|
Post by peteri on Feb 21, 2016 23:15:46 GMT
The Bible indicates the goal was to create us here on Earth, so the rest seems unnecessary. I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't say anything of the sort. That we are important to God, certainly. That we are uniquely important in all creation - no I have never believed that. Peter.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 22, 2016 9:53:57 GMT
Well, when I say happiness it's not about just personal gratification. Happiness is many things. One thing it is, for instance, would be parents not having to see their children die from preventable diseases, something that has been all too common throughout history and still prevalent in many parts of the world. I greatly value the things you mention as well, but how do things like this contribute to them? I think you are not answering my "challenge". We are agreed that the theistic position on suffering has inconsistencies. I am saying the atheistic position has inconsistencies too, which sort of balance out, but you haven't addressed that side of the question. What other physicists are you thinking of? I think, if you read Barnes' paper, it is very clearcut. An all-powerful God could have done all sorts of things. That isn't, in itself, a reason to doubt he did this particular thing. I see several difficulties with that view. (1) Any size universe is as easy as any other size to God, so why not create a great big one? It would be more fun, I would think. (2) We don't know we are alone in the universe, perhaps there are many other living creatures. (3) If God wanted the universe to evolve and grow, and if he wanted it to be a place that was subject to laws and could be investigated (all things he could conceivably have wanted), and if he chose this specific arrangement and physics, then it had to have the features we see, including size and density, or it wouldn't have worked - it wouldn't have allowed life to form, on earth, or anywhere else. We don't. We don't know it isn't either. But it is a question worth considering. And since naturalism hasn't yet found a way to understand those things that we do observe (consciousness, belief in true objective ethics, qualia), and since we mostly find it impossible to live without believing in freewill, there is an argument that believing in a wholly-physical explanation actually explains less than believing there is something more. I'd be interested to see how compatibilism actually means any reasonable form of free will. I think it is a thimble and pea trick myself, a way to not feel so bad about determinism, but I'm happy to be shown something I haven't considered before. I'm sure you're right. A robot presumably doesn't have feelings of angst about being a robot. But the question isn't how we can emotionally cope with the idea, but whether it is a true reflection of who we are. Our common human experience may be wrong if we have assumed physicalism. But without that assumption, we have this: Naturalistic science only sets out to measure the physical, because that's all it believes is there. So it can "prove" we don't have freewill because it can't find evidence of anything else, and because it has conducted experiments that seem to prove determinism, but only if we assume naturalism. I'll give you an example. There are neuroscience experiments that seem to indicate freewill, and others that seem to indicate determinism. The experiments of Libet, showing that the subconscious mind starts to begin a process before the conscious mind makes the choice to do that, showing that the choice was determined by the previous subconscious processes - classic determinism. But if naturalism isn't true - say dualism is true - then there may well be a non-physical aspect to our brain where the real choice is made, and it leads to the subconscious process and then the conscious process. I'm not saying that's true, I'm just saying the determinism conclusion depends on the assumption that the first physical process was the beginning of it all. Not at all. I didn't make any such assumption. Rather, I looked at the consequences of each belief (atheism leads to determinism; theism could lead to either determinism or freewill) and asked whether we trusted reductionist science (which leads to determinism) or our common human experience (which seems to lead to freewill). The way I do it is to press the large quote button at the top right of your post to start my reply. That puts all your comment within quotes. I write in the BBCode view, and I cut the end quote tag and place it after your first paragraph - making that paragraph the quote that I reply to. Then for any other paragraphs I want to quote, I highlight them and press the little quote button in the set of buttons above my reply (third from right) and it puts that paragraph within quotes, and away I go again. Any bits I don't want to reply to I just cut. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 23, 2016 14:30:36 GMT
our minds seem to be rooted in the brain Just like vision is rooted in the eye or piano-playing is rooted in the hands.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 23, 2016 14:55:15 GMT
I'm pretty sure that the Bible doesn't say anything of the sort. That we are important to God, certainly. That we are uniquely important in all creation - no I have never believed that. Peter. I disagree. The creation account in Genesis only mentions the sun moon, stars, the Earth and life here. Creating human life is the finale. Along with the rest it seems clear we are the main focus of God's attention.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 24, 2016 2:02:21 GMT
I think you are not answering my "challenge". We are agreed that the theistic position on suffering has inconsistencies. I am saying the atheistic position has inconsistencies too, which sort of balance out, but you haven't addressed that side of the question. I think your challenge was that there is no objective moral evil if atheism is true, correct? Whether or not that's true could be a discussion itself, that's why I'm trying not to stray into there. As for an inconsistency with suffering in atheism, I'm not sure how that could be the case as I've said. The problem of evil claims that suffering is inconsistent with an all-good God existing. When there is no all-good God, the inconsistency vanishes. The one that I remember now is Victor Stenger. I don't remember the others' names at the moment, but I'm certain I've read other physicists that disagree with fine-tuning too. I think it is, because that seems unnecessary to the goal stated in Christianity. (1) I suppose entertainment is a possible explanation, though if a large universe is easily created as a small universe I don't see why that would be more interesting. (2) That's true, but all evidence suggests life is very rare at best. (3) Well as I said, evolution is completely unnecessary if one is all-powerful. I don't see any net benefit to it versus simple creation. The existence of natural laws and rational creatures able to investigate it does not require that either it seems to me. The specific arrangements also seem less desirable. As for forming life, once again the cosmological model of ancient people seems wholly feasible if you posit an all-powerful God. It's true that there is much still unexplained. To me, the dependence of the mind on the brain is a strong indicator toward physicalism, even if every process is not yet understood. However, as I've said this is an area I know only a little about. This may well be compatible with some forms of dualism, as naturalism itself is. Well, that's definitely a good subject for discussion, and I've held your view about it myself. Perhaps we should do that in another thread though. Of course, this was simply to say that whether it's true would not by definition change things for how we live as many have claimed. Free will, being a philosophical concept, must first be defined well in order to be examined scientifically. I'm not sure how well that's been done, but I've read many neuroscientists arguing both sides of the issue, so there's certainly no consensus that it doesn't exist. I've felt similarly to you about this, realizing that determinism rests on an unstated assumption (though I haven't thought of that in terms of physicalism vs. dualism-again I'm pretty ignorant there). However it does seem determinists (myself included formerly) can frame it in a way that's unfalsifiable, since every action can be just viewed as determined. If so science is certainly no help either way. This applies whether the determinism is based on prior natural causes or God's will, I think. Also it seems to me dualism and naturalism could be compatible, although it's true most naturalists are physicalists. I believe Thomas Nagel takes such a view, although I may be wrong. I meant my own argument from evil assumes a theistic universe. Were you discussing the reason for your beliefs above? I'm sorry, this was confusing to me. Thanks, it did. It seems I've gotten it figured out.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Feb 24, 2016 2:07:57 GMT
Just like vision is rooted in the eye or piano-playing is rooted in the hands. I'm not sure if that's an agreement or satirical criticism. Yes, it's certainly not possible for someone to see without eyes or to play piano without hands, but this doesn't really seem like a straight analogy, although indeed we are incapable of thought without brains.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 26, 2016 6:33:53 GMT
I think you are not answering my "challenge". We are agreed that the theistic position on suffering has inconsistencies. I am saying the atheistic position has inconsistencies too, which sort of balance out, but you haven't addressed that side of the question. I think your challenge was that there is no objective moral evil if atheism is true, correct? Whether or not that's true could be a discussion itself, that's why I'm trying not to stray into there. As for an inconsistency with suffering in atheism, I'm not sure how that could be the case as I've said. The problem of evil claims that suffering is inconsistent with an all-good God existing. When there is no all-good God, the inconsistency vanishes. I have been arguing that when we actually write out the argument in premises and conclusions, the atheist argument cannot actually stand. The most the atheist can say is that there is an inconsistency in the theist view (which I agree with), but the theist can respond that there is an inconsistency in the atheist argument too. I'm not sure I have anything more to say and don't wish to keep going on about it. Barnes has demolished Stenger, saying that 8 equations is an oversimplifcation, and Stenger gets 6 of the 8 wrong. It's all in the published paper. Stenger was a physicist, not a cosmologist. The only cosmologists I think may oppose the science of fine-tuning are Krauss (Barnes says he has discussed it with Krauss and doesn't know whether he opposes the science or not, and Sean Carroll questions some aspects of the science of fine-tuning. "Unnecessary" is a very difficult thing to argue about God and the universe. Have you a compelling argument, or is it just a feeling? I still don't think you've offered an argument, certainly not a compelling one. An argument would have to look something like this: 1. Because God is defined as perfect, he would have to be efficient. 2. Therefore if God created the universe, it would be as small as possible consistent with life, and he would fill it with life. 3. We observe the universe is large and largely devoid of life and unsuitable for life. 4. Therefore God didn't create the universe. I think you would have great trouble defining #1 and #2, let alone demonstrating their truth. What is "efficient" to a powerful God? What is large - bigger than a photon, bigger than a molecule, bigger than a human, bigger than a solar system, bigger than a galaxy?? Do you think you can come up with a better form of the argument, and do you think you can justify the premises? Can you explain that? It seems quite the opposite to me. Sure. I don't think I've read a neuroscientist who accepts freewill unless they are not materialists (e.g. Mario Beauregard). I agree with most of this. Yes, there are dualist naturalists, or naturalists who believe in free will - Thomas Nagel may be the former (or is at least open to it) and David Chalmers may be the latter. I'm not sure if I have anything more to say at the moment. Was there anything I missed that you'd like to discuss further?
|
|
|
Post by himself on Mar 3, 2016 23:49:05 GMT
Just like vision is rooted in the eye or piano-playing is rooted in the hands. I'm not sure if that's an agreement or satirical criticism. Yes, it's certainly not possible for someone to see without eyes or to play piano without hands, but this doesn't really seem like a straight analogy, although indeed we are incapable of thought without brains. It's confusing the instrumental with the principle. The brain is an organ, just like the eye and the hand. No reason to endow it with magic properties. The whole person uses the brain to think. The brain itself does not think.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 4, 2016 1:31:41 GMT
I have been arguing that when we actually write out the argument in premises and conclusions, the atheist argument cannot actually stand. The most the atheist can say is that there is an inconsistency in the theist view (which I agree with), but the theist can respond that there is an inconsistency in the atheist argument too. I'm not sure I have anything more to say and don't wish to keep going on about it. Okay, fair enough. We'll just have to disagree about that. I'll have to look into fine-tuning more. I've argued for it previously here. Basically it seems unnecessary to the goal of human life, and sometimes even dangerous for us. It seems you don't find that argument compelling so far. I am not a philosopher, and unfamiliar with formal argument, so please forgive my deficiencies. Perhaps it would be formulated like this: 1. The stated goal of God was to create Earth and life on it, particularly humanity (Genesis). 2. God is all powerful (classical theism). 3. The vast universe which modern science reveals is unnecessary to the goal for an all-powerful being. 4. Therefore it seems unlikely such a being created the universe. Well, if dualism is true why does physical damage to the brain affect mental functions? Having a non-physical mind would be a great asset, since it would be immune to such damage. I've seen it argued that the brain "houses" the mind so to speak, thus it's like damaging a hard drive which leaves it unable to run software. Yet both of these are physical, and if the mind is non-physical, why do we even need a brain? Please elaborate on why you feel it's the opposite. Haggard and Eimer criticize the Libet experiment (often held up as evidence against free will), as an example. Many more can be found. I don't know whether they believe free will exists or not, but it seems there's no consensus that it doesn't. I don't think so, we've covered so much already. You must have been busy lately though. I missed discussing this with you
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 4, 2016 1:32:53 GMT
It's confusing the instrumental with the principle. The brain is an organ, just like the eye and the hand. No reason to endow it with magic properties. The whole person uses the brain to think. The brain itself does not think. Ah, I take your point.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 4, 2016 23:19:29 GMT
I am not a philosopher, and unfamiliar with formal argument, so please forgive my deficiencies. Perhaps it would be formulated like this: 1. The stated goal of God was to create Earth and life on it, particularly humanity (Genesis). 2. God is all powerful (classical theism). 3. The vast universe which modern science reveals is unnecessary to the goal for an all-powerful being. 4. Therefore it seems unlikely such a being created the universe. I'm not a philosopher either, but I do sometimes think that setting out the argument in propositions is helpful. Take your argument here. I would question both #1 and #3. #1 - I don't see any reason to limit God to that aim. There may well be other life elsewhere. And even if we are the only life, God may have had other requirements about the life he wanted to create. #3 - The size of the universe is necessary granted the physics (that has been established scientifically). Perhaps the physics could have been different, who knows? Further, the cosmos has been a source of inspiration pointing to God for many cultures, so if God only has to say "let there be ...." and it is, no trouble, that in itself may be sufficient reason. Finally, my own view is that God had the aim of creating a universe and life which were in a sense independent from him, and I think that led to the physics and the size, etc. It seems a very weak and unsafe argument to me. I think a reasonable analogy is hardware (the brain) and software (the mind or consciousness). Naturalism requires that the software arises out of the hardware as an emergent property, but doesn't seem able to explain why this would occur - does consciousness or qualia (the subjective feeling associated with a mental state) contribute anything to natural selection fitness? We certainly cannot deduce those subjective feelings from the physical brain states and processes. This leads many neuroscientists and philosophers to describe the mind-body question as "the hard problem" and to agree that we cannot explain it. We use the ability to explain the evidence as a test of hypotheses, so if naturalism cannot explain consciousness and qualia, then that should make us question it. Some form of dualism seems to explain the evidence better. This can be developed into a theistic argument, but some have tried to develop it into a non-natiralistic, non-theistic argument too. I'm not sure what you mean here, as I thought I was waiting for you. But anyway, I have enjoyed and appreciated the discussion too. I am not particularly trying to end it, I just don't want to keep hammering at the same disagreements too long. But happy yo keep going if there's more you want to discuss.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 5, 2016 4:54:23 GMT
I'm not a philosopher either, but I do sometimes think that setting out the argument in propositions is helpful. Take your argument here. I would question both #1 and #3. #1 - I don't see any reason to limit God to that aim. There may well be other life elsewhere. And even if we are the only life, God may have had other requirements about the life he wanted to create. #3 - The size of the universe is necessary granted the physics (that has been established scientifically). Perhaps the physics could have been different, who knows? Further, the cosmos has been a source of inspiration pointing to God for many cultures, so if God only has to say "let there be ...." and it is, no trouble, that in itself may be sufficient reason. Finally, my own view is that God had the aim of creating a universe and life which were in a sense independent from him, and I think that led to the physics and the size, etc. It seems a very weak and unsafe argument to me. Regarding #1, I'm certainly not ruling out that life could exist elsewhere. I was going by Genesis here, which is silent about the idea. Other requirements might also exist. However, on both points there is a lack of knowledge. So this is operating on what is claimed only. #3 Well, I think I've already stated my view about the universe previously enough times, so I'll just let that stand. Once again, I feel ill-equipped here given my lack of knowledge regarding philosophy of mind. From what I understand, however, not every trait must have a specific evolutionary benefit. It simply must not be so detrimental that it's presence would inhibit reproduction and gene survival. There is nothing in qualia I am aware of that would do this. Perhaps it could have some specific benefit as well, I don't know. I'm pretty sure I made the last response prior to yours, but no matter. I think we've basically rung this one out. We're largely repeating what we've already said. I don't think there's anything else to discuss here, but I'm sure we'll converse in other threads.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 5, 2016 21:05:50 GMT
Yep, thanks, it's been interesting.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 5, 2016 22:08:38 GMT
Likewise.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 10, 2016 21:52:55 GMT
Regarding the size and relative emptiness of the universe, it's good to note that the density of the universe does affect its course. Higher density would make gravitational interaction stronger, causing the universe to collapse by itself if that parameter goes to far. Though it's silly to state there'd be no wriggle room at all, there are some apparent limits to how full versus empty the universe can be.
Of course, one could counter that the gravitational constant could be modified by God to account for that, but that again interferes with the relations between the four fundamental (at least as they seem to be for now) forces. That would affect chemistry and the distribution of elements. And correcting all universal constants accordingly seems to be an arbitrary multiplication exercise, with no practical effect.
I often think of the emptiness argument in analogue terms to matter itself. Atoms consist of nuclear particles, electrons, and mostly void. The material world we observe is mostly void, but I don't see that impacting its meaning or wastefulness. But it doesn't seem that the "waste" being internal or external to "life" or "us" (depending on how anthropocentric someone would like to be) makes that much of a difference to the arguments.
|
|