Godlessness and choice

[Dave Ellis]

I consider it an ad hominem, but anyway the main point is that just calling something gibberish or nonsense doesn't prove that it is so my argument stands unrefuted.

It doesn't matter if you consider it an ad hominem, it isn't. An ad hominem is when I personally attack you instead of your argument, calling your argument gibberish is attacking your argument.

And yes, when your argument is incoherent, then there's nothing to argue against. If I argued that the square root of pineapple is elephant tusk, it's gibberish. There's nothing you can argue against it, because it means nothing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Exactly, that is the evidence that our minds can transcend matter and in fact are non material.

How on earth did you reach that conclusion? That also makes no sense.

 

[anonymous person]

Except that currently intelligent design doesn't actually explain anything. ID proponents are still struggling to figure out to properly detect design, let alone begin to tell us anything about it.

Well, I guess that depends on your understanding of what an explanation is.

I think it is easy to detect design. When I look at what DNA is for example. It screams to me that there was some intelligent mind behind it. It is a language of sorts. The notion that it just came to be as a result of time plus matter plus chance seems to me to be indefensible. It seems much more defensible to view it as something that was intentionally created.

When I'm talking about explanatory power, I'm talking getting into the nuts and bolts about how things work. For example, if you take a look at some of the publications on the The Szostak Lab web site, you can get an idea of what I'm talking about. Or even just the illustrative examples on this site.

This is what ID needs to do. It needs to be able to get past just detecting design and getting into how it was done, if ID is going to have any real explanatory power.

Once again, this will depend on your view of what constitutes explanatory power. I don't think it defensible to hold that you must have an explanation of a particular explanation in order to conclude that a particular explanation has better explanatory power than its competitors. I think the design hypothesis for the existence of life and things like DNA has more explanatory power even though we don't know the specific in's and out's of how life or DNA was designed.

Think about it for a moment. Assume that it is the result of design. Why think we would be able to comprehend and understand the in's and out's of how it was done? Scientists oftentimes remark about how our knowledge and ability to comprehend things would pale in comparison to those of advanced life forms. I think a similar case could be made for our understanding the work of God. In fact I would argue that such a topic would be better answered by systematic theology rather than science.

The Bible says God "spoke" and it was done. John uses the word "Logos" of Jesus, a term suffused with meaning and nuance.

Again, a world view does not have to have an answer for the origin of life. Not knowing can be part of a world view.

You're right, you can just be agnostic about it.

The important thing to remember is that the Bible is either right or wrong about our origin. If the Bible is right, then it is a game changer so to speak.

Again, I'd like to emphasize that that prime number sequence is coming from a fictional narrative; it has never happened in real life. The truth is, we don't fully know what an alien signal may look like. And as I mentioned, if that signal isn't deliberately designed for detection (i.e. if it's encoded or using some sort of compression), then we may never be be able to detect it.

If we received a broadcast from deep space of repeating prime numbers, it would be defensible to conclude it was broadcasted by some intelligent life form. We would not conclude it just happened as a result of random natural processes acting on matter over time. That's all I am saying, and I think you can agree.

If a perfectly round ball fell from the sky that appeared to be made of some sort of polished metallic substance, and had what appeared to be a language written in it, we would conclude that some intelligent agent had made it. We wouldn't conclude that it just came into being without a cause or that it created itself, or that over a long period of time, it was formed and polished by wind and rain blowing over it.

If one was to somehow detect that the earliest life on Earth has non-natural origins, it doesn't immediately inform us as to that source. For starters, we don't know if it's supernatural in origin. For all we know, Earth could have been seeded by intelligent, albeit natural beings from another world. We'd still have a long way to go to determine supernatural elements (and good luck proving the existence of the supernatural; philosophers have been trying for millenia).

On top of that, even if you manged to narrow it down to supernatural origins, that's still no guarantee that it would even tie to any theistic belief on Earth. In fact, I'm not even sure how one could explicity tie just the origin of life to any individual form of theism of the thousands that have existed throughout the ages.



Sure, they went out and spread the message by any means necessarily, including fighting wars over it. Not sure what your point is, though. If you spend some time looking at the history of religious beliefs throughout the ages, they are cultural in nature. And like everything in culture, they evolve over time. Christianity is one of thousands of beliefs that exist or have existed. And it was neither the first belief nor the only belief. Yes, it happens to be dominant in this day and age, but it's still only one of many.

That's why I said it would be a remarkable coincidence if it turned out life had supernatural origins and those origins just happen to be the dominant Western theistic belief of the current age.



Huh? I think you completely missed my point.

When I spoke of scientific publications regarding evolution not mentioning creationism or ID, I did so because scientists publishing works on evolution don't feel the need to explicitly address creationism or ID. Scientific publications tend to focus on, y'know, science. IOW, hypothesis, materials, methods, etc. They generally aren't diving into political debates unless it's a paper explicitly geared towards that particular discussion.

You won't find a paper on say, the evolution of Drosophila melanogaster or an analysis of a Tiktaalik fossil specimen that ends with "oh btw, we're right, therefore creationists are wrong, neener, neener, neener."

Yet that's the sort of thing that permeates creationist and ID material.

Well, as I stated earlier, either the Bible is right about what it says regarding origins or it is wrong. I think a good case could be made for claiming it is right.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but it is limited because it is programmed. But we supposedly know that humans are not programmed, right? Otherwise that would mean that we are the product of an intelligent programmer, horror of horrors!

ana: Limited not so much because it was programmed...but rather because of the limitations built into it.

Basically the same thing. When you program something you are imposing limits on it. That is why humans almost have unlimited potential.

ana: It's nice of you to try and jump to a different point...but the moment we create an AI that, for example, can create an original painting...your whole argument falls apart.

I think they have done that already especially if it is so-called "modern" art. But actually if we ever create an AI being that has all the characteristics of a person, then that would actually prove that it takes in intelligent creator to create human beings or persons. It takes a personal being to create a person. Thereby disproving impersonal evolutionary processes as the creator of humans.

ed: Yes, of course there is overlap between the laws of logic and physics. But the laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning, the laws of physics cannot.

ana: I'll need an example of what you mean by "the laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning" before I can understand what you meant there.

Do you know what abstract reasoning is? Taking different data and coming up with a theory about what caused the phenomena and produced the data that you have discovered or observed.

ed: Only laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning and discovering non-physical entities such the laws of physics themselves,

ana: What? Non-physical entities like the laws of physics themselves?

The "laws of physics" aren't an "entity"...they're just concepts we use to describe reality. They don't exist apart from us as "entities".

Not according to most scientists. Most scientists believe that the laws are what causes the observations that we see. Of course, they use descriptive language when writing them.

ed; the existence and nature of theories, meanings, concepts, propositions, and truth itself. Something that operates only by the laws of physics cannot do such things.

ana: You keep making these claims...but you never explain why you believe them. So I'm forced to keep asking, why not? I don't see anything about our minds that suggests the need for some unnatural force.

Yes, I have explained why I believe them. I believe them because that is what science has shown. We know from science that physical entities operate according to the laws of physics and we know that minds can reason logically. I never said that there is a an unnatural force in your head, the mind is perfectly natural. It is just non-physical like many other non-physical things like numbers, laws of physics, laws of logic, and qualities like redness and etc.

 

[Ed1wolf]

"Yes, but nothing about cells being part of human legs, silicon as part of programmed machines, and clapping hands violates the laws that govern those actions. [...but physical processes producing reasoning do]".
"But reasoning and chemical reactions are incompatible as far as producing the same action."
"Scientifically they operate on very different principles."
"One operates according to physical laws and the other operates according to metaphysical laws."
IOW, every single sentence.

I see nothing presuppositional in those statements.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It doesn't matter if you consider it an ad hominem, it isn't. An ad hominem is when I personally attack you instead of your argument, calling your argument gibberish is attacking your argument.

And yes, when your argument is incoherent, then there's nothing to argue against. If I argued that the square root of pineapple is elephant tusk, it's gibberish. There's nothing you can argue against it, because it means nothing.

Again you have not shown that my argument was incoherent and your analogy is a fail.

 

[Ed1wolf]

How on earth did you reach that conclusion? That also makes no sense.

That only humans can reason logically, that is evidence that only humans are made in the image of the Logos.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Again you have not shown that my argument was incoherent and your analogy is a fail.

If an argument makes no sense, then it makes no sense. That's all there is to it.

Your post was: "According to naturalists the brain is just pure chemistry. We know that the product of chemical reactions are determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents, therefore your thoughts and conclusions are determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents in your brain, ie the laws of chemistry, not the laws of logic or reasoning."

There is literally nothing in that post that accurately portrays science or the views of biologists or neurologists.

It also is a complete non sequitur, even if your first part was accurate (which it isn't), there's nothing to link that to logic or reasoning in any way.

Therefore, your argument is gibberish. That's not an ad hominem either.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That only humans can reason logically, that is evidence that only humans are made in the image of the Logos.

This is also a non sequitur. The fact we can reason gives no evidence for or against the existence of a god or other deity.

 

[quatona]

I see nothing presuppositional in those statements.

I guess then there´s nothing presuppositional about declaring them false, either.

 

[anonymous person]

I was right with you until the last sentence

I agree with you on all of those things, however I don't see how that would have anything to do with justifying a theistic worldview. How did you reach that conclusion?

The fact that we are persons and that we can reason and that the universe we live in is ordered and exhibits certain patterns seems to me to cry out that there is a personal creator back of it all. With theism, you have just that, a personal agent with will, intellect, reason, and emotion from which we derive all of the above.

It seems indefensible to think that we are what we are and reality is what it is because of some unguided, impersonal process acting on matter over time.

Mathematical truths, the laws of logic, our thoughts, our memories, and other such things are not made of matter, they are not extended in space. They are immaterial and spaceless.

Our ability to know these things and to reason cries out that there is an intelligent mind back of it all

 

[quatona]

The fact that we are persons and that we can reason and that the universe we live in is ordered and exhibits certain patterns seems to me to cry out that there is a personal creator back of it all. With theism, you have just that, a personal agent with will, intellect, reason, and emotion from which we derive all of the above.

It seems indefensible to think that we are what we are and reality is what it is because of some unguided, impersonal process acting on matter over time.

Mathematical truths, the laws of logic, our thoughts, our memories, and other such things are not made of matter, they are not extended in space. They are immaterial and spaceless.

Our ability to know these things and to reason cries out that there is an intelligent mind back of it all

That this is your opinion is all fine and dandy.
"It seems indefensible" and "it seems to me to cry out" aren´t arguments, though, any more than "the belief in a creator god seems indefensible to me", for example.

 

[anonymous person]

That this is your opinion is all fine and dandy.
"It seems indefensible" and "it seems to me to cry out" aren´t arguments, though, any more than "the belief in a creator god seems indefensible to me", for example.

Well, I have good reasons for holding to the position I do. I have good arguments and evidence. And at the end of the day, I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. That you dismiss this as an opinion is not something that surprises me. In fact, I expect it.

Your time on this earth, mine too, as well as everyone else's for that matter, is drawing swiftly to a close. The decisions and choices we make now will have eternal ramifications. Choose wisely.

 

[quatona]

Well, I have good reasons for holding to the position I do. I have good arguments and evidence.

Then, to tell from what you have presented here over the years and in your various appearances, you must have put a lot of effort in hiding those.

 

[anonymous person]

Then, to tell from what you have presented here over the years and in your various appearances, you must have put a lot of effort in hiding those.

I have always desired that people know that apologetics is merely a means to an end. The end is placing one's trust in Christ and living a life of faith, one devoted to the fulfilling of His will until His Kingdom comes.

While arguments and evidences for theism and Christianity have their part, never let it be said of me that I was one who believed a man through his own will and reason, can know God the way God desires to be known by us. Let it be said of me that I was one who believed that unless God does a work in a man's heart through His prevenient grace, no man can come to Him. So while I will say that I do have good reasons and arguments for my beliefs, they in and of themselves are not why I believe what I do or live how I do.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I have good reasons for holding to the position I do. I have good arguments and evidence. And at the end of the day, I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. That you dismiss this as an opinion is not something that surprises me. In fact, I expect it.

Your time on this earth, mine too, as well as everyone else's for that matter, is drawing swiftly to a close. The decisions and choices we make now will have eternal ramifications. Choose wisely.

That's all cool, you choose the way you wish. Some folks, don't like to choose something they can't reconcile as being truthful in their minds. You see, some folks just don't like to pretend to believe something, because someone else claims they should.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If an argument makes no sense, then it makes no sense. That's all there is to it.

Your post was: "According to naturalists the brain is just pure chemistry. We know that the product of chemical reactions are determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents, therefore your thoughts and conclusions are determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents in your brain, ie the laws of chemistry, not the laws of logic or reasoning."

There is literally nothing in that post that accurately portrays science or the views of biologists or neurologists.

It also is a complete non sequitur, even if your first part was accurate (which it isn't), there's nothing to link that to logic or reasoning in any way.

Therefore, your argument is gibberish. That's not an ad hominem either.

While most biologists that are Materialists don't agree with the conclusion, they have not refuted the argument. See Chemical reaction - Wikipedia and also Brain Chemistry (Neurochemistry) - body, causes, Out of Balance

 

[Ed1wolf]

This is also a non sequitur. The fact we can reason gives no evidence for or against the existence of a god or other deity.

No, as I demonstrated above it is evidence for the mind being non material and that confirms Biblical teaching which is evidence for the Christian God. Also, there is no evidence that the non-rational can produce the rational. The entire universe has been shown to be based on mathematics which is a form of logic, how can a non-rational cause produce something based on mathematics?

 

[quatona]

I have always desired that people know that apologetics is merely a means to an end. The end is placing one's trust in Christ and living a life of faith, one devoted to the fulfilling of His will until His Kingdom comes.

While arguments and evidences for theism and Christianity have their part, never let it be said of me that I was one who believed a man through his own will and reason, can know God the way God desires to be known by us. Let it be said of me that I was one who believed that unless God does a work in a man's heart through His prevenient grace, no man can come to Him. So while I will say that I do have good reasons and arguments for my beliefs, they in and of themselves are not why I believe what I do or live how I do.

You are free and welcome to believe whatever you prefer.
This whole post, however, is completely besides the point I was trying to make:
If you come here saying you have good arguments, I would like to see those. (How important or unimportant a role they play in the fact that you are a believer, is a totally different question).

 

[StTruth]

No, as I demonstrated above it is evidence for the mind being non material and that confirms Biblical teaching which is evidence for the Christian God. Also, there is no evidence that the non-rational can produce the rational. The entire universe has been shown to be based on mathematics which is a form of logic, how can a non-rational cause produce something based on mathematics?

I've come across this argument before. I think Ravi Zacharias makes a big deal out of it. He says the mind cannot come about from a material source as if that is a sacred law that you cannot disagree with. I don't see why not.

These people together with the woomeister Deepak Chopra treat the mind as if it were some magical thing. But the mind is nothing more than the product of the brain which is material. To say that the mind is independent of the brain, one must show evidence that the mind can survive the brain. If you can't show such evidence, it's pure speculation.

Ultimately, I wish my fellow Christians won't prolong our agony. We haven't got the smallest logical leg to stand on. Sometimes, it's our pride and ego that prevent us from admitting this. We feel foolish when atheists tell us our faith is illogical. But if we truly believe that it's Christ who must increase and we decrease, we won't have this horrible pride and ego any more. Then atheists will find it easier to talk to us because we won't have this obstinate refusal to admit our faith is illogical when it so obviously is. It is wisdom to capitulate when we clearly have no ground to fight. Otherwise, atheists will rightly think we are idiots who can't understand their rational arguments. The fact is we can see they are logical but our egos won't let us admit that.

Cheers,

St Truth