God cannot exist...sue me!

[Achronos]

You're attributing to my position beliefs which I have never claimed to hold. Surely you know that you're doing this, and it really makes me wonder which one of is so unsure of their position!

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewto ... f=2&t=6661


And I made this just for people like you

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_new ... causation-

I have to say that I fail to see the merits of all this wordplay. Since God exists, defining reality to exclude Him is obviously illegitimate.

All the wordplay in your post destroys your objectivity. For example, you begin by defining your position as the "materialist/realist" view. However, I would call the theistic view the "realist" view, because it objectively address the order in nature, human consciousness, rationality, and our responsibility to a moral law. I would call the materialist view the fantastical/magical view as it asserts or implicitly assumes that something comes from nothing, order comes from disorder, and more comes from less. Second, you refer to our view of God as some "magical" being. Obviously Christians do not believe in magic, and the word "magic" is so ill defined that it's hard to even know what you mean.

Finally, I have to say, I don't know if your are addressing creationism (the view the world was created in six days with no evolution), polytheism (the view that there are multiple gods, who are part of the created system), deism (the view that there is a god who ordered everthing then stands back and watches) or monotheism (traditionally, the view that there is one transcendant God who is infinitely beyond the system of created reality and brought all beings with in the created system from non-being to being, and contours to be the cause of created reality's continued existence). I assume that you are not talking about pantheism.

[TheJackel]

And I made this just for people like you lol.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yep, and you still have someone trying to claim nothing can exist as an object, person, place, or thing. It's like people don't even comprehend what the literal definition of nothing is :pop:  phase on that thread and your assertions therein.

[TheJackel]

Yep, and you still have someone trying to claim nothing can exist as an object, person, place, or thing. It's like people don't even comprehend what the literal definition of nothing is :pop:  phase on that thread and your assertions therein.

[strike:plfmii66]That's kewl, because he won't win that argument until he can prove nothing as an existing object, person, place or thing to which includes language, concepts, thoughts, ideas, emotions, or even feelings. It keeps ignoring that very basic problem to his argument. The only point he ever had was if energy patterns that are not brainwaves or in the mind constitute as information. That however, was entirely irrelevant to the article I posted

[hackenslash]

I have to say that I fail to see the merits of all this wordplay. Since God exists, defining reality to exclude Him is obviously illegitimate.

Exclude? You miss the point. There is no good reason to include any deity in our definition of reality, not least because there's no good reason to suppose that any such entity exists.

All the wordplay in your post destroys your objectivity.

As opposed to your bias toward your imaginary friend, which makes you entirely objective.

For example, you begin by defining your position as the "materialist/realist" view. However, I would call the theistic view the "realist" view, because it objectively address the order in nature, human consciousness, rationality, and our responsibility to a moral law.

Wibble, wibble, wibble. That's all I got from that. You simply assert this, with no supporting evidence.

I would call the materialist view the fantastical/magical view as it asserts or implicitly assumes that something comes from nothing,

Errr, no. Only the theist view has anything coming from nothing. The empirical view is that 'nothing' is an invalid and impossible construct. You haven't been keeping up to date with your quantum mechanics, have you? This groundbreaking news is only 70 years old, or so, so pretty new to somebody who thinks that the words of semi-literate nomads constitutes the latest in knowledge.

 

order comes from disorder,

Well, if you have any understanding of physics, you might understand why this is a crass bit of misdirection. Order most certainly can come from disorder. In fact, we have a mechanism for it. It's called gravity.

and more comes from less.

And here we wander into ignorance of thermodynamics to be added to the list of things you don't know anything about. Specifically, the first law of thermodynamics prohibits 'more' coming from 'less', in the form of the prohibition of the creation or destruction of energy.

Second, you refer to our view of God as some "magical" being. Obviously Christians do not believe in magic,

mag·ic  (mjk)
n.
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
2.
a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
4. A mysterious quality of enchantment: "For me the names of those men breathed the magic of the past" (Max Beerbohm).
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Seems pretty clear to me. How did your magic man create everything again?

and the word "magic" is so ill defined that it's hard to even know what you mean.

Unlike 'god' of course, which is so well-defined.

More rectal vindaloo and strawman caricatures of what atheists actually think.

[TheJackel]

I have to say that I fail to see the merits of all this wordplay. Since God exists, defining reality to exclude Him is obviously illegitimate.

When someone has no argument, contradict one's self, deny, assert magic here, and claim we excluded an asserted magic thingy here for no reason.

All the wordplay in your post destroys your objectivity.

Yeah, everything is just a word play..hmm let's objectively apply that your own arguments. :shake:

However, I would call the theistic view the "realist" view, because it objectively address the order in nature, human consciousness, rationality, and our responsibility to a moral law.

Evidence to support yourself with in any of these cases? Ahh yes, the assertions of creationism based only the same evidence to which evolution is based on! Evidence that reality exists and is complex in nature!   And a rational position isn't asserting magic man Done it from a Carl Sagan's Position!.

I would call the materialist view the fantastical/magical view as it asserts or implicitly assumes that something comes from nothing,

This tells me you never even read, or bothered to even try to comprehend my posted reply to where it covered that very subject:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482&start=75#p97016

If you had read this, you would be facepalming right now.. Especially when I have repeatedly stated that nothing can not be a person, place, or thing in literal context! Existence exists because once again!, non-existence doesn't exist! No entity required, no magical creation needed!

order comes from disorder, and more comes from less. Second, you refer to our view of God as some "magical" being. Obviously Christians do not believe in magic, and the word "magic" is so ill defined that it's hard to even know what you mean.

Again failure to understand an argument. You can review order from chaos here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6482&start=75#p97016

Finally, I have to say, I don't know if your are addressing creationism (the view the world was created in six days with no evolution), polytheism (the view that there are multiple gods, who are part of the created system), deism (the view that there is a god who ordered everthing then stands back and watches) or monotheism (traditionally, the view that there is one transcendant God who is infinitely beyond the system of created reality and brought all beings with in the created system from non-being to being, and contours to be the cause of created reality's continued existence). I assume that you are not talking about pantheism.

Watch that video in that link and you might actually figure out the evolution of the Bible. Don't assume I am talking about anything.

God who is infinitely beyond the system of created reality and brought all beings with in the created system from non-being to being, and contours to be the cause of created reality's continued existence)

here you are again arguing for the nothing god.. Non by definition means "NO" or "NOT".. Good to know that your GOD is a Non-being! And worse yet, you are trying to make the creation of reality sound as if it's even a logical or even intelligible answer.. translation: GOD exists infinitely outside existence to create existence while you try to profess it as being in existence.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yep, and you still have someone trying to claim nothing can exist as an object, person, place, or thing. It's like people don't even comprehend what the literal definition of nothing is :pop:  phase on that thread and your assertions therein.

[strike:3tig7l3w]That's kewl, because he won't win that argument until he can prove nothing as an existing object, person, place or thing to which includes language, concepts, thoughts, ideas, emotions, or even feelings. It keeps ignoring that very basic problem to his argument. The only point he ever had was if energy patterns that are not brainwaves or in the mind constitute as information. That however, was entirely irrelevant to the article I posted

I figured something like this would come.  I can't help but notice your demeanor on the other thread defending your stance...quite the opposite when being challenged.  

[TheJackel]

I figured something like this would come.  I can't help but notice your demeanor on the other thread defending your stance...quite the opposite when being challenged.   And I had invited the challenge, the demeanor was only to encourage the challenge in order to fully debate it until an understanding had come to be realized. He's also correct that I was pushing it a bit tooo far with the term information but also doesn't negate the premise of the article.. Just needs to be corrected a bit after I do some more research.

However, your GOD only conceptually exists in your head and in txt. The object itself doesn't exist.    Unless of course you can prove it like I can prove the existence of a horse.

[Achronos]

I read the original link Jackel and it appears you are attempting to explain how "I" can exist in a purely material universe without descending into Nihilism. Such a defense is made by arguing that we do have a purpose after death in that our energy is transplanted into other aspects of the created order. While this is a nice attempt at explaining away the nihilistic conclusions of naturalism, it still falls short for one main reason:

Purpose requires a direction and direction requires a Director.

That in my death my atoms are transfered and I feed worms is a happy accident of evolution, a mere by-product, but certainly not a "purpose." Nor does it avoid nihilism because it points out that only in my annihilation do I serve any purpose; while alive I have no purpose, no "essence" except that which I make for myself.

But the mere idea of there being one substance (physical) is an absurdity as there's no backing for it and it's ultimately illogical. To demonstrate that there's no backing for the idea of there being one substance, we merely look to the statement, "There is only one substance." Now, if such a statement produces knowledge then the statement proves there are two substances and that the mind is immaterial (though it works with the material brain). I can audibly declare "There is only one substance," I can write it, I can sing it, I can put it in a video, and so on. I can shape the knowledge in any formation. Upon learning that "There is only one substance," you gain knowledge while I lose none. That is, you have learned something without me giving anything up. But this doesn't happen with material items - if I have a blue apple and give it to you, I no longer have that same blue apple. Thus, by attempting to present me with something knowledgable in order to prove there is no immaterial substance, you must use the immaterial. This is why such naturalistic arguments are self-defeating and lack backing.

More importantly, were we to ignore the above and grant there is only one substance (physical) then it would be illogical to believe as such, even if true. This might strike you as odd, but bear with me.

If the physical universe is all that exists then it is ultimately guided by natural selection. Natural selection is concerned with one thing - survival. Natural selection doesn't care one iota for the truth of a position, merely whether or not the position leads to the survival of the species. So we look at the belief in a spiritual substance, or more namely, God. If the belief in God doesn't aid in survival then such a belief should have dissipated by now. On the contrary, if the belief in God has aided in survival then we have no reason to argue against such a belief. Either way, the belief becomes epiphenominal for the naturalist and difficult to explain away.

But the atheist might say that a belief in God has in fact aided us in survival in the past, but now only harms us. Rather than avoiding the previous argument, the atheist has only set up a dilemma where he must take on one horn or the other. If God doesn't exist, but the belief in God aids in survival or did at one time, then this serves as proof that natural selection is geared towards survival and not truth gathering - so long as a belief aids in survival, the truth of the belief is irrelevant. If the truth is superfluous to survival and accidental, then it means we cannot trust our cognitive abilities. Our trust in our noetic environment would be thrown off as there would be no way we could justifiably say that a belief in naturalism - or any belief - is rational considering our rationality was bred for survival and not truth gathering.

To see this, imagine walking into a factory that produces widgets. You take pride in noticing that all the widgets are red, but then someone points out to you that there are red lights in the factory, thus making everything appear to be red. Now, it could be that the widgets are red, but you'd have no rational grounds to claim so; any claim that the widgets are actually red, regardless of the reality of them being red, would be a baseless claim, that is, illogical.

So under this naturalistic viewpoint that you present to us we are left with a dilemma and we must take one horn or the other; we must explain how a belief in God (or the immaterial) came about sans natural selection, or we must say that a false belief was created via natural selection. Either way, we lost any true capacity to accept naturalism as a logical position, even if true.

Now, while this doesn't disprove naturalism, it does show the lunacy and untenable nature of naturalism, or the belief in one physical substance. We can prima facie reject naturalism simply on it being untenable and by definition irrational. This leaves the naturalist in envy of the dualist who holds to what is at least a logical position and one that can be validated by universal human experience and observation.

[Event_Horizon]

Okay, there are a few misconceptions here that I think I should clear up.

But the mere idea of there being one substance (physical) is an absurdity as there's no backing for it and it's ultimately illogical.

This I don't quite understand. We have never found anything nonphysical in the universe, because our universe is physical. Why then would anyone assert that nonphysical things exists. Even ideas in your head are physical processes - networks of neurons.

That is, you have learned something without me giving anything up. But this doesn't happen with material items - if I have a blue apple and give it to you, I no longer have that same blue apple. Thus, by attempting to present me with something knowledgable in order to prove there is no immaterial substance, you must use the immaterial. This is why such naturalistic arguments are self-defeating and lack backing.

But that is simply not true, because you're treating knowledge like it is non-physical. Knowledge might not be a substance, but it has physical properties. The human cognome project seeks to do to the brain what the human genome project did to DNA. Through decades of research with millions of participants through various forms of brain scan technology, never have we found a nonphysical process, that includes language and learning. A thought might not be a material item, but it is a physical process. The physical processes of potassium/sodium ion channels and chemical neurotransmitters, the networks they make, are pretty well understood - none of it being supernatural.

If the physical universe is all that exists then it is ultimately guided by natural selection.

That is incorrect. The universe is only "guided" by physical laws. There are definite physical laws in atomic chemistry, physics, and mathematics; but biological laws of nature are not concrete laws. They are simply biological processes that function on this planet.

So we look at the belief in a spiritual substance, or more namely, God. If the belief in God doesn't aid in survival then such a belief should have dissipated by now. On the contrary, if the belief in God has aided in survival then we have no reason to argue against such a belief. Either way, the belief becomes epiphenominal for the naturalist and difficult to explain away.

There are biological reasons to believe in God. Our human brain is built to understand cause and effect; combine that dynamic with ignorance of primitive cultures, and it is obvious that the ideas of Gods were invented to find a cause and effect relationships to things primitive people didn't understand. Natural forces became Gods. Diseases became Gods. The supernatural explanation of course has faded since then, with a naturalistic point of view. So not only does naturalism explain it, but it also cures it.

If God doesn't exist, but the belief in God aids in survival or did at one time, then this serves as proof that natural selection is geared towards survival and not truth gathering.

Natural selection is only the name of the process, not a guiding force. Organisms that are able to adapt, or have certain traits, survive. There is no "truth" or knowledge present in the system. The system does not go toward an end goal. Natural selection is label given to only one process in biology - for example there is artificial selection, or sexual selection.

so long as a belief aids in survival, the truth of the belief is irrelevant.

Not quite. Truth is relevant to the human condition. We have evolved beyond the shallow drive of just surviving, and we have become a species that values truth. While truth is inconsequential to the universe, it is important to us. You say truth is superfluous to our survival, but from a psychological standpoint, the truth is VERY relevant to our survival. Knowing the cause and effect of something, knowing something is true, allows us to survive. So here I'm not sure where your argument is going.

So under this naturalistic viewpoint that you present to us we are left with a dilemma and we must take one horn or the other; we must explain how a belief in God (or the immaterial) came about sans natural selection, or we must say that a false belief was created via natural selection. Either way, we lost any true capacity to accept naturalism as a logical position, even if true.

I did explain how the idea of God was created via natural selection, which has also created false beliefs, in Gods. There have been many ideas of God in the past, all of which are claimed to be false since only a handful of major religions still exist today. So not only has the human brain, from natural selection, created the idea of God, but also made false Gods. The concept of any God is just the same biologically driven thinking of finding causes to an uncontrollable universe. God only exists because some believe it to exist, and they only believe so because someone before them told them, which going all the way back, only happened because something occurred that couldn't have been explained at the time. I'm not sure then where all of this naturalism is illogical comes from. Everything so far has been explained by natural processes. However if the natural process wasn't the answer, someone else would have to demonstrate what it was before claiming to be right.

[Achronos]

This I don't quite understand. We have never found anything nonphysical in the universe, because our universe is physical. Why then would anyone assert that nonphysical things exists. Even ideas in your head are physical processes - networks of neurons....But that is simply not true, because you're treating knowledge like it is non-physical. Knowledge might not be a substance, but it has physical properties. The human cognome project seeks to do to the brain what the human genome project did to DNA. Through decades of research with millions of participants through various forms of brain scan technology, never have we found a nonphysical process, that includes language and learning. A thought might not be a material item, but it is a physical process. The physical processes of potassium/sodium ion channels and chemical neurotransmitters, the networks they make, are pretty well understood - none of it being supernatural.

The problem with such a statement is that it's begging the question - it assumes that all that exists is the physical and therefore everything has to be a product of the physical. Thus, the scientific discoveries are tainted from the get-go even though they bring about more questions and show the implausibility of naturalism.

You state that knowledge has physical properties, but again I ask, what properties? Certainly knowledge is manifested physically, but knowledge itself, the ding an sich of knowledge, is quite intangible. As I stated, were it material then we would lose something when presenting knowledge. Simply dismissing this with a wave of your hand and saying, "No, it's neuron processes" doesn't constitute a sufficient rebuttal.

As for the project, I'm well aware of such types of projects, but they've all failed thus far to explain the "ghost in the machine." Naturalism is committed to a non-dual explanation of the universe, which significantly hampers them when it comes to the philosophy of the mind. They must treat the issues between body and mind as "brute facts" and say, "evolution did it" even though such issues are sui generis when compared to the naturalist explanation of man. Naturalism takes consciousness for granted and assumes it is a product of evolution, yet cannot provide a sufficient cause within the evolutionary output; after all, we can imagine a world where consciousness does not exist, thus we know that consciousness is not a necessary part of creation.

Thus we have this grand metaphysic provided to us by naturalism that consciousness just doesn't fit into. Consciousness becomes a recalcitrant fact, something that undermines the grand narrative and can't be fit within the grand narrative, yet we know it exists. So we turn to your hypothesis and the hypothesis of many - everything is just a function of the brain.

Yet, this completely lacks any nuanced approach to the immaterial aspects of the human experience. Were we to cover the windows of a car and then look at the engine, we would see a machine without a driver. If we moved one part of the engine, we could get it to rev up. The modern scientist would then declare, "Aha! There is no driver in the machine, only the machine! See, when I touch this part of the engine it revs up! This means that when we see cars driving and turning, it is the machine because the driver is an illusion!" This is essentially the same thing being done when we look at certain patterns in the brain. When scientists see that certain areas are stimulated with certain environments, this shows the effect on the brain, but it still doesn't explain the cause as originating in the brain.

The problem mentioned above is proven by the fact of our awareness. I am aware of my senses, but such a concept is contradictory if we are merely physical; how can the brain be aware of itself if it is purely physical? Removing humans, such an awareness is not duplicated in nature. All my thoughts, my beliefs, my views, my wants, my needs, are aware only to me; no scientist can discover them by opening my brain. So where are they stored? Why can't my mind be read? Why is it that when I die my knowledge goes with me, rather than dumping it into a computer? Where is all of this located?

But moving onto the argument from mereological replacement, we see that we can change the parts of a human without impacting the whole. Were we purely physical beings, we would predict that in changing one part of us (be it a lung, a heart, etc) we would change completely. As it is, we don't. Thus, under a purely physical point of view, the logical conclusion is that all "I" am is a brain. Yet the brain doesn't function without the rest of the body and therefore is dependent upon everything else, making everything essential to the brain's identity (for survival). Yet we just saw that replacing parts doesn't change our identity. Thus, there must be some non-physical identity that keeps us as the whole.

I would encourage you to pick up a copy of J.P. Moreland's Recalcitrant Imago Dei for further study on this issue.

That is incorrect. The universe is only "guided" by physical laws. There are definite physical laws in atomic chemistry, physics, and mathematics; but biological laws of nature are not concrete laws. They are simply biological processes that function on this planet.

Then they are concrete for us, which still gets to the point I was making. For us, on this planet, the most important aspect guiding our lives is natural selection - so important that no naturalist would ever advocate that we can deviate from natural selection. It simply is.

Here is where everything gets interesting. You admit that natural selection is only concerned about survival and that God was an invention that aided in that survival via explanatory powers of the natural world when you say:

There are biological reasons to believe in God. Our human brain is built to understand cause and effect; combine that dynamic with ignorance of primitive cultures, and it is obvious that the ideas of Gods were invented to find a cause and effect relationships to things primitive people didn't understand. Natural forces became Gods. Diseases became Gods. The supernatural explanation of course has faded since then, with a naturalistic point of view. So not only does naturalism explain it, but it also cures it...Natural selection is only the name of the process, not a guiding force. Organisms that are able to adapt, or have certain traits, survive. There is no "truth" or knowledge present in the system. The system does not go toward an end goal. Natural selection is label given to only one process in biology - for example there is artificial selection, or sexual selection.

(As an aside, natural selection predicts sexual selection, that is, sexual selection falls under the process of natural selection...)

Now you go on to contradict yourself when you say,

Not quite. Truth is relevant to the human condition. We have evolved beyond the shallow drive of just surviving, and we have become a species that values truth. While truth is inconsequential to the universe, it is important to us. You say truth is superfluous to our survival, but from a psychological standpoint, the truth is VERY relevant to our survival. Knowing the cause and effect of something, knowing something is true, allows us to survive. So here I'm not sure where your argument is going.

...and then turn around again and contradict yourself by saying,

I did explain how the idea of God was created via natural selection, which has also created false beliefs, in Gods. There have been many ideas of God in the past, all of which are claimed to be false since only a handful of major religions still exist today. So not only has the human brain, from natural selection, created the idea of God, but also made false Gods. The concept of any God is just the same biologically driven thinking of finding causes to an uncontrollable universe. God only exists because some believe it to exist, and they only believe so because someone before them told them, which going all the way back, only happened because something occurred that couldn't have been explained at the time. I'm not sure then where all of this naturalism is illogical comes from. Everything so far has been explained by natural processes. However if the natural process wasn't the answer, someone else would have to demonstrate what it was before claiming to be right.

So you fall right into the trap I set - you have proven that believing in naturalism is illogical and untenable. Again, you say, "Well we've evolved beyond that." How do you know? How do you know that's not just a survival mechanism causing you to believe we've moved beyond it?

Regardless of your subjective and anecdotal answer, the fact is that discovering the truth isn't necessary to us as a species. You can't say that a belief in God was formed as a survival mechanism and then turn around and say that truth is essential for our species survival. Those two statements contradict each other. If God doesn't exist, but belief in Him was necessary for survival, then knowing the truth is not essential for our survival, meaning there is no reason to trust in our cognitive abilities because they will lead us to believe things that aid in our survival, but are not true.

Were this a debate, this would be the case of "game, set, match." You bit right into what I was saying and proved how naturalism is illogical. However, I would implore that you get over your bias against Christianity and theism in general and actually contemplate what you have read today. I beg of you to research this issue beyond typing it into . Go read books on this subject, real books by real philosophers, not some hack-job done by a Richard Dawkins or a Kirk Cameron

[Event_Horizon]

The problem with such a statement is that it's begging the question - it assumes that all that exists is the physical and therefore everything has to be a product of the physical. Thus, the scientific discoveries are tainted from the get-go even though they bring about more questions and show the implausibility of naturalism.

Scientific discoveries are not tainted. How do you even get that idea? Because a field of inquiry stays within the boundaries of the physical universe, doesn't mean there aren't other things out there. Science doesn't touch religion because science cannot go beyond the physical. Implausibility is not a problem because, so far, 100% of our universe has been observed as physical. It's not that I deny that there might be something nonphysical, but the better question is, why would I accept it when 0% of our universe has been identified as nonphysical?

You state that knowledge has physical properties, but again I ask, what properties? Certainly knowledge is manifested physically, but knowledge itself, the ding an sich of knowledge, is quite intangible. As I stated, were it material then we would lose something when presenting knowledge. Simply dismissing this with a wave of your hand and saying, "No, it's neuron processes" doesn't constitute a sufficient rebuttal.

Not everything is lost when it has been given up. There is such a thing as replication. In your analogy, nothing can be created, things can only be passed on. The physical manifestation of knowledge are quite clear in the robust growth of dendritic connections within the human brain. To learn something and retain knowledge then becomes a function of the size of the neural network. You say it's intangible, but why do you say so? You say it doesn't because you assume so. Learning and communication, creativity, etc, are functions of the brain. One doesn't have to give up anything like it is a resource. It's a difficult concept for first grasp, but do computers lose anything by sharing information wirelessly? No, then obvious computers must be nonphysical, or supernatural, dare I even say magical?

As for the project, I'm well aware of such types of projects, but they've all failed thus far to explain the "ghost in the machine." Naturalism is committed to a non-dual explanation of the universe, which significantly hampers them when it comes to the philosophy of the mind.

Actually, it doesn't because the mind (or consciousness) is a function of the brain - a physical object. Without the brain, the consciousness cannot survive in the physical world. Now you dismissing naturalism because it cannot explain something is an argument from ignorance: we haven't learned everything about something, that thing must not be true. You on the other hand, say naturalism is not true, yet you cannot establish that supernaturalism IS true. Nobody has ever observed the soul, or angels/demons, fairies, psychics, magic, etc. So once again, the supernaturalistic explanation in a 100% physical universe is lacking evidence. It is because it lacks evidence that I find it false, not that I dogmatically defend naturalism.

Naturalism takes consciousness for granted and assumes it is a product of evolution, yet cannot provide a sufficient cause within the evolutionary output; after all, we can imagine a world where consciousness does not exist, thus we know that consciousness is not a necessary part of creation.

Woah, hold on, have you actually looked at the evolutionary perspective on consciousness, or have you just said there is none because you personally haven't seen it? There are tons of resources out there on human consciousness. Properly defining it would be particularly nice, however depending on who you ask, consciousness may also be only an illusion. Until we can better understand the brain, there can be no consensus of what consciousness is, or where it comes from. That means you cannot say that there IS a supernatural aspect until you demonstrate it, and I cannot say that there is definitely none. I can however say that because everything else in the entire universe is physical, that consciousness is probably as well, if it even exists. Call that an assumption if you like, but it is far meeker than the assumption you're making.

Thus we have this grand metaphysic provided to us by naturalism that consciousness just doesn't fit into. Consciousness becomes a recalcitrant fact, something that undermines the grand narrative and can't be fit within the grand narrative, yet we know it exists. So we turn to your hypothesis and the hypothesis of many - everything is just a function of the brain.

Because why would you think anything else? This whole universe is occurring inside your brain. And after that brain dies, every single function of the personality, emotions, cognitions, sensations and physical motor functions cease. This is not an opinion, but a verifiable fact. Every aspect of a body can be removed and replaced, yet the person keeps themselves, yet if that brain were removed, even select parts of it, the human would cease being that human.

When scientists see that certain areas are stimulated with certain environments, this shows the effect on the brain, but it still doesn't explain the cause as originating in the brain.

And you saying that the unknown is NOT physical is an argument from ignorance. Because we don't know something, you cannot say it is material or supernatural. I can say that everything else so far, without exception, has been material. Personally, I'm putting my bet on material.

I am aware of my senses, but such a concept is contradictory if we are merely physical [woah, what?]; how can the brain be aware of itself if it is purely physical? Removing humans, such an awareness is not duplicated in nature. All my thoughts, my beliefs, my views, my wants, my needs, are aware only to me; no scientist can discover them by opening my brain. So where are they stored? Why can't my mind be read? Why is it that when I die my knowledge goes with me, rather than dumping it into a computer? Where is all of this located?

First, self awareness is a very physical process, and we've identified it in other species. The basic litmus test of self awareness is showing an animal their reflection. If they can recognize it as themselves, then they know have a basic concept of what they look like, and who they are. Fun fact, dolphins, (some) apes, and even magpies are self aware. Even more fun fact, some humans before the age of two are NOT self aware. Whatever self awareness is, it is not solely part of the human condition. Secondly, with enough technology, it is possible that we might be able to map out every neuron in your brain, essentially reading you thoughts. We can even do it now at a very basic level. Where is all of it located?; in various parts of the brain. Before you start claiming that we have no naturalistic explanation, I would encourage you to actually look up the naturalistic explanations.

But moving onto the argument from mereological replacement, we see that we can change the parts of a human without impacting the whole. Were we purely physical beings, we would predict that in changing one part of us (be it a lung, a heart, etc) we would change completely. As it is, we don't. Thus, under a purely physical point of view, the logical conclusion is that all "I" am is a brain. Yet the brain doesn't function without the rest of the body and therefore is dependent upon everything else, making everything essential to the brain's identity (for survival). Yet we just saw that replacing parts doesn't change our identity. Thus, there must be some non-physical identity that keeps us as the whole.

Whaaat? This just baffles me. Every part of our body operates at a physical level. Talk to any doctor, and they'll tell you that everything is run by chemistry. We can remove an arm, and the human is still in the physical universe. We can do heart, liver, kidney transplants, and the human does not change their personality. However if you give the human specific chemicals that affect parts of their brain, like say dopamine, not only will their personality change, but their physical body will too. These chemicals are also physical. I have NO idea why you think there is a non-physical part of the body, because every part of the body is PHYSICAL. The brain could survive on its own if it were hypothetically hooked up to a machine to keep it alive. Such an existence without sensations would be quite a dreary one, but it is possible.

Then they are concrete for us, which still gets to the point I was making. For us, on this planet, the most important aspect guiding our lives is natural selection - so important that no naturalist would ever advocate that we can deviate from natural selection. It simply is.

But we have deviated from natural selection. I'm beginning to think that you are getting the wrong idea of natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which the environment causes certain adaptations to survive. Now because we humans have been able to modify our environment, we essentially mitigate the effects of natural selection. For example we allow sickly people to survive and reproduce, going against natural selection, because their value to us as humans is worth keeping them in the gene pool. There is a whole different process called artificial selection that we use, sometimes without even recognizing it.

(As an aside, natural selection predicts sexual selection, that is, sexual selection falls under the process of natural selection...)

Natural selection is the environment selection specific traits. Sexual selection is the mating process selecting certain traits. They are not one in the same, and sometimes they work against each other. The male peacock for example has adaptations that would cause him to die by natural selection, but they are kept going by sexual selection.

So you fall right into the trap I set

Hold on there Jethro, not quite. You seem to miss the distinction I'm making. Our species was built upon the foundation of finding cause and effect for things in our universe. At present, our species values truth above some things. The idea of religion is not truth, but only a remnant of our primitive past when the urge to find cause and effect trumped the urge to find truth. However I think you keep confusing naturalism with natural selection. They are not the same thing. Even if we evolved a certain way, it still means that the universe is still, so far, completely physical. You're making a shell game by trying to convolute the definitions of natural selection and naturalism. As I said, they are not the same thing.

You have proven that believing in naturalism is illogical and untenable. Again, you say, "Well we've evolved beyond that." How do you know? How do you know that's not just a survival mechanism causing you to believe we've moved beyond it?

And how have I done that? How have I shown that the universe is not entirely physical? I'm not sure how you give out points, but you're fairly far behind simply because of the astounding falseness of the assertions you've made. You are making assumptions on the universe based only on your limited experience. You so far have not defeated naturalism.

The fact is that discovering the truth isn't necessary to us as a species.

Who said it was necessary? I said our species valued truth. You're so quick to claim victory, when your claim attacks nothing I said. Please reread what I wrote.

You can't say that a belief in God was formed as a survival mechanism and then turn around and say that truth is essential for our species survival. Those two statements contradict each other. If God doesn't exist, but belief in Him was necessary for survival, then knowing the truth is not essential for our survival, meaning there is no reason to trust in our cognitive abilities because they will lead us to believe things that aid in our survival, but are not true.

Well, like I said, I never said it was essential to our survival. I said we valued truth. Obviously it isn't absolutely necessary for our survival because humans have believed things that were not true - namely religion. You seem to think my statements contradict each other, but you didn't read my statements. And finally, even if they did, that would not refute naturalism.

Were this a debate, this would be the case of "game, set, match."

Yeah, not quite. You should go back and read what I said; not defeat your interpretation of what I said. *sigh* And finally, look up naturalism, and try to find points against it. The arguments of naturalism are not contradictory, only what you think I said of natural selection (not even remotely naturalism). I doubt this is a case of game, set, match.. The points you've made, I've matched. The points I've made, you haven't. You think you caught me in a contradiction, but that was a fault of your reading comprehension. You say that the contradiction disproved naturalism, when you didn't address the points of naturalism. I'm beginning to think you don't know what natural selection is - or naturalism for that matter. Some things you were just flat out wrong (ex: self awareness, sexual selection, and you didn't even touch artificial selection). If you want to bring your A game, actually match my points and explain why they're wrong.

[Sophus]

The problem with such a statement is that it's begging the question - it assumes that all that exists is the physical and therefore everything has to be a product of the physical. Thus, the scientific discoveries are tainted from the get-go even though they bring about more questions and show the implausibility of naturalism.

It's the reverse. You assume that something does exist beyond the physical. Until you can prove something does, you're the one making assumptions.

[Achronos]

Event_Horizon you are missing Effecient Causality and the related Law of Sufficient Reason.

Essentially, it's the problem both of modern atheism and modern apologetics; hardly anyone actually reads experts in the field, so their arguments generally are off target (this stands for both Christians and atheists).

Anyway, I'm working on a reply E_H, though it will probably be my last one as I generally don't have a lot of time to spend on long internet debates where there are no rules and there are no ends...but it does provide a nice distraction from editing my manuscript.

[Achronos]

Scientific discoveries are not tainted. How do you even get that idea? Because a field of inquiry stays within the boundaries of the physical universe, doesn't mean there aren't other things out there. Science doesn't touch religion because science cannot go beyond the physical. Implausibility is not a problem because, so far, 100% of our universe has been observed as physical. It's not that I deny that there might be something nonphysical, but the better question is, why would I accept it when 0% of our universe has been identified as nonphysical?

This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, what you are proposing comes dangerously close to logical positivism, which has been proven to be a dead belief because it’s self-refuting. If you are saying that knowledge can only be constituted by what is observable, then I think I’ve found the problem in your reasoning.

Not everything is lost when it has been given up. There is such a thing as replication. In your analogy, nothing can be created, things can only be passed on. The physical manifestation of knowledge are quite clear in the robust growth of dendritic connections within the human brain. To learn something and retain knowledge then becomes a function of the size of the neural network. You say it's intangible, but why do you say so? You say it doesn't because you assume so. Learning and communication, creativity, etc, are functions of the brain. One doesn't have to give up anything like it is a resource. It's a difficult concept for first grasp, but do computers lose anything by sharing information wirelessly? No, then obvious computers must be nonphysical, or supernatural, dare I even say magical?

This is a straw man fallacy; you’re misrepresenting my argument, possibly because you may not understand it because I didn’t explain it that way.
The best way to explain it is to look at computers and ask, “Are computers immaterial?” Obviously they aren’t. So would this mean that information is also material? Not at all, because you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation; you’re assuming that because computers can pass information and computers are physical, information must also be physical. However, information is not an essential aspect of computers. In other words, one can conceivably have a computer that contains no information (via nothing being programmed onto it). In fact, your analogy turns on you and actually aids my position.

The question is, “What is information?” If information is material then we should be able to take it and put it under the microscope. The statement, “This is a material statement” should be able to fit under the microscope. But we can only do so when we give a physical manifestation to the idea “This is a material statement.” This is because (and this is where the clarification would have aided you in understanding what I was saying) ideas are inherently immaterial. While ideas can be presented in different physical aspects â€" and must if we are to share ideas â€" the idea itself is immaterial, which allows it to be put into different physical forms. For instance, right now you are reading this idea via the reflections of light, a purely physical process. Were we in person, you would know of the idea via sound waves being constructed in a certain way that makes the idea intelligible to you.

All of this indicates that the idea, in its essential self, is immaterial whereas it does require a material format in order to be understood and shared. However, the form of the idea can change, indicating that while the essential idea itself (the ding an sich of the idea) remains unchanged, the form changed drastically.

That is what is meant when I say that an idea or knowledge is immaterial. To say, “Well this is all a process of the brain” is an incomplete statement. Yes, while the brain uses physical functions to interpret and process, there is nothing to indicate that the brain is the cause of the processes rather than the effects of a cause. To assert otherwise is to beg the question.

Now before you turn this on me and say that I am assuming otherwise, let me state that I am not. Merely I am saying that you can’t use the conclusion I am attacking to support your premises. I am attacking x and stating that y used as a justification of x doesn’t work. This doesn’t mean you can turn around and uplift y to justify x, because that is begging the question.

Actually, it doesn't because the mind (or consciousness) is a function of the brain - a physical object. Without the brain, the consciousness cannot survive in the physical world. Now you dismissing naturalism because it cannot explain something is an argument from ignorance: we haven't learned everything about something, that thing must not be true. You on the other hand, say naturalism is not true, yet you cannot establish that supernaturalism IS true. Nobody has ever observed the soul, or angels/demons, fairies, psychics, magic, etc. So once again, the supernaturalistic explanation in a 100% physical universe is lacking evidence. It is because it lacks evidence that I find it false, not that I dogmatically defend naturalism.

Again, this is more question begging. You stated that consciousness is a product of the brain de facto. But that’s what I’m debating, so you’re asserting the contention as a fact, meaning that it’s quite impossible to prove otherwise, hence the accusation of question begging.

As for an argument from ignorance, I don’t fall into that fallacy at all. I’m saying that it is impossible for naturalism to explain certain things. This would mean that if we could ever explain consciousness as something that actually exists, naturalism couldn’t account for it by nature of what naturalism teaches. That’s not an argument from ignorance at all; rather the converse is true. To say, “Well we haven’t discovered it yet” is the actual argument from ignorance because it’s saying, “Yeah, we can’t explain it, but we will.” In other words, though there is no answer, nor any reason to believe that naturalism can by its nature beget an answer, you hold blind faith that an answer will come about (though any such answer would undermine naturalism). That is, by definition, the argument from ignorance.

What I’m arguing is that certain aspects of humans are beyond the explanatory powers of naturalism while they are predicted by cognitive realism. To simply assert that naturalism is true and use it as a defeater is circular â€" you might as well argue the Bible is infallible because the Bible says it’s infallible. It’s the same type of argument.

Woah, hold on, have you actually looked at the evolutionary perspective on consciousness, or have you just said there is none because you personally haven't seen it? There are tons of resources out there on human consciousness. Properly defining it would be particularly nice, however depending on who you ask, consciousness may also be only an illusion. Until we can better understand the brain, there can be no consensus of what consciousness is, or where it comes from. That means you cannot say that there IS a supernatural aspect until you demonstrate it, and I cannot say that there is definitely none. I can however say that because everything else in the entire universe is physical, that consciousness is probably as well, if it even exists. Call that an assumption if you like, but it is far meeker than the assumption you're making.

Admittedly, I am not an expert on the philosophy of mind. However, it did compose a major section of my degree and graduate studies, so while I’m not an expert, I am familiar with it. Notably, I am familiar with the works of Jaegwon Kim, Roderick Chisholm, John Searle, Daniel Dennett, Frank Jackson, Thomas Nagel, and others. My understanding of naturalism in relation to philosophy of the mind comes from them, so if you disagree with my summation of the naturalistic argument, you should take it up with the naturalists.

As for taking on meek assumptions, again your creating a fallacy (composition). You’re assuming that because some parts of the universe are physical, all of existence itself has to be physical as well. Yet, consciousness is but one defeater for such a fallacious way of thinking; simply waving it off as an illusion doesn’t work because such a teaching is self-defeating (one must be conscious in order to say that it’s an illusion).
The idea of consciousness as an illusion comes from the view that only material states can be validated in the third person (as an observer). Since consciousness is a first person activity, logical positivists have proposed the theory that consciousness is an illusion since it can’t be properly observed and tested via the scientific method. The illogical and self-defeating nature of logical positivism aside, such a stance is a priori preposterous. Let me explain.

You can search through any textbook in chemistry or physics and you will not discover anything that explains consciousness as a part of matter. We do not see any other aspect of the material universe begetting consciousness. This is compounded by our own debate â€" you are arguing that my beliefs are false. But let me ask you, is the moon false? Is the Sun false? Are atoms false? The answer is that they are neither true nor false. But if consciousness is an illusion then ideas are matters of material consideration, which in turn means that ideas cannot be true or false; they can simply be (such as the moon, atoms, or the Sun). To assert otherwise is a case of special pleading.

In order to explain anything about humans, we must do so in a personal fashion and not a mechanistic manner. If Peter desired to stab Paul, then we would explain this in a personal manner and not a mechanistic manner. We wouldn’t say that Peter’s desire was a mechanistic response (with exception to self-defense, but let us say that Peter killed Paul because he didn’t like Paul’s tie) because if we did say that Peter’s act was mechanistic, then how could we properly send him to prison or hold him accountable for his crime? After all, the real fault lays with Paul for wearing a tie that would incite people to murder; but then again, if consciousness is an illusion then Paul only chose that tie because biology had guided him to choose that tie, so there was no real choice involved.

So from just an a priori view of humanity, we know that consciousness isn’t an illusion because we experience it on a daily basis. While that might make the logical positivists and empiricists cringe, I simply point them back to their corners and tell them to explain their self-refuting epistemology before they come out of their rooms.

Because why would you think anything else? This whole universe is occurring inside your brain. And after that brain dies, every single function of the personality, emotions, cognitions, sensations and physical motor functions cease. This is not an opinion, but a verifiable fact. Every aspect of a body can be removed and replaced, yet the person keeps themselves, yet if that brain were removed, even select parts of it, the human would cease being that human.

I agree that the brain is essential to human survival, but this doesn’t prove that the brain is the central aspect of everything. An engine is essential to the survival of a car, but for the car to operate and drive correctly it needs a driver, who doesn’t need the car. Thus, the driver is essential to the proper function of the car, but the car is not essential to the proper function of the driver. This would be akin to the dualistic argument for human persons (though it might frustrate Aquinas).

But my explanation is covered above.

And you saying that the unknown is NOT physical is an argument from ignorance. Because we don't know something, you cannot say it is material or supernatural. I can say that everything else so far, without exception, has been material. Personally, I'm putting my bet on material.

More straw man and question begging. What I am saying is that it is beyond the explanatory power of naturalism to explain certain aspects of human existence. I’m saying that certain aspects of human existence contradict naturalism and therefore naturalism can never truly explain it. Now, if naturalism is false, then supernaturalism must be true (in some form). When you have an either/or and it is proven to be an either/or with no third option, if one option is eliminated as a viable way to describe reality, the other option must be true by processes of elimination.

To be honest, I really don’t have the time to go through the rest of the post. As it stands, even if I did I would merely be using longer sentences to justify my claims and I fear you would come back and take it one line at a time (thus ignoring the broader context).

Generally, I have no problem going back and forth so long as the discussion is friendly, concise, and going somewhere. So I leave you the final word, but I would implore you to go out there and look up Richard Swinburne’s “Evolution of the Soul.” Please, read books, not the internet.