For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[mzungu]

Human love is not supernatural; it’s natural. But can you explain it? Since you attribute love to a physical process in the brain, can you or anyone else give a repeatable demonstration of how this process works so as to reproduce human love?

The feeling of love is based on hormonal actions. In fact a chemical substance that is similar is found in chocolate. It is hormones all the way!

By the way check out Oxytocin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

 

[sandwiches]

In primitive cultures it is very common to believe there are "spir its" in everything. Rocks, water, you name it.

In an intermediate level, there are still those who think there are 'spirits", but not in as many things.

Now, my culture, I was taught that to act according to how you
happen to feel not according to what is reasonable and makes sense
is nothing but self indulgence. Letting emotion run the show is very destructive on many levels.

This 'faith' concerning invisible undetectable "spirits" is no different on a quality-of-mental-process level, from the thought process that goes on with an obese person who cannot resist their craving for chocolate. No matter what.

We note of course that nobody much ever thinks they are doing something stupid, people always find ways to rationalize. In fact people, as so often seen on this forum, take great pride in their faith in their absurd ideas and rationalizations.

Well, it makes sense if you think that anything less than absolute certainty is an admission of lack of trust in your deity and therefore a sin punishable by eternal suffering. Therefore, it is a virtue to them to claim absolute certainty even about things they can't show to be true or things that have been shown to be false.

 

[Hespera]

Well, it makes sense if you think that anything less than absolute certainty is an admission of lack of trust in your deity and therefore a sin punishable by eternal suffering. Therefore, it is a virtue to them to claim absolute certainty even about things they can't show to be true or things that have been shown to be false.

I dont think like that and cant make myself do it.

so I guess i will get to hang by my hair in a fire.

 

[Greg1234]

In primitive cultures it is very common to believe there are "spir its" in everything. Rocks, water, you name it.

In an intermediate level, there are still those who think there are 'spirits", but not in as many things.

Actually, the further back in time you go, the higher concentration of knowledge at hand regarding these matters due to proximity to the Creation.

Now, my culture, I was taught that to act according to how you
happen to feel not according to what is reasonable and makes sense
is nothing but self indulgence. Letting emotion run the show is very destructive on many levels.

This 'faith' concerning invisible undetectable "spirits" is no different on a quality-of-mental-process level, from the thought process that goes on with an obese person who cannot resist their craving for chocolate. No matter what.

We note of course that nobody much ever thinks they are doing something stupid, people always find ways to rationalize. In fact people, as so often seen on this forum, take great pride in their faith in their absurd ideas and rationalizations.

And yet man is created through intelligent design.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Actually, the further back in time you go, the higher concentration of knowledge at hand regarding these matters due to proximity to the Creation.

Which is why they believed that rain was from someone opening a literal window in the sky, and that thunder was the gods fighting, and that ritualistically murdering innocent animals was pleasing to their vengeful god?

And yet man is created through intelligent design.

Something which, despite several million posts by creationists, has never had any actual evidence to back it up.

 

[Greg1234]

Which is why they believed that rain was from someone opening a literal window in the sky, and that thunder was the gods fighting, and that ritualistically murdering innocent animals was pleasing to their vengeful god?

Or that they understood weather so well they could calm a storm. I've heard the atheist theology quoted above. Use it as motivation for Darwinism k?

Something which, despite several million posts by creationists, has never had any actual evidence to back it up.

riiiiight.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Or that they understood weather so well they could calm a storm. I've heard the atheist theology quoted above. Use it as motivation for Darwinism k?

Just because you've heard it before doesn't make it any less true. Are you suggesting that primitive hunter-gatherers had a better understanding of the way the world works than we do today?

riiiiight.

I'm guessing from that response that you don't have any convincing evidence to add then.

 

[juvenissun]

Why are gods the only choices available?

Because that are choices given by the OP.

You may choose: none of the above, if it available.

 

[Greg1234]

Just because you've heard it before doesn't make it any less true. Are you suggesting that primitive hunter-gatherers had a better understanding of the way the world works than we do today?

Then you would have to relate "primitive". Not adhering to a Darwinian beginning this may be analogically outlined through man losing his sense of sight, hearing and smell over time, or in using the Nazarene as an example. As with the former, the tools we have today are considered to be "advanced" yet should the aforementioned sensory faculties be deserted, there will be advancements toward compensating for that loss. Without sight, hearing and smell, the microscope, street lights, telescope, computer, television, etc all become irrelevant and inadequate. Then man begins on a "primitive" quest to find tools through which he is better able to cope with his environs. In the background are classes of men who still retain these perceptive abilities or are more adept in fields relating to these and efforts are geared toward the preservation of man's past in light of an impending isolation from key aspects of his environment. Though this may be classified as the "root of technology", it is far from the beginning.

I'm guessing from that response that you don't have any convincing evidence to add then.

Already outlined.

 

[sandwiches]

Simple. Just like a multiple choice question:
The instruction says: Choose the best answer.

So your true question should be: why is this God better than that god?

So, you're saying that you reasoned that the Bible god seemed like the best answer, I take it. I was talking to Tinker Grey the other day about this and I have to say I don't usually believe people when they claim to have earnestly and honestly studied and considered other religions and creeds before they unsurprisingly arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of their parents were correct. I could be wrong but I doubt that any person raised in a particular religion who already believes in a deity really sees other beliefs as being equally potentially valid as the religion they were raised with unless they specifically WANT TO leave their current religion.

 

[Hespera]

So, you're saying that you reasoned that the Bible god seemed like the best answer, I take it. I was talking to Tinker Grey the other day about this and I have to say I don't usually believe people when they claim to have earnestly and honestly studied and considered other religions and creeds before they unsurprisingly arrived at the conclusion that the teachings of their parents were correct. I could be wrong but I doubt that any person raised in a particular religion who already believes in a deity really sees other beliefs as being equally potentially valid as the religion they were raised with unless they specifically WANT TO leave their current religion.

All we have to do is look at someone who SAYS he studied geology for 30 years and yet learned nothing of even the absolute basics.

We dont know how long people may have studied English, with somewhat comparable results.

 

[Delphiki]

I've heard the atheist theology....

 

[Upisoft]

Well, he could have found it between Jesus' atheism articles.

 

[Doveaman]

Ah, so you admit that science will soon replace your fairytale?

Nope, I’m predicting science will never replace my claim since they are relying only on the physical to explain something that is not entirely physical – the “human mind”.

What you're describing as the "will" is simply the function of your cerebral cortex. Your cortex can override a lot of your basal functions (thirst, breathing rate, etc.)

You can dehydrate yourself to death, but it will be rather unpleasant. Your osmolarity receptors will give you a sensation that is near impossible to override if water is available. Like trying to hold your bladder when it is beyond full. I take it you've never been stranded in the desert?

Basically, your "will" concept was born out of your inability to understand the functions of the cerebral cortex and the rest of the brain. Seriously, take a biology class. Anatomy & physiology would do you good.

Biology class can take a hike.

Unless your biology teacher can give a repeatable demonstration of what he taught you so as to reproduce the human “will” I have no reason to believe that what you are trying to teach me is the truth. Like I said, anybody can give an explanation, but few can give a demonstration.

 

[Doveaman]

Like I said. That's talking about psychics, not the human will.

It is talking about the nonphysical element of the human mind that generates the human "will".

Again, you are making a claim without any support. Can you please show me how it's about psychics?

Because in this case, even if we show you EEGs, MRI or CAT scans showing the activity in the brain, you'll keep saying there's an unknown component that those scans cannot account for. So, in other words, unlike lightning, in which you are not personally vested, you won't believe the data we have. Therefore, you must have some evidence that shows that the nonphysical aspect of the "human will."

What you fail to understand is that what you asking is absurd. What if I ask you to show me evidence that a computer's mathematical abilities are physical? And when you fail to do so, I'll claim that those abilities are nonphysical due to a computer spirit. A process cannot be extracted and put on a table any more than we can extract "beer brewing" from a brewery.

What I’m asking you is -- Can you manipulate those brain activities you claim to understand so that they behave in such a way as to cause a human being to desire to bake a chocolate cake on Christmas day and freely choose to share that cake with their neighbors? After all, this is what the human “will” does.

If you cannot even recreate the physical processes in the brain which you claim to understand, then how can you even know that they produce the human “will”?

If I claimed that the images generated on your computer screen were cause by a physical process, this physical process can be shown and demonstrated to reproduce those images on your screen.

Why don’t you just admit you don’t understand how the human “will” is generated, because you seem like you are on a boat cruise on a river in Egypt.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Unless your biology teacher can give a repeatable demonstration of what he taught you so as to reproduce the human “will” I have no reason to believe that what you are trying to teach me is the truth. Like I said, anybody can give an explanation, but few can give a demonstration.

The burden is not on me to "disprove" you. You made a claim - you have to show the evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In other words, I don't need to waste my time on your claims if you don't have a shred of evidence for them. It's like asking me to disprove the existence of pink unicorns in space...

 

[Hespera]

Again, you are making a claim without any support.

Why don’t you just admit you don’t understand how the human “will” is generated, because you seem like you are on a boat cruise on a river in Egypt.

Your claims are without support; why dont you just admit that you dont know how human will is generated, instead of pretending you do?

 

[Doveaman]

In primitive cultures it is very common to believe there are "spir its" in everything. Rocks, water, you name it.
In an intermediate level, there are still those who think there are 'spirits", but not in as many things.

That’s because they are.

Now, my culture, I was taught that to act according to how you
happen to feel not according to what is reasonable and makes sense
is nothing but self indulgence. Letting emotion run the show is very destructive on many levels.

But aren’t emotions generated by the brain? Why act contrary to the way the brain tell us to feel and act? If you feel those cravings, yearnings and longings, why resist them? Why deny the body its natural desires by acting morally instead?

This 'faith' concerning invisible undetectable "spirits" is no different on a quality-of-mental-process level, from the thought process that goes on with an obese person who cannot resist their craving for chocolate. No matter what.

Everybody has an explanation but no demonstration. Typical.

We note of course that nobody much ever thinks they are doing something stupid, people always find ways to rationalize. In fact people, as so often seen on this forum, take great pride in their faith in their absurd ideas and rationalizations.

And yet you cannot show my idea to be false.

 

[Doveaman]

The feeling of love is based on hormonal actions. In fact a chemical substance that is similar is found in chocolate. It is hormones all the way!

Do hormones cause a man to sacrifice his life to save a stranger?

 

[Doveaman]

Which is why they believed that rain was from someone opening a literal window in the sky

How do you know this is not true?