Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

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

What is illogical about the Christian faith? And why think the mind is nothing more than what you say it is?

What do you make of Jesus' claim that God is spirit?

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Don't think that I chose this way. I would never have chosen Christ if the Father had not first drawn me.

Nor am I pretending, nor am I asking anyone here to pretend.

And what do you mean by choose anyway?

 

[anonymous person]

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).

The arguments I use have been around for a while. You've seen them before. Nor are they unique to me. The Kalam, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the ontological argument, and the arguments for Jesus' resurrection are all arguments I think you've seen before.

None of these arguments are going to make you a Christian though. They a part of a cumulative case for the Christian faith. Some will find them persuasive and some will not. Finding the arguments persuasive does not make one a Christian though. So even if you were to agree with all of them, you still lack that which is necessary to be a follower of Christ. And I don't think you even want to be a follower of Christ.

So instead of going over all of theae arguments which have already been explained in numerous places, I would just say that the truth is available to you if that is what you desire more than anything.

Nor do I see how I can be free to choose what I believe if naturalism is true. It seems to me that if naturalism is true, there is no "I" that endures through time. There just is matter and while I may think that I am a person who can choose this or that path, nevertheless such notions of will and choice are illusions, humans just do what they do because that is what has been determined by nature.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

The fact we can reason and that the universe works doesn't in any way point to a designer.

The fact you believe god can reason, is complex and still works perfectly despite the fact he wasn't intelligently designed should be a complete refutation of your idea even within your own belief system.

We know species evolve, and we know it is an unguided process on a grand scale. This isn't a hypothetical, we know it's a fact about the world. If you think that's indefensible, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Well, you see, that's the thing. You don't know if your decisions and choices will have eternal ramifications. In fact, there's not really any evidence to suggest that they will lead to eternal ramifications.

If your view is wrong, then the decisions you are making are poisoning the limited time you actually have in this world. If that's the case, then you should choose wisely and change your views.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

You're shifting the burden of proof here.

The fact they haven't refuted it is irrelevant. The fact there's no evidence to back it, when we have evidence that supports an alternate explanation is what matters.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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?

No, it just flat out isn't on two counts.

1) The evidence suggests that the mind is a product of your physical brain
2) Even if you could show that the mind was somehow non-material, there's nothing to link that to proving the christian god.

You should view the last part of your argument another way... you're attempting to use irrational arguments to prove a rational viewpoint. Non Sequiturs don't lead to a rational worldview. Come up with better arguments if you actually want to support your worldview, because this isn't doing it at all.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The arguments I use have been around for a while. You've seen them before. Nor are they unique to me. The Kalam, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the ontological argument, and the arguments for Jesus' resurrection are all arguments I think you've seen before.

None of these arguments are going to make you a Christian though. They a part of a cumulative case for the Christian faith. Some will find them persuasive and some will not. Finding the arguments persuasive does not make one a Christian though. So even if you were to agree with all of them, you still lack that which is necessary to be a follower of Christ. And I don't think you even want to be a follower of Christ.

So instead of going over all of theae arguments which have already been explained in numerous places, I would just say that the truth is available to you if that is what you desire more than anything.

Nor do I see how I can be free to choose what I believe if naturalism is true. It seems to me that if naturalism is true, there is no "I" that endures through time. There just is matter and while I may think that I am a person who can choose this or that path, nevertheless such notions of will and choice are illusions, humans just do what they do because that is what has been determined by nature.

The problem is every single one of those arguments are deeply flawed. If you have nothing but a bunch of deeply flawed arguments, that doesn't lead to a rationally held worldview. You just have an accumulation of bad arguments.

 

[quatona]

The arguments I use have been around for a while. You've seen them before. Nor are they unique to me. The Kalam, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the ontological argument, and the arguments for Jesus' resurrection are all arguments I think you've seen before.

Yes, and they are poor.
Actually, I sort of like that you have changed from using these PRATTs (an even moreso: the genocide apologetics) for apologetics purposes in favour of justifying your personal beliefs to yourself by referring to your personal experiences.
I have no intention to keep you from doing that. Your private beliefs are none of my business. This shouldn´t just be mentioned in the same breath with "arguments".

 

[anonymous person]

Well, you see, that's the thing. You don't know if your decisions and choices will have eternal ramifications. In fact, there's not really any evidence to suggest that they will lead to eternal ramifications.

If your view is wrong, then the decisions you are making are poisoning the limited time you actually have in this world. If that's the case, then you should choose wisely and change your views.

Sure I know my decisions and choices have eternal ramifications.

And my view isn't wrong. Yours is.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, and they are poor.
Actually, I sort of like that you have changed from using these PRATTs (an even moreso: the genocide apologetics) for apologetics purposes in favour of justifying your personal beliefs to yourself by referring to your personal experiences.
I have no intention to keep you from doing that. Your private beliefs are none of my business. This shouldn´t just be mentioned in the same breath with "arguments".

They aren't private beliefs or opinions. They are facts. That you disagree makes them no less facts. You're just wrong that's all.

 

[anonymous person]

The problem is every single one of those arguments are deeply flawed. If you have nothing but a bunch of deeply flawed arguments, that doesn't lead to a rationally held worldview. You just have an accumulation of bad arguments.

And yet no one here has been able to present one of these flaws.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sure I know my decisions and choices have eternal ramifications.

And my view isn't wrong. Yours is.

How do you know that?

 

[Dave Ellis]

And yet no one here has been able to present one of these flaws.

Pick your favourite argument out of your list, I'll show you the flaw.

 

[quatona]

They aren't private beliefs or opinions. They are facts. That you disagree makes them no less facts. You're just wrong that's all.

Yes, sure.

 

[bhsmte]

How do you know that?

Likely he doesn't, but he needs to convince himself of the same.

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know that?

What do you mean how do I know that?

 

[bhsmte]

What do you mean how do I know that?

Pretty straight forward question. Do you actually need that explained?

 

[anonymous person]

Pick your favourite argument out of your list, I'll show you the flaw.

I don't have a favorite argument.

I would say Jesus' power manifested in its transformative work in all aspects of my life is the greatest evidence for me that my worldview is true. I did what the Bible prescribes and got what it promised. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

 

[anonymous person]

Pretty straight forward question. Do you actually need that explained?

Sure