Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
If you don't have anything to add...it would be better to not post.
Upvote
0
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.
Programmed to think
I didn't intend to impute any particular motive, simply pointing out that it's easy to speculate on about a model that would support, say, resurrection, but one can equally speculate about models that would support any exotic possibility the current model doesn't allow. Speculation is easy.... you really have no reason to impute motive here..
That wasn't what I was talking about at all, either. The current model successfully explains all our physical observations of the everyday world at human scales (and some way above and below). A substitute model, that can also support some exotic phenomenon the current model does not, also has to explain everything the current model does, and at least as well.You seem to assume that I am suggesting we bolt on clunky, awkward, needlessly complex new bits to the current model in order to accommodate a belief I have arrived at on other grounds. This is not what I am talking about at all.
No, you misunderstand my position - I'm suggesting that miraculous events such as the resurrection would be extremely rare and brief exceptions to the otherwise consistent and generally predictable behaviour of the world we observe (that's why they're given their own phenomenal category of 'miracle'). By the laws of the current model, which are derived from observations of that consistency, an event like that is not only impossible (here I'm assuming that the event is not just a misinterpretation of an unusual but explicable phenomenon under the current model), but would indicate that the current model is fundamentally wrong. So the rules I'm referring to are those of the current model, I'm not talking about a new model that would be able to break or suspend its own rules.Strawman - I never suggested that the model would involve "rules that are broken for a brief period of time"; to characterize my position thus is to make the error of not allowing the possibility of an extension to the present model that we presently have that does not require a "breaking of the rules" to accommodate (in the example) resurrection. And you apparently simply dismiss the possibility that we cannot produce such a model. Not exactly in the spirit of the scientific enterprise.
"Dr. Duncan "Om" MacDougall (c. 1866 – October 15, 1920) was an early 20th-century physician in Haverhill, Massachusetts who sought to measure the mass lost by a human when the soul departed the body at death. MacDougall attempted to measure the mass change of six patients at the moment of death. His first subject, the results from which MacDougall felt were most accurate, lost "three-fourths of an ounce", which has since been popularized as "21 grams"Gosh, I've got into some heated arguments over this subject. I believe that our conscience represents the soul, but others say otherwise. I think its all a cop out to keep assuming that there isn't life after death. I say thats ludicrous.
Why not? I'm guessing that you probably don't believe in unicorns because you've never had any evidence of them. If you did...you might believe.
What is it about macroevolution that you don't think we know?
I fully admit it's possible that I'm wrong...but I have no reason to believe that until there's some evidence.
This is great...I'm gonna share this post with another poster. Just yesterday I was having a discussion with him about this. I told him that I come across posters on here all the time who believe that their emotions are "evidence" for something other than merely how they feel. They aren't. Your emotions are only evidence of how you feel about something...nothing more.
No such thing as psychic powers. My wife used to believe in it, even though she's an atheist, until I got her a book written by a man who was in the psychic reading "industry" for decades....and he's never met one real clairvoyant. Every single "psychic" he's ever met was a fake just like him. There's a skill to it, sure, but it's nothing supernatural.
I can get the name of the book if you're interested.
Exactly....they aren't of any concern....because you've never seen any. You've never come across any evidence of them. I feel exactly the same way about souls and the afterlife...there's no need for me to be concerned about it at all until some evidence is presented.
"Dr. Duncan "Om" MacDougall (c. 1866 – October 15, 1920) was an early 20th-century physician in Haverhill, Massachusetts who sought to measure the mass lost by a human when the soul departed the body at death. MacDougall attempted to measure the mass change of six patients at the moment of death. His first subject, the results from which MacDougall felt were most accurate, lost "three-fourths of an ounce", which has since been popularized as "21 grams"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Have a blessed day knowing!
Ah, I see. Here I thought you had a specialty in a field that allowed you to make that aforementioned declaration about the brain not being programmed.Right....because we can think...which is pretty much the opposite of programming.
Your turn.
That can be true even without a soul.
That's silly. Of course our best guess is that something doesn't exist if the evidence shows it doesn't exist. Anything else would be madness. Think of applying your exact statement to any thing else.
- Just because the evidence shows there isn't an Easter bunny, doesn't mean squat.
- Just because the evidence shows there isn't a chupacabra, doesn't mean squat.
- Just because the evidence shows there isn't a bigfoot, doesn't mean squat.
- Just because the evidence shows there isn't a god named Xenu, doesn't mean squat.
- etc.
Of course evidence "means squat". If not, then we can't know anything, and you would have to argue that we all just lay down and not move, since we can't think that the real world exists.
Hey, did you notice that you just said we have evidence to show we know macroevolution is true? Nice to see you come around.
whoa, watch those goalposts move! Saying that it is arrogant to draw a conclusion from evidence is claiming that we can't have any practical understanding of anything - and we are back to lying down because we don't know for 100% sure that the real world exists. This has been like a list of common creationist carnards.
Im not going to believe in a fairytale.
Whether it's true.. or fact.. or real.
Well, Im glad you admit the possibility.
You underestimate your power.
Not interested. You think just because there isn't evidence means its not real?
The only difference between souls and unicorns is you'd have a reason to believe in a soul.
Ah, I see. Here I thought you had a specialty in a field that allowed you to make that aforementioned declaration about the brain not being programmed.
But if we all have a soul, what you say is not applicable.
I don't see any significant difference between this talk of souls and fairytales.
How hard have you looked into the matter? There's a rather large amount of evidence if you're willing to learn.
How about you? Is it possible that you're wrong?
Give me an example of what emotions can be evidence for other than how you feel.
It's not just a lack of evidence, it's an entirely plausible and natural explanation for it that keeps me from being duped.
Well you might have a reason to believe in it...I don't. I'm glad that you understand that having a reason to believe doesn't make it any more true.
And if we don't have a soul....it is applicable. What's your point?
Thats because you don't think it's real. There is a difference.
Read a lot. Researched a lot. Ill go with what I said to Papias.
If you have 100% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, you have a reliable conviction. If you only have 90% of the evidence that someone murdered someone else, there is a chance that missing 10% could prove that person innocent and the real killer is still out there.
Not with the power of Christ on my side.
You misunderstand me. Emotions are a perfect example of a soul.
Whats the plausible and natural explanation?
Why don't you? Have a reason that is.
This was your own, frankly nonsensical, inference. Perhaps you could show me in literary comprehension or criticism how you came to this conclusion?It wasn't a stylistic problem...it's a content problem. The obvious issue is that Lewis can't read minds.
No, human Reason, which I was talking about throughout."If "it" was due to programming, evolution, etc...."
What does the "it" in that sentence refer to? The brain?
I think Chesterton said it very well:Since I am not an expert, I cannot "prove" anything. Nor, I suspect, could anyone.
But consider the following example. Imagine two cavemen, Og and Ug.
As a result of the random genetic mutations that drive evolution, Og gets a brain whose chemistry:
1. Produces the belief that sabre-tooth tigers are dangerous;
2. Produces the belief that fire can be started by rubbing two dry sticks together;
3. Produces the belief that eating apples is a good thing to do.
And poor Ug gets a brain whose chemistry:
1. Produces the belief that sabre-tooth tigers are to be petted;
2. Produces the belief that fire can be started by rubbing two patties of wet mud together;
3. Produces the belief that eating rocks is a good thing to do.
Who is likely to survive to pass on his chemistry?
So, yes, I still maintain that evolutionary factors could drive our brains in the direction of being "machines" whose generated "thoughts" cohere very well with "what is really the case".
As C. S. Lewis pointed out, there's a difference between making an association and making an inference, which requires reason. If I ring a bell every time I put down food for my dog, the dog can make an association between the two things which will be useful, as with your caveman Og. But that does not lead to deducing an inference that the two things are actually related in truth, which they may or may not be. Based on brain chemistry alone, neither Og nor the dog can ever become philosophers or scientists or artists or religious.
This was your own, frankly nonsensical, inference. Perhaps you could show me in literary comprehension or criticism how you came to this conclusion?
No, human Reason, which I was talking about throughout.
Then every person who has ever discussed anything that anyone has ever said or written is 'mind-reading' and should thus be discarded. Perhaps you should take a course or two on literary comprehension and criticism?Wow...really? He's mind-reading throughout the entire article. Even right at the beginning...when he talks about his "friend" who saw the ghost...he's basically saying that she didn't even consider the possibility of it being a ghost. There's no way he can know that unless he's a mind reader or she specifically said that too him (and if she did, he makes no note of it). I can go on to give you other examples if you need them...he basically mind-reads his way into the past regarding those who witnessed Jesus's supposed miracles. The whole thing is filled with mind-reading assumptions.
I have explained myself repeatedly in this thread on this point. I see no reason to repeat myself. Please feel free to read my earlier posts.And that's something that you think cannot result from merely being able to think?
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?