Peanut Gallery - An Atheistic world view, reasonable and logical, or not?

[yonah_mishael]

What are Chick Tracts?

 

[Chany]

What are Chick Tracts?

They're bundles of joy and factual misinformation.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Those evangelical cartoons that they hand out in hopes of converting stupid people?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What are Chick Tracts?

They're propagantastic!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So, is it true that TCMD subscribes to Chick Tracts? I heard someone say he does.

Hilarious, if true. Also not surprising.

 

[Gadarene]

So, is it true that TCMD subscribes to Chick Tracts? I heard someone say he does.

That would explain a lot.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another post is up: #8

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Final post is up.

 

[Gadarene]

Second, human consciousness is material. Dissect someone's brain and see if they're still conscious. Consciousness is a product of complex electrical patterns and other material actions we do not yet understand. We know it is material because we can eliminate consciousness by eliminating the physical brain.

Yeesh.

Dualists are so adorable. I've never seen a concept based entirely on argument from ignorance in that way before

 

[FireDragon76]

First, the law of causality (which is not a scientific law) would mean that God has a cause. Unless you want to do the whole "God isn't a part of this universe" argument, which does not indicate in any way that God lacks a cause.

The common cosmological argument says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". If something never began to exist, then it needs no cause. That fits the Christian understanding of God.

I disagree that causality is not a scientific law. The aims of science are to find material causes for the workings of the universe. If you dismiss causality, you've dismissed the supposed science you use to reject belief in God.

Second, human consciousness is material. Dissect someone's brain and see if they're still conscious. Consciousness is a product of complex electrical patterns and other material actions we do not yet understand. We know it is material because we can eliminate consciousness by eliminating the physical brain.

Human consciousness is material? That doesn't even make sense. Maybe you mean to say that human consciousness is only an emergent property of matter? And if scientists don't yet understand how consciousness emerges from matter, can you really be sure that it is an emergent property of matter at all? Perhaps the theistic explanation is more sound, that Mind gives rise to matter?

Many medical researchers are beginning to question the assumption that consciousness is reducible to the brain. There are too many documented accounts of where a person has no brain activity or is clinically dead yet remembers details that they could not possibly have known.

 

[BL2KTN]

The common cosmological argument says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". If something never began to exist, then it needs no cause. That fits the Christian understanding of God.

If he had went with the Cosmological Argument he would have fared better.

Human consciousness is material? That doesn't even make sense. Maybe you mean to say that human consciousness is only an emergent property of matter? And if scientists don't yet understand how consciousness emerges from matter, can you really be sure that it is an emergent property of matter at all? Perhaps the theistic explanation is more sound, that Mind gives rise to matter?

Consciousness is material. Remove the brain, remove consciousness. Affect the brain, affect consciousness. Manipulate the brain, manipulate consciousness.

Many medical researchers are beginning to question the assumption that consciousness is reducible to the brain. There are too many documented accounts of where a person has no brain activity or is clinically dead yet remembers details that they could not possibly have known.

Horse manure. Dr. Sam Parni did clinical trials to determine whether individuals who experienced near-death experiences had actually left their bodies. He found they had not. All that occurred was their brain becoming confused during death, and memories of that confusion begin stored after resuscitation.

 

[BL2KTN]

Let me back-track. I hadn't looked up Dr. Sam Parnia in a few years... his latest studies still show that out-of-body experiences had no validity. However, they also show mental activity sans electrical output of the brain, even after death. I will do more research on this topic.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The common cosmological argument says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". If something never began to exist, then it needs no cause. That fits the Christian understanding of God.

The problem is that's the assertion, but there's no evidence to justify the assertion. Apologists who use that argument are simply trying to define their god into existence.

I disagree that causality is not a scientific law. The aims of science are to find material causes for the workings of the universe. If you dismiss causality, you've dismissed the supposed science you use to reject belief in God.

First off, we don't use science to reject belief in god. As far as most atheists are concerned, a god is simply a hypothesis which has not met it's burden of proof. That's not a rejection of the hypothesis, but it's a position where we have no reason to believe it's true. If evidence can be presented to back up the hypothesis, we'd gladly accept it.

However, what you're missing is a very important distinction. The law of causality isn't a hard scientific law, it is useful in the vast majority of experiences in the universe, however there are things we know of which are uncaused. Most of these examples deal with quantum physics.

That being said, even if the law of causality was a hard scientific law, the most you could say is that it applies to things acting within the universe. You have no reason to assume that law applies to the universe as a whole.

For example, things can only move as fast as the speed of light within the universe, however it is possible for the universe as a whole to expand faster than light speed.

Applying the laws that govern the workings within the universe to the universe as an entity is not correct. There's no reason to assume the universe requires a cause as we understand it.

 

[FireDragon76]

however there are things we know of which are uncaused. Most of these examples deal with quantum physics.

A great deal of quantum physics is not open to empirical observation, and much of it exists as hypothesis and speculation. So I see philosophical problems with this. For atheists who usually compare belief in God to belief in invisible celestial teapots, this seems like a hypocritical place to retreat.

That being said, even if the law of causality was a hard scientific law, the most you could say is that it applies to things acting within the universe. You have no reason to assume that law applies to the universe as a whole.

Why not? The current scientific evidence is that the universe came to exist out of nothing billions of years ago. So it began to exist and so it must have a cause the same as anything else.

For example, things can only move as fast as the speed of light within the universe, however it is possible for the universe as a whole to expand faster than light speed.

Now you are confusing physics with metaphysics. Just because space expands faster than light doesn't mean the universe is uncaused.

My evidence for the existence of God would start with the common human perception that a God or gods exist and people experience them as real... this has been true throughout human history. The atheist position is the novelty and the rarity.

 

[Davian]

The common cosmological argument says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". If something never began to exist, then it needs no cause. That fits the Christian understanding of God.

I disagree that causality is not a scientific law. The aims of science are to find material causes for the workings of the universe. If you dismiss causality, you've dismissed the supposed science you use to reject belief in God.

Not at all. What we observe in the universe may not apply at the instantiation of the cosmos. If this beginning was of the type that required a deity of the type you are positing, you need to step up to the plate with that evidence.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

Human consciousness is material? That doesn't even make sense. Maybe you mean to say that human consciousness is only an emergent property of matter? And if scientists don't yet understand how consciousness emerges from matter, can you really be sure that it is an emergent property of matter at all?

We have a positive correlation between brain processes and what can be called the mind/consciousness. Neuroscience can show brain development and damage directly correlates to brain function.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps the theistic explanation is more sound, that Mind gives rise to matter?

If mind is a process, how can that work? Can you also have material-free oxidation?

Many medical researchers are beginning to question the assumption that consciousness is reducible to the brain. There are too many documented accounts of where a person has no brain activity or is clinically dead yet remembers details that they could not possibly have known.

Can you prove an instance where scientific methodology has been applied to such a case of NDE?

 

[Freodin]

It's nice to see the debate going on here (even if some of you could strive to be more precise: no, consciousness is not material. It is based on the material, which is a little different.)

But I have to admit that I am quite disappointed with David's behaviour here: to present a whole new slew of argumentations in one's closing post where your opponent has no means to respond, is beyond dishonest.

 

[Chany]

I'm scanning through the last post right now, and it looks like TCMD tried to hit every basic fallacious argument in the theistic handbook that uses the argument from ignorance fallacy. There is also the fact that materialism is not synonymous with atheism.

I didn't like the debate topic for two reasons:

One, there is no actual atheist worldview. It is a part of worldview, but is not a worldview in and of itself. Thomas Nagel is an atheist who believes in the metaphysical realm, for example.

Two, there is too much to cover. Dealing with every single argument individually in depth is impossible. I could write a college thesis on epistemology and the foundation of logic alone.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A great deal of quantum physics is not open to empirical observation, and much of it exists as hypothesis and speculation. So I see philosophical problems with this. For atheists who usually compare belief in God to belief in invisible celestial teapots, this seems like a hypocritical place to retreat.

That's a red herring. While it is true that there is a lot we don't understand about quantum physics, there are some things that we do understand. Some of those things have no apparent cause (i.e. particles spontaneously popping out of a vacuum)

Why not? The current scientific evidence is that the universe came to exist out of nothing billions of years ago. So it began to exist and so it must have a cause the same as anything else.

That's a false statement. Science does not say the universe came to exist out of nothing. That's a typical Christian Strawman of science.

We can demonstrate the big bang happened, however we can't really say much at all about the state of things before the expansion of the universe began.

Now you are confusing physics with metaphysics. Just because space expands faster than light doesn't mean the universe is uncaused.

That's also a red herring, I never made that claim. My claim was laws that apply within the universe do not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. You'd be mistaken by asserting that they do.

My evidence for the existence of God would start with the common human perception that a God or gods exist and people experience them as real... this has been true throughout human history. The atheist position is the novelty and the rarity.

Argument from popularity fallacy. It doesn't matter how popular an idea is, that doesn't make it true. At one point it was true throughout human history that everyone thought we lived on a flat earth. Likewise, there have been cultures who never developed a belief in any sort of God.

 

[Davian]

your pre-scheduled meeting is just around the corner ----------

Was that sometime in May? Of which year?

 

[quatona]

The common cosmological argument says "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

This premise, however, is in sore need of support and substantion.