Where's God?

[Moral Orel]

Reminds me of the long-time favourite joke on Fundies Say the Darndest Things: a particularly obvious case of the misunderstanding the laws of thermodynamics: "The earth is a closed system. It should have run out of energy long ago. UNLESS there was some huge outside source of energy enabling life to keep going. And I think we'd notice if there were something like that!"
(Just in case you didn't get the joke, he forgot about the sun).

Not sure if you were aware of this, but this wasn't a joke. It was a real post by a real CF poster made famous by "Real Actors Read Christian Forums".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not sure if you were aware of this, but this wasn't a joke. It was a real post by a real CF poster made famous by "Real Actors Read Christian Forums".

It was part of that series:

However the video description says it's from smashboards and the link doesn't work. FSTDT appears to confirm: FSTDT

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you think we could do better than this kind of discussion:

Person A: "There is something about the taste of apples...."

Person B: "What!? Don't you think apples grow on trees?"

lol, I hope we could do better than that level of discussion.

...

Lemme address more directly the complete unknown you asked about --


It doesn't make sense to me personally to guess that God would make a 'copy' of brains. It seems too simple to me personally -- why should God be limited to just 21rst century ideas/speculations we have from our recent science/technology like making a data copy?

(i.e. -- that kind of limitation itself wouldn't make sense; more likely it would be something surprising to us, instead of ordinary)

We could at most only speculate. e.g. (random speculation): Transform the physical by some transformative process somewhat analogous to a chemical reaction or analogous to how a caterpillar in a cocoon transforms into a butterfly, etc. -- e.g. maybe the Quantum Mechanics idea of conservation of information (that information can't be destroyed or created) isn't breakable in a way that is best, so a transformation is best (this is speculation).

Who knows? Any such guessing (I'd expect also including when someone thinks they know) is purely speculative.

But the way spirit is connected to the physical is entirely mystery.

Consider further -- if spirit could be described/tested in some objective way, it would contradict scripture also and all would stop making sense, since any testable evidence would prevent/preclude/obviate 'faith', which is to believe before any proof -- objective evidence would prevent/destroy the central key goal of life here as described by scripture.

So, if scripture is correct (and if I understand this part correctly), then mere proof is always impossible to find, by God's intent that it be impossible to find, and any actual clear simple direct evidence would be proactively removed to help maintain the opportunity for faith.

Oh, I see, you will not tell us whether you think the brain stores our memories.

You will not tell us whether you think the brain is the part of us that thinks.

You will not tell us if, when a person dies, you think the brain disintegrates.

I have told you my answer to all three. The answer to all three is yes. But let it be announced to the world in flashing red letters that Halbhh refuses to answer these questions.

The whole question about needing to make a copy of the brain was conditioned on the answer to these questions. If your answer is "no" to these questions, then we need need to address why you answer no to any of these questions.

But if you answer "yes" to all three, then, by definition, any continuation of your existence would be a copy of what had previously existed in the past.

So when I address you, should I address you as one that thinks the answer to those 3 questions is yes, or as one who thinks the answer is no. You refuse to tell us.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It was part of that series:

However the video description says it's from smashboards and the link doesn't work. FSTDT appears to confirm: FSTDT

Thanks for sharing. Great series. I just watched a couple of them.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks for sharing. Great series. I just watched a couple of them.

Don't forget to SMASH that like button.


j/k

 

[Halbhh]

...
Is a thing good because God says it is good? Or does God say it's good because it is good?
...

Both of course.

 

[Halbhh]

Oh, I see, you will not tell us whether you think the brain stores our memories.

The "physical" as I was writing above is how I referred to the brain (i.e. the brain is physical of course) -- the brain stores memories, has thoughts, and so on, A-Z for all known brain functions (which are numerous), as everyone we could guess here is perfectly aware at least in part.

Does that help?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The "physical" as I was writing above is how I referred to the brain (i.e. the brain is physical of course) -- the brain stores memories, has thoughts, and so on, A-Z for all known brain functions (which are numerous), as everyone we could guess here is perfectly aware at least in part.

Does that help?

Sorta.

So when the brain is destroyed, do you agree that all our memories and thoughts are gone? Do you agree that the only way we could think after that would be if somebody made a copy of what had previously resided in the brain?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Both of course.

A novel position. You go for the logical impossibility.
Are you familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma?
Perhaps you'd like to read about it before you respond. Here is a brief and readable summary of the dilemma:
Euthyphro Dilemma { Philosophy Index }

 

[ISteveB]

That's not how it works. Nobody is going to do a double-blind study if we don't even have a hypothesis about an effect we want to test.

Sounds like you have already established an hypothesis.
Your entire thread here is a fairly simple question.

So go put together a double blind study.
Or is that the point?
You're not willing to take the time to do so and instead, push it off on people with whom you have no awareness of, so their motives are unknown, which would give you the excuse to ignore their results once you realized they didn't support your preconceptions and biases?
It's okay if that's what you really want.

Some people have no interest whatsoever in actually learning the truth and knowing God. The just like things the way they are and the very concept of learning truth is terrifying to them.

You are the one that claimed that God gives clarity to surgeons. Do you care to form a hypothesis, such as surgeon that do x get more clarity than those who don't? If you cannot form a hypothesis about which surgeons will get more clarity, how can you claim that some clarity of surgeons comes from God?

You're the one who keeps asking where God is.

You're the one who asked if a double blind study could be done to find out.

So...

Do a double blind study.

You have a working hypothesis.
You have a 24 page thread, which has developed extensive discussions.
You have more than enough to develop a working study.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sounds like you have already established an hypothesis.
Your entire thread here is a fairly simple question.

So go put together a double blind study.
Or is that the point?
You're not willing to take the time to do so and instead, push it off on people with whom you have no awareness of, so their motives are unknown, which would give you the excuse to ignore their results once you realized they didn't support your preconceptions and biases?
It's okay if that's what you really want.

Some people have no interest whatsoever in actually learning the truth and knowing God. The just like things the way they are and the very concept of learning truth is terrifying to them.


You're the one who keeps asking where God is.

You're the one who asked if a double blind study could be done to find out.

So...

Do a double blind study.

You have a working hypothesis.
You have a 24 page thread, which has developed extensive discussions.
You have more than enough to develop a working study.

You are the one who made the claim that God gives some doctors clarity of mind iwhen condition x is met. But you won't tell us what x is. And yet somehow you expect me to set up a double blind study to test if your claim is true. How could one possibly do that if you won't tell us what x is?

 

[ISteveB]

You are the one who made the claim that God gives some doctors clarity of mind iwhen condition x is met. But you won't tell us what x is. And yet somehow you expect me to set up a double blind study to test if your claim is true. How could one possibly do that if you won't tell us what x is?

Ok. So you lack the courage to actually find out for yourself.

Why did you bother asking?

Do yourself a favor.

If you're not actually willing to do what it takes to know the truth, then don't expect to learn the truth.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Huh? The fossil record is full of transitional forms. See List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia .

Most of that list is just the oldest of a particular group, it only listed a few if any real transition forms. So try again.

dm: Regarding the ape to human transition, there are clear transitionals like australopithecine and homo habilis.

Australopithecines' show evidence of being pure ape. By the rearward location of their foramen magnum it has been shown that they were only facultative bipeds not obligate bipeds like humans. Their brain and hands are very similar to chimpanzees. So these being key human characteristics it is unlikely that they are transitional forms between apes and humans. Dr. Bernard Wood states that habilis is a diverse group of fossils that are more likely some types of australopithecines' and not members of the genus homo and not ancestral to humans because they lived at teh same time and same location as erectus and therefore unlikely to be ancestral to humans.

dm: And no, I was not simply writing a story.

I didnt say that YOU wrote the just so stories, the article you provided did.

dm: All the steps are documented with fossil finds. For instance we can see from the skulls of the earliest apes to come out of the forest and walk upright that they had advanced the use of their cognitive portion of the brain, while sacrificing some of the portions of the brain associated with the senses.

Australopithecine brains are basically identical to chimps. Sorry try again.

 

[Halbhh]

A novel position. You go for the logical impossibility.
Are you familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma?
Perhaps you'd like to read about it before you respond. Here is a brief and readable summary of the dilemma:
Euthyphro Dilemma { Philosophy Index }

I already understand that God has chosen what is "good" (see next paragraph) to require from us because it is good (as one could (alternatively) learn from scripture by full reading, so that full context comes into effect and comes across to the one reading).

"Good" I'm defining in a straightforward way: that which makes human life work better: rules that result in people living together in peace and flourishing, energetic and enjoying themselves relatively more, and without starving and so on.

But the other observation that things are good because God says that they are is merely a practical rule of thumb derived from experience (for me after extensive skeptical testing).

Just an observational generalization, which I have because I've personally tested in a very extensive way the instructions in scripture. An experimental outcome characterization, as it were. If you see the sun rise 100 times, then you can for yourself make a observational generalization that the sun will rise tomorrow, or if you observe the phases of Mars observationally over time, you can observationally characterize those phases.

 

[Halbhh]

Sorta.

So when the brain is destroyed, do you agree that all our memories and thoughts are gone? Do you agree that the only way we could think after that would be if somebody made a copy of what had previously resided in the brain?

I answered these 2 questions in a careful and more complete way in the 2nd half of post #459 above.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I answered these 2 questions in a careful and more complete way in the 2nd half of post #459 above.

Huh?

Do you or do you not agree that the only copy of our memories and thinking is in the brain, and that when the brain is gone, they are gone?

 

[Halbhh]

Huh?

Do you or do you not agree that the only copy of our memories and thinking is in the brain, and that when the brain is gone, they are gone?

No believer thinks that the death of this temporary body is the end of our essential being/soul.

So, while the physical brain and its physically embedded memories decay into dust -- and are destroyed -- there is something of us God transforms or keeps somehow (not specified how). That's pretty basic to our understanding, so you should not find a believer claiming that the end of the physical body is the end.

I did answer about some interesting aspects in the 2nd half of post #459 (which I pointed back to) which briefly addresses your own speculation question about a 'copy'.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Most of that list is just the oldest of a particular group, it only listed a few if any real transition forms. So try again.

Ah, we are making progress. You had said there are no transitional forms. Now you acknowledge a few.

Why does the oldest of a particular group not count as transitional? For instance, this pikaia probably is quite close to your ancestors in the Cambrian:

Notice the resemblance? Not quite? OK, but he is one of the first animals with a notochord, and one of the early members of the pyhlum chordata. You and I, and all vertebrates, are in that group. Since he has a notochord like us, and since he looks much like other members of the Cambrian, why does he not qualify as a transitional?

Australopithecines' show evidence of being pure ape. By the rearward location of their foramen magnum it has been shown that they were only facultative bipeds not obligate bipeds like humans. Their brain and hands are very similar to chimpanzees.

Australopithecines had adaptions to their feet and pelvis that made them better equipped for walking upright. The skull and neck may not have adapted until later, but it is quite clear that they walked upright.

And no, their brains were not the same as chimpanzees. The cognitive portions were larger, and the portions dedicated to the senses were smaller. And later Australopithecines had slightly larger brains.

Dr. Bernard Wood states that habilis is a diverse group of fossils that are more likely some types of australopithecines' and not members of the genus homo and not ancestral to humans because they lived at teh same time and same location as erectus and therefore unlikely to be ancestral to humans.

My grandfather was alive when I was alive. Are you saying he could not be my ancestor? That is just plain silly. Ancestors can be alive after their descendent is born. Likewise, homo habilis could have remained long after homo erectus evolved.

I didnt say that YOU wrote the just so stories, the article you provided did.

I wrote the OP in the thread we were talking about: Why are there still apes? . And no, it is not a just so story. It is based on scientific evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No believer thinks that the death of this temporary body is the end of our essential being/soul.

So, while the physical brain and its physically embedded memories decay into dust -- and are destroyed -- there is something of us God transforms or keeps somehow (not specified how). That's pretty basic to our understanding, so you should not find a believer claiming that the end of the physical body is the end.

I did answer about some interesting aspects in the 2nd half of post #459 (which I pointed back to) which briefly addresses your own speculation question about a 'copy'.

Ah, we have these two different parts, a brain and a "something that God keeps somehow".

Which part is the part that thinks? The brain, or this "something that God keeps somehow"? You have told us that it is the brain that thinks. So if it is the brain that thinks, what does the "something that God keeps somehow" do while we are alive in our body?

 

[Halbhh]

Ah, we have these two different parts, a brain and a "something that God keeps somehow".

Which part is the part that thinks? The brain, or this "something that God keeps somehow"? You have told us that it is the brain that thinks. So if it is the brain that thinks, what does the "something that God keeps somehow" do while we are alive in our body?

heh, if we knew those answers, that would be pretty amazing knowledge. Certainly I won't claim to know that much even about physical consciousness even (having read many articles)! Even just for physical consciousness -- you could learn quickly (if you like) that while there are many theories about how consciousness arises in the brain, that also it's widely agreed that we just don't really understand yet how even just physical consciousness arises. I'm trying to point out even for what we know something about, even there the knowledge is limited. How much worse for the subtle thing called spirit or soul.