Does God exist?

[BL2KTN]

Have you finished your response yet, Jeremy? I'm hoping to have it in so I can rebuttal during some downtime in the morning.

 

[Received]

Even evolution doesn't have consistent speed, mutations have different frequency, etc.

And do you believe that there are universally shared traits and behaviors, e.g., facial structure, the way we show emotions, etc.?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sarah, maybe no one has told you this, but you need to know.

If what is moral or immoral is solely a matter of human opinion and feeling and preference, then your opinion that killing pregnant women is immoral is like you saying pizza is nasty. Many might share your opinion and agree with you. Those that do not simply do not.

I'm yet to hear a theist convincingly argue for how theism resolves this problem. It seems to me that theism only adds superfluous complexity to the problem. Instead of arguing about what's moral, we end up arguing over what God commands of us. The moral discourse is thus debased into a religious discourse, with my holy book against yours. Obviously my holy book is superior, so my morality wins the day.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm yet to hear a theist convincingly argue for how theism resolves this problem.

Right? It seems to me like that's exactly how it goes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And do you believe that there are universally shared traits and behaviors, e.g., facial structure, the way we show emotions, etc.?

No, because even facial expressions have different degrees, frequency, and acceptance in various societies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The argument from intentional states of consciousness is not a God of the gaps argument however.

That's true. It instead engages in other fallacious nonsense. Just like this argument:

1. if no pixies exists, the sun can not burn.

2. the sun burns

3. therefor, pixies exists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let us formally debate what it is that you think is the most convincing argument against the existence of God.

I don't do "formal debates". I consider them pointless.

I told you to present the "philosophical argument" you find most convincing. I promised you to point out how it is fallacious.

You are welcome to present an argument.

Don't expect me to waste my time with a pointless "formal debate".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sarah, maybe no one has told you this, but you need to know.

If what is moral or immoral is solely a matter of human opinion and feeling and preference, then your opinion that killing pregnant women is immoral is like you saying pizza is nasty. Many might share your opinion and agree with you. Those that do not simply do not.

No. The basic values that inform morality are pretty much the same accross the human species and are rooted in the fact that we are a social species that can not survive by ourselves. Then, a bunch of cultural values are added on top of it.

Then we gain knowledge and realise the consequences of our actions.
Then we, pseudo-objectively conclude that torturing pregnant women (or any living thing) is not really a nice thing to do.

At no point in this process is it required to appeal to a heavenly dictator.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Siri and Cortana aren't conscious or aware.

I wasn't talking about consciousness or awareness. I was talking about intelligence and the ability to understand and interpret questions in natural language.

AI is a form of intelligence, you know...

I'm suggesting something more like the reality that God is more like the awareness itself that pre-existed anything material

That's not a reality. That's merely your faith-based belief.

Matter emerged from Mind, not mind from matter.

100% of the evidence suggests the opposite.

There's plenty of doubt consciousness emerges from the brain.

Among the religious, yes - especially fundamentalists.
And the only reason they doubt it is because their faith based religions aren't compatible with it. Actual people who study the brain (neurologists etc) don't doubt this at all. You ARE your brain.

Many educated people, even some scientists, doubt this.

No.

I also believe near-death experiences are evidence that there is a mind-body dualism

You an believe whatever you want. What you believe is irrelevant though.
The fact is that these days we can actually trigger NDE by stimulating certain parts of the brain.

that the mind is not simply software running on a brain.

That isn't the case either. Software is transferable from one computer to another. The "mind" is not transferable from one brain to another.

Matter is the way that consciousness becomes embodied.

Another faith-based statement that is contradicted by 100% of the evidence.

The experience of yogi's and others adept at meditation are also good examples of how the mind is not simply reducible to the brain, since many of them are capable of doing things like flattening their EEG's below deep delta waves, yet continuing to remain conscious in the process.

I don't see how that supports your argument.

This disdain for philosophy betrays an anti-intellectualism that doesn't do you justice.

No. It's true. Philosophy has become obsolete in the world of natural sciences. There was a time where all scientists were philosphers a long time ago. Those times are behind us. Today, philosophy doesn't contribute anything to the natural sciences. Nothing at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Define what "take away the brain" means.

??

What part of it don't you understand?

I believe that my brain is important for what it means to be me, at this moment, but that doesn't mean I doubt I will continue to exist in continuity with who I am now, after death.

Sure. But that is merely what you believe, based on faith.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that every single form of intelligence, consioussness, awareness,... was emergent from organized matter. You are unable to give me a single observable example of a mind without a brain.

100% of the evidence supports the idea that minds come from brains.
0% of the evidence supports your idea that minds can exists without brains.

 

[DogmaHunter]

he is arguing that consciousness exists only as a by-product of a physical brain.

Ask him to support this.

Every mind I ever observed comes from a brain.

Can you give me a single observable example of a mind without a brain?

 

[PsychoSarah]

And do you believe that there are universally shared traits and behaviors, e.g., facial structure, the way we show emotions, etc.?

Nope, not even amongst humans are there facial expressions and emotions shown with precise consistency. Also, I suppose you didn't consider animals other than humans when you said this, but they do exist, and express themselves differently than humans.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Every mind I ever observed comes from a brain.

Can you give me a single observable example of a mind without a brain?

I jokingly say Ray Comfort

 

[KCfromNC]

he is arguing that consciousness exists only as a by-product of a physical brain.

Ask him to support this.

Easy - every published neuroscience and psychology paper from the last, say, 5 decades.

What support do you have for minds existing with no physical brain present? Just one example would do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here's the problem with the whole "intelligence/minds without a brain" thing....

In reality, nobody knows what you are talking about.

Consider this analogy (borrowed from Traci Harris)...

Suppose you tell me that you bought new wooden furniture. I then ask you what kind of wood it is, from which tree. You reply by saying "it doesn't come from a tree".

Well, sorry, but I don't know what that is. I don't know what the word "wood" means - if not the wood from a tree.

The same goes for "intelligence" and "mind". Every example I have of minds / intelligence are things that come from brains. I don't know what a "mind" or "intelligence" is that doesn't come from a brain.
Just like I don't know what "wood" is if it doesn't come from a tree.

You can yap all you want about how this is "supernatural wood" that isn't dependend on "natural trees" but the fact is that you will just be piling on on the confusion and the nonsensical claims.

 

[FireDragon76]

Easy - every published neuroscience and psychology paper from the last, say, 5 decades.

Psychologists are not, on the whole, committed to physicalism/materialism. Why would they be? Some of the assumptions of physicalists, like Daniel Dennett's denial of intentionality, would render psychology pointless.

 

[Received]

Nope, not even amongst humans are there facial expressions and emotions shown with precise consistency. Also, I suppose you didn't consider animals other than humans when you said this, but they do exist, and express themselves differently than humans.

Can you take my word when I say that this has been proven: emotions and facial expressions? I don't have my "Norton Psychology Reader" here at work.

Evolution of emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BL2KTN]

I think some of you are not considering machine-based intelligence and it weakens your position. Intelligence requires physical strata, but not necessarily a brain (though true for any biological system I can think of). Furthermore, I'd avoid the term "mind" as it is such a poorly defined term.

 

[Received]

q, just know I don't use these words to be pompous. Been there, done that, and my life was made more insecure by it. Now I just like words, and I use them pretty much immediately, with a little revision here and there.

I don´t need to "accept" it, because it was implicit in my initial statement.
If indeed we both win, you could have simply accepted my initial statement, instead of introducing pointless equivocations of "authority" which didn´t help with anything.

Well, I was just saying that there is authority in morality. Maybe you weren't saying that according to my understanding of authority. Secondly, just because morality is convincing in itself (whether or not this means there's a "power" to morality in this sense) doesn't mean that God isn't needed as an authority. God might be needed to create this morality or sense of universality (I think all morality is mostly reduced to universality, which again isn't an argument for God but can be explained by evolution), in which case he's the authority of morality, and therefore accepting morality means indirectly at least accepting God's authority. I don't think we need to go into the details here. But the more complicated and less hillbilly-like theologians out there interpret Christ in non-physical form to be the Logos, which is the "tying together" of the universe, or that which keeps the universe in existence, and would apply to reason as well as morality as well. Which isn't at all to deny any adaptive, evolutionary aspect of morality.

If you're making a point against divine command theory, I'm right there with you. Interestingly, Aristotle and Kant were both theists, arguably "god-fearing" theists, and their conceptions of morality are the only serious ones to consider, IMO.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Psychologists are not, on the whole, committed to physicalism/materialism. Why would they be? Some of the assumptions of physicalists, like Daniel Dennett's denial of intentionality, would render psychology pointless.

No it wouldn't. One of Dennett's main areas of interest is cognitive science.