the experience of colors. We have no evidence that there colors are real. Yet we experience colors as real. We have no evidence that low is real yet we live like love is real.

The stories that have been passed down such as the flood myth based on legend which has been dismissed as superstition but now verified across many cultures. Which shows that testimony and the stories of experiences have a real basis for knowledge about reality. The biblical stories and teachings which cannot be scientifically verified and yet in all cases but are still testimony and evidence that people believe and use.

Yet so are you. I am only doing what you are doing but on the other side of the coin. Your assuming material naturalism is all there is to explain things. So you will see everything in non purpose deterministic processes. Even if they are teleological. Why should your assumption trump those who assume God and purpose.

But the theists is not just seeing purpose because their prior assumption biases them. They are really seeing purpose and this is supported by the fact that non Christian scientists, biologists are also supporting the idea of agency and purpose in evolution. Thats there actually is inbuilt self organisation and that agents are self adapting and directing evolultion. This evidence has naturally come out of the data and not religion.

I am sure I have gone through this before with you. Rather than go through all that lets do a thought experiement. Lets start with consciousness as this is the basis for belief in transcedent gods and other phenomena.

Can you explain what the experience of say love or colors say the color red is in material and deterministic terms. What is the evidence.

Its an extreme example which is no different to non religious situations like politics. Or even footy lol where fans get so passionate that they attack other teams and wreck football stadiums. So its nothing special about religious belief in that regard to use as evidence that its a religious thing that is causing this.

I think your creating a red herring that there is such great disagreement between Christians or that some who disagree are obviously wrong based on the fact that they actually reject core Christian tennets that if rejected disqualifies you from being Christian. But that can happen in politics as well.

For those who actually follow the core tennets apart for a couple like JW and Mormons I think all denominations agree with the core tennents because they are clearly taught in the bible.

For example some Protestent denominations support SSM based on a compromised interpretation of the clear teachings that everyone has agreed with for 2000 years. Christ clearly teaches that God created man and women and they become one flesh in marriage. So its an obvious breah. So its not as if there are allowable disagreements that co exists that conflict with the core teachings.

In fact I think you will find that these core teachings will be the same no matter what culture or context. I could go to Chian and find a Christian and we will agree on the core beliefs.

Actually the research shows that the core beliefs are remarkable the same throughout the world regardless of culture and relative context. That a Jewish religion can find common beliefs with a German, American, Australian, Chinese, Russian or Turk is pretty amazing.

But what they also found that despite the different religions they are not all that different. Relativists cite disagreement on beliefs or morals as evidence for why there is no truth to belief and morals. Yet what they actually find is similarities and its only the way that belief and morals are applied in the context that is actually different.

So this lends overall support that humans are natural theists and are all tuned to the same human need of belief in a moral God.

I have so lets see how we go with that. We can get more specific in these examples I have given.

That's going to be hard to do, as your examples are entirely fanciful.

 

[BCP1928]

Not sure what you mean by pseudotheology. I doin't think Christianity is pseudo. You may but I don't. And of course determinism comes into it when where talking about the differences in belief and Gods and transcedent phenomena like consciousness beyond brain.

I don't think you know enough about Christian theology to form an opinion.

Determinism represents keeping all the explanations within the causal closure of the physical.

No, it doesn't.

So is antitheistic and transcedent. It wants everything to remain in the world of determinism, gradualism, materialism and naturalism to replace any trandedent influence like God or gods which require additional dimensions of lnowing reality beyond the material processes. It requires agency and teleology which material sciences reject as it opens the door to guidence and design.

Back to the big lie of Creationism:

"The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." --Henry M. Morris.

 

[stevevw]

That's going to be hard to do, as your examples are entirely fanciful.

Wow you have jumped into the thread feet first. Good on you. Noything like a bit of a spark to fire up the debate lol.

I am not sure which exmaples you are saying I have made are fanciful. Some of them or all of them.

Here they are again

Things like consciousness, phenomenal belief, God and His moral laws are lived out reality. This is a form of evidence in the form of lived experience (how people actually behave) based on their beliefs and experiences throughout history.

Phenomenal belief which is properly justified even though it has no objective evidence. For example the experience of colors. We have no evidence that colors are real. Yet we experience colors as real. We have no evidence that love is real yet we live like love is real.

The stories that have been passed down such as the flood myth based on legend which has been dismissed as superstition but now verified across many cultures. Which shows that testimony and the stories of experiences have a real basis for knowledge about reality. The biblical stories and teachings which cannot be scientifically verified and yet in all cases but are still testimony and evidence that people believe and use.

Before I provide some evidence can you answer this question as it may save me having to go through all the hassel of digging out the evidence again.

Can you explain what the experience of say love or colors say the color red is in material and deterministic terms. What is the evidence.

 

[BCP1928]

Wow you hav

Can you explain what the experience of say love or colors say the color red is in material and deterministic terms. What is the evidence.

No, I cannot, as I do not subscribe to determinism. I hardly think anyone does any more, since the development of quantum theory.

 

[stevevw]

I don't think you know enough about Christian theology to form an opinion.

Ok so I am a Christian thats a good start. I read the bible that helps. I have studied church history in the context of other religions. These I do because I am a Christian and obviously am motivated to find out more about the belief I belong to.

So I am not sure what you mean by Christian theology. The definition relates to the systematic study and exploration of Christian beliefs and practices, primarily focusing on the Old and New Testaments and Christian tradition. So I read the bible and study the traditions. Thats exactly what I am doing.

No, it doesn't.

Of course it does. If it opened the door to beyond the causal closure of the physical then this would have to allow for the transcedent and supernatural ie beyond objective reality and the material naturalistic processes that can be explains by deterministic processes such as time, space, matter particle physics, forces and fields, QM, chemical and electrical reactions, neurons, ect. All the objective measurable processes.

Back to the big lie of Creationism:

Who said anything about creationism. I included other gods who may have different beliefs about reality. You don't have to be a creationist to believe humans have agency. Or that life has meaning and purpose beyond this world.

The point about materialism and naturalism that restricts all explaanations to the physical or objective sciences is that it is not just denying God or gods but anything that is supernatural or transcends the physical world and has an influence on reality fundementally.

So I am not actually pushing any belief but rather pointing out the philosophical basis for how we have two different worldviews about what is reality. Is it physical, naturalistic and material with no God and supernatural. Or is there also a transcedent and supernatural aspect to reality that cannot be measures in physical terms. Rather it is phenomenal but real.

"The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." --Henry M. Morris.

There you go, your doing my research. Thankyou. That is the classic debate 'Evolution verses Creation'. Has been going for 100s of years lol. I don't think we are going to resolve it lol.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok so I am a Christian thats a good start. I read the bible that helps. I have studied church history in the context of other religions. These I do because I am a Christian and obviously am motivated to find out more about the belief I belong to.

So I am not sure what you mean by Christian theology. The definition relates to the systematic study and exploration of Christian beliefs and practices, primarily focusing on the Old and New Testaments and Christian tradition. So I read the bible and study the traditions. Thats exactly what I am doing.

Of course it does. If it opened the door to beyond the causal closure of the physical then this would have to allow for the transcedent and supernatural ie beyond objective reality and the material naturalistic processes that can be explains by deterministic processes such as time, space, matter particle physics, forces and fields, QM, chemical and electrical reactions, neurons, ect. All the objective measurable processes.

Who said anything about creationism. I included other gods who may have different beliefs about reality. You don't have to be a creationist to believe humans have agency. Or that life has meaning and purpose beyond this world.

The point about materialism and naturalism that restricts all explaanations to the physical or objective sciences is that it is not just denying God or gods but anything that is supernatural or transcends the physical world and has an influence on reality fundementally.

So I am not actually pushing any belief but rather pointing out the philosophical basis for how we have two different worldviews about what is reality. Is it physical, naturalistic and material with no God and supernatural. Or is there also a transcedent and supernatural aspect to reality that cannot be measures in physical terms. Rather it is phenomenal but real.

There you go, your doing my research. Thankyou. That is the classic debate 'Evolution verses Creation'. Has been going for 100s of years lol. I don't think we are going to resolve it lol.

I brought it up to point out that your line of argument is getting pretty close to one of the biggest bald-faced lies a Christian has told.

 

[stevevw]

No, I cannot, as I do not subscribe to determinism. I hardly think anyone does any more, since the development of quantum theory.

I agree but they do. The most accepted interpretation of QM despite it actually being more complicated and breaking Occam Razors preserves determinism. You just get an aweful lot more determinism with the many worlds.

But I have often come up against determinism in debates. Just the citing of evolution by natural selection as the go to explanation for just about everything from morality, serial killers, the stock market to alterism and God Himself. Is using determinism to defeat God, agency, teleology and anything that doesn't conform to physical processes.

If its not that the genes made me do it its some other chemical imbalance, psychological disorder, neurons misfiring or subconscious influences we have no control over.

It seems the arguemenst and language speak determinism. As soon as someone mentions consciousness beyond brain we hear cries of pseudoscience, its the neural correlates of consciousness. Its all contained within the brain and theres nothing betond All your experiences, sense of agency, beliefs, feelings, behaviour is contained in the DNA and brain. Nothing outside of this is real or has any influence on behaviour or the world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol I was belaboring the point if you could even call it that as it was just a reply to your claim that "Nope. It's not about who believes or not or if there is evidence for a god".

I was saying how can it not be about who believes or not in God when the moral standard you are being asked to compare with is about what Chriustians believe from their God.

That Christians have moral systems based on their holy texts and beliefs is not in question. There is not need to evaluate whether the claimed sourcing (divine) is true or not.

So Christianity has a real basis. Its fundementally correct and there is a moral lawgiver.

This is a claim outside the scope of this thread or board. If you want to make apologetic arguments do so on the appropriate section of CF. This is not it.

You imply belief in God has no evidence and is a naturalistic phenomena don't you. Or have I assumed this from your posts such as

the evidence for the existence of those gods is extremely lacking
I have no need to add a god to understand human morality. The Theory of Evolution does not need a god to function.

I think my statement was clear.

Are you not saying that theres no need for God to explain morality.

Correct. Morality does not *require* the existence of a god.

That it is actually evolution that explains the development of religious belief and Gods. That there is actually no Gods and its an evolutionary trick associated with cooperation and survival.

Not a trick, but yes not *necessary*.

See my previous post lol.

See my previous post. In fact see your own words.

words you are not reading carefully. I've not called any of this "delusion".

I am only responding to your own words. The evidence is lacking. What evidence. Do you mean the naturalistic evidence measured by science. Do you accept other forms of evidence like 1st hand experience and testimony. Does that hold as much weight as evolution or determinant processes measured by material processes. No Gods allowed.

You dismiss God on lack of evidence. But God cannot even be measured by material naturalism like evolution. So you force an epistemic truth claim about how we should know and measure this reality and exclude all else as unnecessary and an epiphenomena we create as a result of evolution.

You use this to defeat alternative ways of knowing. In other words the only true way we can know the truth about God and morality is by material naturalism. Anything else is not a reflection of reality but a concept or belief we created as part of evolution. Which you say explains this without God.

I'm not sure what is to be gained from discussing this with you further. You repeatedly mischaracterize "evidence lacking" for "no evidence" and "not required" for "excluded". Perhaps when you get better at addressing the actual statements I make we can have a useful conversation.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually its not begging the question...

I'm afraid it is. You let the cat out of the bag by terming it 'theistic evolution'. It'll be ignored.

Its not that God is using the same epistemic and ontological basis for atheists and materialist who limit reality to naturalism in denying there needs to be a God behind evolution. The whole idea is to explain the creation and evolution of life without God.

No, the whole idea was for you to produce what evidence you think is sufficient for the existence of God. You haven't presented any yet.

I actually did when I said that things like consciousness, phenomenal belief, God and His moral laws are lived outs reality.

You can't use 'God and His moral laws' as evidence for God. Do you understand what begging the question actually is?

Phenomenal belief which is properly justified even though it has no objective evidence. For example the experience of colors. We have no evidence that there colors are real. Yet we experience colors as real. We have no evidence that low is real yet we live like love is real.

I see red, therefore God? Ignored.

The stories that have been passed down such as the flood myth based on legend which has been dismissed as superstition but now verified across many cultures. Which shows that testimony and the stories of experiences have a real basis for knowledge about reality. The biblical stories and teachings which cannot be scientifically verified and yet in all cases but are still testimony and evidence that people believe and use.

So you want to use a flood as evidence? Is the biblical story of God drowning a whole planet full of people including women and children, babies, the unborn, the sick, the aged meant to be a plus for Almight God? Who is meant to be all powerful? I need to teach some people a lesson so I'm going to drown everyone?

I won't say that this particular story was what made me question Christianity. But when I was around 13, when I discovered that people honestly believed things like this and it wasn't akin to Greek mythology, it was when I thought that I should think on things a little more. I'd advise against using biblical myths as evidence. It'll be a waste of your time.

Yet so are you.

No. I'm not. I'm not presenting any evidence or making any claims. I'm waiting for you to do so. For the purpose of this discussion (which I think will be ending soon) I am neutral of God's existence. You have to tell me what you think will convince me.

Can you explain what the experience of say love or colors say the color red is in material and deterministic terms. What is the evidence.

Again, 'I see red, therefore God' is not an argument. Let alone a sensible one. Ignored. Again.

Its an extreme example...

Used to make the point. Which was that different people believe different things about the same God.

I think your creating a red herring that there is such great disagreement between Christians...

It's a fact. You have to deal with it. It's not my problem.

For those who actually follow the core tennets apart for a couple like JW and Mormons I think all denominations agree with the core tennents because they are clearly taught in the bible.

They are interpreted differently. As you know.

I have...

No, you haven't. Except 'there was a flood'. Do yourself a favor. Number the points that you have made that you think are evidence. Bullet points. Longer than one line and I'll skip it.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree but they do. The most accepted interpretation of QM despite it actually being more complicated and breaking Occam Razors preserves determinism. You just get an aweful lot more determinism with the many worlds.

"Many worlds" is an interpretation of quantum theory, not an ontological claim of the theory itself. It's is not the "most accepted" interpretation.

But I have often come up against determinism in debates. Just the citing of evolution by natural selection as the go to explanation for just about everything from morality, serial killers, the stock market to alterism and God Himself. Is using determinism to defeat God, agency, teleology and anything that doesn't conform to physical processes.

If its not that the genes made me do it its some other chemical imbalance, psychological disorder, neurons misfiring or subconscious influences we have no control over.

It seems the arguemenst and language speak determinism. As soon as someone mentions consciousness beyond brain we hear cries of pseudoscience, its the neural correlates of consciousness. Its all contained within the brain and theres nothing betond All your experiences, sense of agency, beliefs, feelings, behaviour is contained in the DNA and brain. Nothing outside of this is real or has any influence on behaviour or the world.

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Nothing about it requires metaphysical materialism.

 

[partinobodycular]

I agree but they do. The most accepted interpretation of QM despite it actually being more complicated and breaking Occam Razors preserves determinism. You just get an aweful lot more determinism with the many worlds.

You do realize that even in your version of reality... determinism has to hold true. Even in a spiritual realm... determinism has to hold true. For anything to be coherent, determinism has to hold true. Otherwise what you have is complete randomness, and if things are random then all that you have is chaos, and you, and I, and an omniscient God simply couldn't exist.

 

[stevevw]

That Christians have moral systems based on their holy texts and beliefs is not in question. There is not need to evaluate whether the claimed sourcing (divine) is true or not.

But as it turns out that is exactly what is happening. I am being asked to show evidence for belief and God in relation to morality. This is because in comparing moral systems we will naturally look at the Christian one to see the differences.

Otherwise theres no comparison for which the OP is asking for. You have to name the Christian moral system to be able to compare it to the atheist moral system.

This is a claim outside the scope of this thread or board. If you want to make apologetic arguments do so on the appropriate section of CF. This is not it.

How is it outside the thread when the OP is asking what the comparison is for the atheist moral system as compared to the Christian one. You may as well close the thread as there will be no way to tell what is different compared to the Christian moral system if we don't know what it is.

I think my statement was clear.

Yes unless we have clear empiricle evidence its unreal. Its dismissed as unreliable.

Correct. Morality does not *require* the existence of a god.

Ok so I was correct in the claim above. As I said you are forcing your worldview onto Christians and demanding a certain kind of evidence otherwise there is no God and therefore morality does not need God.

To even say morality does not need God you are assuming this because of the prior bias in how you are imposing a certain epistemic truth in how we should know if there is a moral Lawgiver. Hense because theres no God then morality does not require God.

Not a trick, but yes not *necessary*.

Ok so I thought gods were invented not because they are real but because it was a sort of meaning making exercise that came from a deeper evolution drive to make sense of the world, to counter fear of the unknown and death and help cooperation and survival. So we could sooth and reassure ourselves with a make believe sky daddy.

words you are not reading carefully. I've not called any of this "delusion".

What is a delusion. Isn't it believing in ssomething that is not real. Being convinced in something thats not real to the point you make it real.

I'm not sure what is to be gained from discussing this with you further. You repeatedly mischaracterize "evidence lacking" for "no evidence"

No I am basing this on the actual words that coming out of peoples mouths and not what they think should be the case. Claims which clearly imply if theres a lack of evidence then theres no evidence. I know this because its used to defeat opponents arguements of the possibility of a moral lawgiver.

When you say you have no need for a moral lawgiver as evolution explains this you are actually saying there is no evidence for God in accounting for morality. You have already decided that no God is required. So any evidence provided to show God is necessary is automatically dismissed even as a possibility if more evidence came along.

and "not required" for "excluded". Perhaps when you get better at addressing the actual statements I make we can have a useful conversation.

Your not understanding the epistemic and ontological implications by your own words. If I gave you evidence that God is required then how can you possibly then accept that evidence when you just said 'no God required and evolution explains all this'. Its a lot beigger an issue to admit than changing your mind about which icecream flavor you like.

 

[stevevw]

"Many worlds" is an interpretation of quantum theory, not an ontological claim of the theory itself. It's is not the "most accepted" interpretation.

Heres the Ai result which sums up the most common view.

AI Overview
The "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, also known as the Everett interpretation, preserves determinism by stating that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are realized in different, non-interacting "worlds" within a single, deterministic multiverse.

Why would determinists not support preserving a deterministic universe. It aligns with their deterministic assumptions on reality. Otherwise they are inviting the observer into the equation which then this lends support for agency and undermines determinism.

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Nothing about it requires metaphysical materialism.

Lets take evolution. For the determinist all causes trace back to genetics and even agency is driven by genes. Otherwise another dimension outside the determined processes which allows the agent themselves to be the controller of evolution rather than forces acting upon them.

Lets take free will. To the determinist free will is a sort of illusion that allows us to have a sense of worth and identity in the world. But theres no free will in that we can have any real control as independent agents that could effect reality. Otheriwse we are back to inviting another influence on reality outside the deterministic processes that are limited to the physical processes like genetics, enviroment conditioning, neurons ect.

All of these processes fall within a deterministic world. All behaviour can be traced back to an objective process we can name and measure. There is no real agency that can transcend this and have any real influence on fundemental reality. Even down to the quantum level where determinist reject interpretations that make the observer central to controlling outcomes and creating reality.

That is more or less materialism. Only physical causes are allowed even if they are fields and QM interpretations that avoid allowing agency. Fields and forces are part of that material reality. So any immaterial aspects of reality like consciousness beyond brain, agency, teleology, any control or influence beyond these material processes is immaterial or non determinent and would undermine the determinent world.

 

[BCP1928]

Your not understanding the epistemic and ontological implications by your own words. If I gave you evidence that God is required then how can you possibly then accept that evidence when you just said 'no God required and evolution explains all this'.

Why don't you present the evidence and find out? Hans is apparently satisfied with his own notion about where morality comes from and based on what I know of it, it seems plausible. But Hans is a scientist and can be expected to change his opinions in the face of compelling evidence.

 

[BCP1928]

Heres the Ai result which sums up the most common view.

AI Overview
The "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, also known as the Everett interpretation, preserves determinism by stating that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are realized in different, non-interacting "worlds" within a single, deterministic multiverse.

Why would determinists not support preserving a deterministic universe. It aligns with their deterministic assumptions on reality. Otherwise they are inviting the observer into the equation which then this lends support for agency and undermines determinism.

Lets take evolution. For the determinist all causes trace back to genetics and even agency is driven by genes. Otherwise another dimension outside the determined processes which allows the agent themselves to be the controller of evolution rather than forces acting upon them.

Lets take free will. To the determinist free will is a sort of illusion that allows us to have a sense of worth and identity in the world. But theres no free will in that we can have any real control as independent agents that could effect reality. Otheriwse we are back to inviting another influence on reality outside the deterministic processes that are limited to the physical processes like genetics, enviroment conditioning, neurons ect.

All of these processes fall within a deterministic world. All behaviour can be traced back to an objective process we can name and measure. There is no real agency that can transcend this and have any real influence on fundemental reality. Even down to the quantum level where determinist reject interpretations that make the observer central to controlling outcomes and creating reality.

That is more or less materialism. Only physical causes are allowed even if they are fields and QM interpretations that avoid allowing agency. Fields and forces are part of that material reality. So any immaterial aspects of reality like consciousness beyond brain, agency, teleology, any control or influence beyond these material processes is immaterial or non determinent and would undermine the determinent world.

You seem to be talking about "determinists" but apparently you don't mean philosophers who accept deterministic causality. The "determinists" you describe sound more like members of some weird anti-science cult or esoteric society. Do they have a web page?

 

[stevevw]

You seem to be talking about "determinists" but apparently you don't mean philosophers who accept deterministic causality. The "determinists" you describe sound more like members of some weird anti-science cult or esoteric society. Do they have a web page?

Why

 

[stevevw]

Why don't you present the evidence and find out? Hans is apparently satisfied with his own notion about where morality comes from and based on what I know of it, it seems plausible. But Hans is a scientist and can be expected to change his opinions in the face of compelling evidence.

But not non empiricle evidence. Its discounted before we even start. Why would I present evidence that is going to be rejected out of hand because its assumed as a priori that it doesn't count.