Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Except that 200 years from now you still will not know exactly how the brain works if all you are relying on is science. Thats my prediction.The fact that we don't know right now exactly how the human brain works is no more proof of the supernatural than the fact that 200 years ago, we didn't know exactly how lightning worked.
If an intelligent thought, idea or desire is generated by a source then that source has to be intelligent. That's logical.How that follows?
I mean your "logic" is something like that:
"Whatever the first cause of snowflakes is, it is certainly snowflake like."
Actually, I know because Goddidit.In other words: "You don't know, therefore goddidit."
Futile to those who don't know God. That's not my fault.We know that argument. It is still futile.
Wel, the link can be demonstrated in a matter of seconds. If I bash on the head, you might lose your ability to recognize people, to speak, to remember, etc. The link is without a doubt there. No need for assumptions.
But we can. Indirectly but we can.
Since this would obviously lead to endless questions of "Then, what caused X? Then what caused Y? Then what caused Z?" I'll skip all that and admit that in the end, I don't know.
The problem I see with even trying to address this is that your argument is one of ignorance. "We don't know X, therefore magic." "You can't explain the mind, therefore it's nonphysical." "You can't fully control the "human will" therefore it's nonphysical." Et cetera. The reality is that all we've ever observed even remotely associated with "human will" is physical. Neurons, brains, electricity, EM fields, ions, etc and all you're saying is "How do you know there's not a nonphysical component?" Might as well ask "How do you know there is not an undetectable banana pudding component? Do you have evidence that there's no undetectable banana pudding behind consciousness?"
The process of consciousness differs from computer program only in its complexity. It's like claiming that since we don't fully understand how gravity works, it must be nonphysical. Why would we think that? Why should we assume there's something beyond what we can detect?
Yet you still add the qualifier "first cause" to the intelligence behind it so that you think you can avoid applying your logic to your own ideas.If an intelligent thought, idea or desire is generated by a source then that source has to be intelligent. That's logical.
Unless you are claiming that our “imagination” causes neurons in our brain to fire the way they do. But then you need to explain the physical process by which the “imagination” in generated in the first place, what’s the intelligent first cause behind it, because whatever that cause is it's certainly intelligent.
Yet you still add the qualifier "first cause" to the intelligence behind it so that you think you can avoid applying your logic to your own ideas.
If an intelligent thought, idea or desire is generated by a source then that source has to be intelligent. That's logical.
Actually, I know because Goddidit.
Futile to those who don't know God. That's not my fault.
What Doveman is saying is not in any way logical. I just thought I'd cut to the chase and jump to the point that you inevitably have to address eventually.I thought it fitting for the full quote to be viewed to follow Doveaman's logic. I suppose if one is incapable of following a simple line of logic one could come up with your answer
The source of my speech may be intelligence but there's no real reason to think that the intelligence itself is anything other than an emergent property of a pretty complex physical system.but then I would assume that your answer would have an intelligent first cause behind it, because whatever that cause is it is certainly intelligent or would you argue with this assumption, too? I'm just curious.[/COLOR]
Except that 200 years from now you still will not know exactly how the brain works if all you are relying on is science. Thats my prediction.
If an intelligent thought, idea or desire is generated by a source then that source has to be intelligent. That's logical.
Actually, I know because Goddidit.
Futile to those who don't know God. That's not my fault.
What Doveman is saying is not in any way logical. I just thought I'd cut to the chase and jump to the point that you inevitably have to address eventually.
Anyway, all Doveman has done in that previously quoted post is make the assumption that it must have an intelligent source. We can sit here and assume things all day long but it isn't going to bring us any closer to what's actually going on.
The source of my speech may be intelligence but there's no real reason to think that the intelligence itself is anything other than an emergent property of a pretty complex physical system.
And yet, this is only an assumption on your part, also, am I correct? There has been no DISCOVERED or PROVEN reason for us to think that intelligence IS an emergent property of the physical system. It really is ONLY an assmption, isn't it?
And yet, this is only an assumption on your part, also, am I correct? There has been no DISCOVERED or PROVEN reason for us to think that intelligence IS an emergent property of the physical system. It really is ONLY an assmption, isn't it?
When has God of the Gaps ever worked out for you?
Please explain what this has to do with what I was talking about!???!
And if you are asking me when has God ever worked out for me... the answer to that is everyday of my life.
But given the fact that the general trend is for us not to understand the physical reason for things, only to discover there is one after research, it's not the most unreasonable of assumptions to make.
Well, now that would be true IF the research that has been put into this particular subject had turned up some facts or evidence but it hasn't. And yet, it's not that unreasonable to assume that there is a spirit and a soul to man considering that people have actually accounted that after a death experience on an operating table or whereever their consciousness and understanding did not leave them and that they were aware of other realms. Now I will admit not all of the following situations PROVE anything but surely you must admit that it also suggests that it is not the most unreasonable of assumptions to make when considering the there is more to our lives than just the physical.
Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife
So an atheist would see ...It's rare to find someone who had one of these experiences while an atheist, and if someone is a Muslim, they see Allah, if they are a Shintoist, they see their ancestors.
"God of the Gaps" refers to making God your answer for a phenomenon that does not have a very robust physical explanation. For example, for a long time humans worshiped gods to ask for good weather. Now that we understand that weather is natural and is governed by physical laws, anyone would find it silly to attribute weather to God. Similarly, before we understood evolution, people assumed that God made humans as we are today. But that turned out to be wrong, because evolution is the physical and natural reason why we are here.
"Same thing goes for the human mind. Sure, we don't have a perfect natural and physical explanation for it right now. But that doesn't mean there isn't one, or that a supernatural or "Goddidit" explanation is warranted. There has never been a supernatural explanation that predicted anything accurately. Science is the only game in town for explaining and predicting things.
It's rare to find someone who had one of these experiences while an atheist
"God of the Gaps" refers to making God your answer for a phenomenon that does not have a very robust physical explanation. For example, for a long time humans worshiped gods to ask for good weather. Now that we understand that weather is natural and is governed by physical laws, anyone would find it silly to attribute weather to God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?