WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Non sequitur]

A. First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says) <snip>

1) Needing to believe is not a reasonable starting point for anything
2) Science speaks of no such thing
3) No purpose in continuing reading

 

[Ed1wolf]

The above reads like gibberish. What does any of that have to do with a second arrow of time as speculated by physicists?

Gibberish? Seems pretty clear to me. If you don't understand it by now, I am not sure you ever will.

eud: Is that a diversion? I don't see what that issue has to do with a second arrow of time either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

My point is that even if there is no second dimension of time and those physicists are wrong, it does not mean that causality cannot occur in a timeless place such as "outside" this universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

For me, a study implies some kind of experiment rather than math. Strominger does theoretical, not experimental physics. He uses ideas from string theory to provide potential resolutions of various problems in physics. String theory itself is not proven. There is no experiment to test the hypothesis.

There are two primary kinds of science. Empirical or experimental science and theoretical science. My study I provided comes from theoretical physics. I admit that this second dimension of time is not proven but there is mathematical evidence for it. And in theoretical physics that is pretty good evidence. Ever hear of the theory of relativity? Its foundation is math also and is now one of the most well attested theories in science. It has far more evidence for it then another famous theory, the theory of Evolution.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I can't find it.



I can't read Dr. Goldsmith's own words on the subject in context, so I'm left without any way to continue with that line of conversation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, need to. Look up cosmogony.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Again, this is about epistemology. The quote is talking about "disproof" and "mental roads". At no point do they write that the GIT actually supports or points to an "extracosmic Absolute" or "the contingency of the universe", but merely that one can't say that there is some necessary contradiction between that and the formal maths of physics.

The problem is that you are trying to make this into a gigantic Argument from Ignorance.



The quote DOES NOT mention anything about "non-natural explanations". An "extracosmic Absolute" can be perfectly natural.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Please provide an example of a natural extracosmic Absolute.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I would say that most physicists haven't touched the origins issue because it is so theoretical and the near if not absolute impossibility of testing any theory about the origin of everything. A man's gotta know his limitations.

Ever hear of the field of Cosmogony?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The mind can weigh arguments and evidence and make logical conclusion based on the premises of those arguments evidence.

eud: All that means is that minds (that is, people) can be logical, at least if they choose to be logical. The mind can also contain contradictory thoughts. Reality cannot contradict itself, and presumably the nature of minds (as part of reality) cannot contradict itself or anything else, but the operation of the mind can generate logical contradictions. People can be illogical.

No, they cannot reason logically if the mind is purely physical, because physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. Physical entities can not reason logically. They can BEHAVE logically. But because the mind is primarily chemical then all of its outputs are based on the laws of biochemistry, so that its output is determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents in the brain.

ed: But if the mind is purely physically based then its conclusions are based on the ratio of chemical reagents in the brain just like any chemical reaction and not on the weighing of arguments.

eud: I don't know of anyone who thinks that the brain's operations "are based on the ratio of chemical reagents" in itself, any more than a computer's operations are based on the ratio of metal to germanium in its CPU. You are attacking a straw man.

So you deny that the brain is just a biological organ of the human body? Biology is ultimately just chemical reactions. We know from Chemistry 101 that the product of chemical reactions is determined by the reagents. Computers operations are determined by their programming which is basically the same as chemical reactions in biology.

ed: If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.

eud: I don't accept your straw man view of brain function.

Evidence it is a straw man?

ed: Because that means that a nonphysical treatment can cure a physical entity.

eud; No, it means that there is a relationship between brain function and the rest of the body.

But there was no chemical alteration to the body or the brain, so how could the physical illness be cured?

ed: Not all NDEs. There are cases where the person gained knowledge that they could not have by natural physical means. For example a woman discovered that there was a specific shoe on the roof of a hospital that she was in, and yet she physically never went on the roof.

eud: Those claims are dubious anecdotes. They belong to the realm of pseudoscience.

No, these were investigated by and confirmed by doctors and neuroscientists.

ed: And if transgenderism is real then there are male minds in female brains and bodies and vice versa. Apparently totally unaffected by being in physically female body.

eud: You are talking about psychological conditions.

What is your definition of psychological conditions? If the mind is physical then these are physical conditions.

eud: Gender dysphoria has been linked to some extent to genetics. Why would that be if "male minds" and "female minds" are completely non-physical?

Because their bodies are completely filled with the opposite sex's chromosomes. That makes no sense if their minds are physical, they would match the rest of their physiology, correct?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please provide an example of a natural extracosmic Absolute.

An example would be a natural universe that spawns other universes due to black holes, for instance.

Ever hear of the field of Cosmogony?

That's what we've been talking about this whole time. Research into the earliest moments of the Big Bang is an example of cosmogony. What of it?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, they cannot reason logically if the mind is purely physical, because physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. Physical entities can not reason logically.

That is nonsense, and not supported by science.

They can BEHAVE logically. But because the mind is primarily chemical then all of its outputs are based on the laws of biochemistry, so that its output is determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents in the brain.

You are speaking nonsense. I agree that brains are biochemical, but that doesn't mean that brain "output" is determined by its ratio of chemical reagents. The brain is very complex, and does not function like mixing two fluids in a test tube.

So you deny that the brain is just a biological organ of the human body? Biology is ultimately just chemical reactions.

You are speaking like a reductionist. I'm an emergentist. I don't deny that the brain is a biological organ. I deny your reductionistic interpretation of what properties the brain may have.

We know from Chemistry 101

Chemistry 101 isn't Biology 101 or Psychology 101.

But there was no chemical alteration to the body or the brain, so how could the physical illness be cured?

The brain is altered by belief in the powers of the placebo. Believing is a function of the brain.

No, these were investigated by and confirmed by doctors and neuroscientists.

Not through careful studies. Stories (especially when they may be urban legends) don't count.

What is your definition of psychological conditions?

Conditions pertaining to psychology. I'm not sure what more I need to say here.

If the mind is physical then these are physical conditions.

And they are psychological conditions. They are both when it comes to brain function. There is no separating the two.

BTW, you didn't reply to this:

Gender dysphoria has been linked to some extent to genetics. Why would that be if "male minds" and "female minds" are completely non-physical?

Because their bodies are completely filled with the opposite sex's chromosomes.

So? What does that have to do with psychology?

That makes no sense if their minds are physical, they would match the rest of their physiology, correct?

No, not correct. Psychology is quite a bit more complex than that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Physical entities can not reason logically. They can BEHAVE logically. But because the mind is primarily chemical then all of its outputs are based on the laws of biochemistry, so that its output is determined by the ratio of the chemical reagents in the brain.

I'm not a determinist. But let's say that we accept determinism provisionally. What is the problem here?

"Behaving" logically is still reasoning logically. One still reaches logical conclusions. Even if the "output" is predetermined by biochemistry, it is still logical output.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

But you're still treating them as seperate entities.

I said they are separate but connected.

tm: The physical brain activity, is how you do your thinking.
Those are the underlying physical processes of how that works.

Why is that a problem?

Because it means that your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain NOT on the logical weighing of evidence and arguments. But you continue to make arguments as if humans can do so, so your view is self refuting.

tm: I don't "believe" anything.
I only go by what the evidence suggests.
And what the evidence siggests is that that which you call a "mind" is no more or less then a function of the physical brain.

I don't see how any of this is "self-refuting".

But that is my point, if your mind is purely biochemistry then you CANNOT go where the evidence suggests, you go where your chemical reactions cause you to go irrespective of the evidence. Now do you see why it is self refuting?

tm: You might want to read up on what the placebo effect actually is.
It doesn't cure anything! Placebo's, in essence, are no more then self-deception.
There is no curing going on.

No, there are actual studies where people WERE cured. The Journal "New Scientist" in 2005 acknowledged this fact when they published their "13 Things that Don't Make Sense" and the placebo effect was No. 1 on the list.

tm: Anecdotal evidence isn't exactly enough to convince me of outlandish claims like that.

This is more than anecdotal evidence, these are cases that have been confirmed and analyzed by doctors and neuroscientists.

tm: For crying out loud....
Do you realise that the difference between males and females is biological?
And that that difference isn't restricted to just reproductive organs, but also brain chemicals, hormones, etc?

Exactly. That is my point. Biologically these people are either 100% male or female and yet they claim that in their minds they are the opposite sex. If this is real then this shows a nearly complete disconnect between what they are mentally and what they are biologically.

tm: There's nothing there, there.

Fraid not, see above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it means that your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain NOT on the logical weighing of evidence and arguments. But you continue to make arguments as if humans can do so, so your view is self refuting.

That's just you asserting it.
Smells like a genetic fallacy.

Just look at an AI engine for example...
It operates entirely on 1s and 0s, just like all other software, and it runs on hardware.
However, the neural network (organised through 1s and 0s) most certainly is capable of weighing options and forming conclusions based on the data available.

Your objections, is thus not in evidence nore does it make any sense.

But that is my point, if your mind is purely biochemistry then you CANNOT go where the evidence suggests,

Why?

You keep asserting this, but you never explain it.

No, there are actual studies where people WERE cured. The Journal "New Scientist" in 2005 acknowledged this fact when they published their "13 Things that Don't Make Sense" and the placebo effect was No. 1 on the list.

The placebo effect itself, does no curing.
You are welcome to cite a study that says otherwise.

This is more than anecdotal evidence, these are cases that have been confirmed and analyzed by doctors and neuroscientists.

Citation?
Until you provide it, it's just an anecdote.

Exactly.

You can't say "exactly" and then go on to disagree....

That is my point. Biologically these people are either 100% male or female

Your point is false.
I said that the differences are NOT restricted to the presence of reproductive organs. There's hormone balances etc that come into play as well.

People with a gender identity crisis, will likely have a biological cause for it.

If this is real then this shows a nearly complete disconnect between what they are mentally and what they are biologically.

Only if you ignore the underlying biological causes for such gender identity confusion.

Fraid not, see above.

Nope, nothing there either..

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, a large number reject it for more personal reasons such as not wanting to be held accountable for how they spend their time and their sex lives.

eud: Citation needed. I'm sure that you must have a study that shows this, and you aren't just inventing this from your imagination.

If you are just trying to be snarky, well done.

No, citation needed, I found this out from self-knowledge and my experience with other humans. It is part of human nature. Also Aldous Huxley actually admitted that one of the main reasons he accepted evolution was that it disproved God and freed up his sex life.

ed: No, it is actually an argument from knowledge, we know that effects require causes.

eud: That's just a matter of definition.

By definition effects are the results of causes. This is not knowledge in and of itself. It begs the question of just what is an effect or a cause in a particular case. That is where knowledge comes in -- identifying effects and causes.

No, it is knowledge. knowledge of logical thinking. And scientists agree that effects have a beginning and/or change. That is how we identify them.

eud: For instance, according to the quote you have provided, the GIT only implies that an extracosmic cause of our cosmos isn't going to be provably inconsistent with any consistent mathematics of the physics of the cosmos. It doesn't show that there is an extracomic cause of our cosmos. It is an argument from ignorance to conclude that there is one using the GIT.

I never said it proves God's existence, but as Jaki said it opens the door to the logical possibility of something exists that transcends the cosmos, ie is supernatural.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, citation needed, I found this out from self-knowledge and my experience with other humans. It is part of human nature.

So, it's just anecdotal.

Also Aldous Huxley actually admitted that one of the main reasons he accepted evolution was that it disproved God and freed up his sex life.

That's Aldous Huxley. I don't doubt that there are going to be a handful of people like that. It's not a likely explanation for the vast majority of people who accept evolution.

Or would an ex-Christian who said that the main reason that he ever became a Christian because he feared death mean that the majority of Christians became Christians for that exact reason?

No, it is knowledge. knowledge of logical thinking. And scientists agree that effects have a beginning and/or change. That is how we identify them.

You could say that it is knowledge of definitions. In that sense, it is knowledge of logical thinking, since definitions and their applications are a part of logical thinking. Scientists will of course agree with the definitions. However, the definitions are not scientific knowledge. They precede scientific knowledge. They are not knowledge of the universe as attained through science. That is what I meant.

I never said it proves God's existence, but as Jaki said it opens the door to the logical possibility of something exists that transcends the cosmos, ie is supernatural.

Unicorns are also a logical possibility. So is Frodo Baggins. Logical possibilities are a dime a dozen. They have no scientific or philosophical weight. *shrug*


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

No, they cannot reason logically if the mind is purely physical, because physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. Physical entities can not reason logically.

TIL that computers are non-physical. Funny how they missed telling me that through 7 years of college and 20+ in the industry.

 

[Uber Genius]

Not a single sentence you wrote in this paragraphe illustrates accurately why I am an atheist. Just saying.

Amazingly, I think I articulated the non-theists problems with the OP quite clearly and yet no "likes" "winner" "informative," ratings...nothing. Maybe it is because I'm a theist and that might violate the rules.

 

[bhsmte]

Amazingly, I think I articulated the non-theists problems with the OP quite clearly and yet no "likes" "winner" "informative," ratings...nothing. Maybe it is because I'm a theist and that might violate the rules.

What post was that, I would like to check it out.

 

[Rebecca12]

Amazingly, I think I articulated the non-theists problems with the OP quite clearly and yet no "likes" "winner" "informative," ratings...nothing. Maybe it is because I'm a theist and that might violate the rules.

I went back and read your post on the first page of this thread. It is always hard to know whether to like a post if there are things in it you like and other things you don't agree with in some way that might give the impression you are endorsing a certain point of view. There certainly were things I agree with in your post. However, the stuff regarding the universe and fine tuning are not at all persuasive on the god issue.

I do appreciate this comment you made: "I wouldn't make these type of sweeping generalizations about those who believe differently. Rather why not engage more charitably with their own claims."

 

[Ed1wolf]

The underlying process is physical, yes. Bio-chemistry, to be exact.
Just like the underlying process of an AI engine is "just" the processing of 1s and 0s.

Yes, and the conclusion of an AI engine is determined by its program.

tm: You should read up on neurology and neural networks.

I have. It still all boils down to biochemistry.

tm: Your entire argument smells like a species of genetic fallacy.

No, I am not arguing about the minds origin, but how it operates.

tm: You are confusing a function of the brain, with physical output of a chemical reaction.

The function of the brain is just millions of electro-chemical reactions. Do you have any evidence that it is more than that?

tm: Here's a simple question: do you accept that your brain is where your reasoning/thinking happens?

Yes, the non-physical mind resides in the brain.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The function of the brain is just millions of electro-chemical reactions. Do you have any evidence that it is more than that?

Compare mixing two chemical solutions in a test tube to what happens below.


Your brain wiring is like a city, says neuroscience
Brain Wiring

Biochemistry is certainly involved, but it doesn't "boil down" to biochemistry in any extreme reductionist way, as you are trying to do.


eudaimonia,

Mark