Happy Atheist Forum

I intended to post this earlier when it was fresh in my mind but this will have to do. At some Gnu Atheists' Blog, I can't even remember where, I believe it read that PZ Myers, among others, had struck down Richard's argument that God must be more complex than the simplest components of nature/the universe we can discover through science; God must have evolved from something simple as well, if he exists. I hadn't heard this from the atheists before and was wonder if anyone knew what this person is talking about? A link to PZ's post, perhaps?  

Do any of you disagree with it? I cannot think of a flaw with it so long as we keep a scientific mind. If someone invokes magic, then... well... whatever.

[youtube:3ny78j1u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasyrRULHog[/youtube:3ny78j1u]

This is the closest thing I can think of that matches. But I don't exactly follow him very closely.

In the interview with Ben Stein, he mentioned that if humans came about from intelligent design, the thing that designed us must have come about through the process of evolution.

I'm not going to speak for Dawkins, and I don't like him much these days anyway.

How I have seen this argument is as a reductio ad absurdum.

If one declares that the origin of the universe cannot be explained by something as simple as a quantum event, and then therefore must require something more complex, like a god, then that god, by the same reasoning, must be explained by something even more complex.  Therefore the argument that a complex god is necessary is refuted.

Understanding this seems, however, to require more neurons than are usually available.

I don't have any problem with Dawkins, I thought this was a basic and reasonable argument.

QuoteA designer God cannot be
used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of
designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand
the same kind of explanation in his own right.

There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally. Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:jwz51ltz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:jwz51ltz]

There is a difference between seeing an effect and looking for the cause, and presupposing a cause and asserting that it has any effect.

Quote from: "Jac3510"There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally. Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:381071uv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:381071uv]

I have enjoyed your posts, but do you really believe this crap?

Quote from: "DaveD"There is a difference between seeing an effect and looking for the cause, and presupposing a cause and asserting that it has any effect.

Of course, and it is a myth of popular atheism that theology does anything less than look for the effect of causes and ultimately finding it in God. We don't start with the proposition that God exists and then go around say, "He caused that, and that . . . and oh yeah, He caused that, too!" The fact that some theists do that is no more condemning of theism generally than the fact that some atheists argue that all Christians are idiots. We are to deal with the strongest form of an argument. Picking off a weaker form and declaring victory doesn't float. ;)

I tell you guys this alot, and I will continue to do so for a while yet, I imagine: I have enjoyed posting here as the vast majority of the conversations I've had have been productive. Further, the discussions I've not been a part of have even been nice to read (ok, well some of them!). It's a very nice community. I hope to be part of it in the long term.

edit: in any case, Dawkins' argument, which is the subject of the OP, is definitely fallacious in my view, and I've offered three reasons to think that it is. I'm sure the moderators and Sophus would appreciate it if we kept to a discussion about that.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I have enjoyed your posts, but do really believe this crap?

That depends on when you stopped beating your wife. I am jesting, of course, but if you will allow me to disregard your characterization of theism as "crap" and consider it for what it is--an intellectual representation of how the world really is based on rigorously philosophical reasoning, namely, that God exists and is distinct from His creation--then yes, I believe it thoroughly.

I do appreciate the first part of your post, though.

I tell you guys this alot, and I will continue to do so for a while yet, I imagine: I have enjoyed posting here as the vast majority of the conversations I've had have been productive. Further, the discussions I've not been a part of have even been nice to read (ok, well some of them!). It's a very nice community. I hope to be part of it in the long term.

edit: in any case, Dawkins' argument, which is the subject of the OP, is definitely fallacious in my view, and I've offered three reasons to think that it is. I'm sure the moderators and Sophus would appreciate it if we kept to a discussion about that.

Why doesn't god provide a more coherent message to the common man.
It would do some academics out of a job but it would save a lot of trouble.

Jac I see your arguments, they are just a game, like WOW a waste of time.

Quote from: "Jac3510"There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally. Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:2mdmabxe]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:2mdmabxe]

Thus far I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts Jac3510. Magic Pudding, these are well thought out points worthy of attention I think.  I wish to reply in depth later, but for now I will simply say: do not most realms of science have a certain "Darwinian principle" to them, in that the order of everything runs from complexity to simplicity? (Note: not on a comprehension level of course). Maybe "most" isn't the right word, but Biology and Physics. For God to be a physical being he should have evolved.

Quote from: "Sophus"Thus far I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts Jac3510. Magic Pudding, these are well thought out points worthy of attention I think.  I wish to reply in depth later, but for now I will simply say: do not most realms of science have a certain "Darwinian principle" to them, in that the order of everything runs from complexity to simplicity? (Note: not on a comprehension level of course). Maybe "most" isn't the right word, but Biology and Physics. For God to be a physical being he should have evolved.

I don't doubt jac's points are well thought out and are fit to obfuscate.
"everything runs from complexity to simplicity?"
Ha?
Can I say I hold a deep suspicion for an argument that seems designed to exclude ordinary people from understanding, but by it's nature is bound to be used to govern them.

MP,

Nothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

Every ordinary person, however, has the capacity to learn the discipline and test it for themselves. If you want to take the time and learn this material and discuss it as others here are, you'll find it's all very clear. The fact that some of the people I am discussing these things with here are making the exact same arguments as philosophers in the past, probably people they've never read, proves we aren't dealing with random thoughts, but a certain and testable system of ideas and their consequences.

The information is right here for you to access if you want to. If you decide not to, that doesn't speak ill of philosophy, knowledge, or truth.

Edit:

Sophus,

The comment about God being physical, was that directed to me? Obviously I would just deny that God is physical . . .

Quote from: "Jac3510"Sophus,

The comment about God being physical, was that directed to me? Obviously I would just deny that God is physical . . .

If not existing physically, wouldn't that be to say he doesn't exist at all? Is there anything, other than thoughts (which are caused by physically existent neurons and such) which can be said to exist beyond physics?  

Do you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

Quote from: "Jac3510"MP,

Nothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

Every ordinary person, however, has the capacity to learn the discipline and test it for themselves. If you want to take the time and learn this material and discuss it as others here are, you'll find it's all very clear. The fact that some of the people I am discussing these things with here are making the exact same arguments as philosophers in the past, probably people they've never read, proves we aren't dealing with random thoughts, but a certain and testable system of ideas and their consequences.

The information is right here for you to access if you want to. If you decide not to, that doesn't speak ill of philosophy, knowledge, or truth.

Yes I know things aren't simple, but god is supposedly all powerful, why doesn't he provide an understandable message for the masses, why does he rely on corruptible priests?  

I don't know how an ipod is built, but it works, what priests provide is less reliable.

Theists say here is the world and god created it.
I say yes, who created god?
And you give me ineligible gobldy gook.
You are much better at gobldy gook than any I've seen, but still it doesn't satisfy.

This is not science.
You may say I don't know the language so I can't understand.
I say you can't explain because you don't understand.

I'll say again, I object to a god created universe only explainable by an elite.
I suspect a confidence trick perpetrated on the common people.

Quote from: "Davin"[youtube:1czveu6f]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasyrRULHog[/youtube:1czveu6f]

This is the closest thing I can think of that matches. But I don't exactly follow him very closely.

In the interview with Ben Stein, he mentioned that if humans came about from intelligent design, the thing that designed us must have come about through the process of evolution.

Not quite. This article (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/676-the-dawkins-confusion-naturalism-ad-absurdum?page=2) elaborates a little more. I have no idea how they can claim God to be almighty, worthy of worship, beyond their puny human comprehension and yet simple at the same time.

Quote from: "Sophus"This article (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/676-the-dawkins-confusion-naturalism-ad-absurdum?page=2) elaborates a little more. I have no idea how they can claim God to be almighty, worthy of worship, beyond their puny human comprehension and yet simple at the same time.

Thanks for the article Sophus.  I have to agree with you regarding the proposed simplicity of God.  I might have a little less of a Magic Puddingesque suspicion if it wasn't always religious types making these strong cases for God.  Where are the theistic, non religious philosophers that have proofs for God?

Getting back to simplicity.  In the video, Dr. Craig insists that God is simple.  He described it the same way one would describe a single person's immortal soul. He doesn't even bother to discuss omnipotence. God is infinitely complex, to suggest otherwise is an insult to the intelligence.  I also find it unappealing that he equates finding machinery on the moon with us having evidence of God.  If any actual physical evidence suggests the Universe was created by God, I'd love to see it. He  represents God as the best solution to the creation of the universe. It's only a "solution" because those offering it aren't concerned with evidence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally.
 Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:mpdj4jrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:mpdj4jrw]

Whether god's complexity is biological or otherwise, it still needs explaining.  I mean, if you were walking on a beach and came across a watch ...

Also, you're right that causes need not be fully understood to be considered.  However, they should be reasonable.  A god is obviously an unreasonable "cause" -- particularly the Judeo-Christian variety.

Also, Craig is an a priori apologist par excellence.  You may as well cite Lee Strobel.  Both these men discard evidence which contradicts them, and this disqualifies them my attention.

Quote from: "Jac3510"MP,

Nothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

Every ordinary person, however, has the capacity to learn the discipline and test it for themselves. If you want to take the time and learn this material and discuss it as others here are, you'll find it's all very clear. The fact that some of the people I am discussing these things with here are making the exact same arguments as philosophers in the past, probably people they've never read, proves we aren't dealing with random thoughts, but a certain and testable system of ideas and their consequences.

The information is right here for you to access if you want to. If you decide not to, that doesn't speak ill of philosophy, knowledge, or truth.

True, but not every "ordinary" person has the time or inclination to learn these disciplines and test them for themselves. What you're doing here by presenting everything you have to say in a highly classical/academic way is playing with a deck that's stacked in your favor, which I see as being a little intellectually dishonest. You're dazzling us with your very scholarly and erudite presentation. In music we call that playing with all chops and no musicality. In other words you're playing a lot of notes just for the sake of playing a lot of notes.

I don't think anything is much worth saying if only a few people are qualified to understand it, not on a forum such as this anyway. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm just not qualified to understand what you're saying the way you say it.

I am not a scientist, but I would think that anyone, god or otherwise, would have to be infinitely complex in order to have the capacity to imagine the complexity of the universe.  Remember, there is a LOT we do not understand about science and the cosmos, so to even suggest that god is somehow simple and NOT infinitely complex is absurd.

NOTHING I have read or heard from Theists goes very far from smoke and mirrors.  It's really not that hard to take something that doesn't exist and give it a very convincing back story and sprinkle in some science and bingo bango you have Harry Potter, Santa, and a host of other make-believe entities.  All of this "science" to prove god fails when you consider several things.  1- there have been thousands, if not more if you consider the countless groups in history who worshiped gods that we don't have knowledge of, gods with NO evidence of the existence of even ONE.  2- it simply doesn't make sense that god would have chosen the time in history that he did to "reveal" himself, send his son Jesus, and so forth, without considering that man would evolved beyond the superstitious creature he was at the time. Think about it, why didn't god put into the bible something about nuclear energy, or particle excelleration, and surely ancient man wouldn't have understood, but it would have been a remarkable thing to see once man evolved enough to realize it was in the bible; and 3- arrogance of man:  simply to limit god to having so much concern over a species of animal on ONE planet, when there are nearly infinite planets in the universe, why this one blue marble?  God would have to be infinitely complex in order to be able to just think about all of the complexity of the universe.

Just my humble atheist view.

I admit, in some ways I admire Craig, and have done since I first encountered his ideas, thanks to phillysoul11, in this forum.  That I admire him does not mean that I think his arguments are flawless, however.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""In order to recognize that an explanation is the best explanation, you don't need an explanation of that explanation."

This, I think is valid.  However, Craig provides no reason to accept that the "God did it" explanation is "the best."  If it had always been accepted as the best explanation, then science would never have advanced, since many of the workings of the universe that scientists have examined and have provided theories to explain were once in the realm of "God did it."  That explanation has proven to be less than adequate in many many cases, so it's reasonable to suspect that it's not the best explanation for any given case. There is an element of the burden of proof in this, whether Craig would like to acknowledge it or not.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""Archeologists could infer that arrowheads are the products of a lost tribe, even if they knew nothing else about them."

The archeologists could infer that, but would they have sound reasons for doing so?  There is at least one alternate inference that might be made-- That the arrowheads are from a branch of a known tribe.  I'm not sure why Craig uses the term "lost tribe" here.  Really the only sound inference that might be made is that the artifacts are the product of people who lived in the area at some time in the past, and perhaps a rough date might be gained from the layer in which they were found. The whole "lost tribe" idea is spurious.  I might imagine that Craig is adding a spurious element so that we won't blink when he does the same later, but that would be imputing a devious motive for Craig's argument, which I don't think is justified, even if it might not be far from the truth.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""In order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you don't need to explain the designer."

I think that Craig has a point here.  However, in order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you do need to explain why a designer is a more plausible explanation than the mechanisms currently understood as the origins of biological complexity. You must show why introducing an added (I would say spurious) layer of complexity to your explanation (designer) is justified by the evidence.  Ockam's Razor would lead us to discard the added element in our explanation that introducing a designer would entail, if there is an explanation that works just as well without that element.  Intelligent Design advocates have consistently failed to prove that the designer is a necessary element in explaining biological complexity.  One famous example cited often by ID advocates is Michael Behe, whose concept of "irreducible complexity" is expounded in the book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  Behe's thinking is taken apart and shown to be false in this review (http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html). The linked review is only one example of many which have shown that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not what it claims to be.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""God is immaterial, mind without a body.  God is remarkably simple, having no parts, no composition, simple in nature."

This is hand-waving.  Craig jumps to this from the "no need to explain the explanation" point, saying that the "God hypothesis" is actually simple. "An unembodied mind is an entity that is startingly simple in it's nature." True. Since we have no evidence that such a thing as an unembodied mind even exists, it's a simple conjecture, no more. It is indeed true that no explanation is needed, and in fact it seems likely that none is possible.  Unembodied minds are an extraneous element added on top of what we already know of the universe.  Are we justified in adding an element (for which we have no evidence), if we can explain the workings of the universe without that element? That is what Dawkins is talking about, not whether God's nature is simple or complex.  Craig is destroying a straw man here. Theists add the "God hypothesis" to their understanding of the universe, but are they following evidence, or their pre-concieved notions of the nature of reality? Physicists have thought about, and hypothesized on the origins of the universe, but all admit that they have no conclusive answer yet.  They will continue to explore the question, maybe for as long as there are physicists to do so. One thing is pretty clear though: So far no evidence of a divine origin has been found.  Thus, the hypothesis of a divine origin is no more valid than any other hypothesis, and in fact, adds an element to the origin that makes the theist's explanation more complex than a naturalistic explanation.

Quote from: "Recusant"I admit, in some ways I admire Craig, and have done since I first encountered his ideas, thanks to phillysoul11, in this forum.  That I admire him does not mean that I think his arguments are flawless, however.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""In order to recognize that an explanation is the best explanation, you don't need an explanation of that explanation."

This, I think is valid.  However, Craig provides no reason to accept that the "God did it" explanation is "the best."  If it had always been accepted as the best explanation, then science would never have advanced, since many of the workings of the universe that scientists have examined and have provided theories to explain were once in the realm of "God did it."  That explanation has proven to be less than adequate in many many cases, so it's reasonable to suspect that it's not the best explanation for any given case. There is an element of the burden of proof in this, whether Craig would like to acknowledge it or not.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""Archeologists could infer that arrowheads are the products of a lost tribe, even if they knew nothing else about them."

The archeologists could infer that, but would they have sound reasons for doing so?  There is at least one alternate inference that might be made-- That the arrowheads are from a branch of a known tribe.  I'm not sure why Craig uses the term "lost tribe" here.  Really the only sound inference that might be made is that the artifacts are the product of people who lived in the area at some time in the past, and perhaps a rough date might be gained from the layer in which they were found. The whole "lost tribe" idea is spurious.  I might imagine that Craig is adding a spurious element so that we won't blink when he does the same later, but that would be imputing a devious motive for Craig's argument, which I don't think is justified, even if it might not be far from the truth.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""In order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you don't need to explain the designer."

I think that Craig has a point here.  However, in order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you do need to explain why a designer is a more plausible explanation than the mechanisms currently understood as the origins of biological complexity. You must show why introducing an added (I would say spurious) layer of complexity to your explanation (designer) is justified by the evidence.  Ockam's Razor would lead us to discard the added element in our explanation that introducing a designer would entail, if there is an explanation that works just as well without that element.  Intelligent Design advocates have consistently failed to prove that the designer is a necessary element in explaining biological complexity.  One famous example cited often by ID advocates is Michael Behe, whose concept of "irreducible complexity" is expounded in the book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  Behe's thinking is taken apart and shown to be false in this review (http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html). The linked review is only one example of many which have shown that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not what it claims to be.

Quote from: "William Lane Craig""God is immaterial, mind without a body.  God is remarkably simple, having no parts, no composition, simple in nature."

This is hand-waving.  Craig jumps to this from the "no need to explain the explanation" point, saying that the "God hypothesis" is actually simple. "An unembodied mind is an entity that is startingly simple in it's nature." True. Since we have no evidence that such a thing as an unembodied mind even exists, it's a simple conjecture, no more. It is indeed true that no explanation is needed, and in fact it seems likely that none is possible.  Unembodied minds are an extraneous element added on top of what we already know of the universe.  Are we justified in adding an element (for which we have no evidence), if we can explain the workings of the universe without that element? That is what Dawkins is talking about, not whether God's nature is simple or complex.  Craig is destroying a straw man here. Theists add the "God hypothesis" to their understanding of the universe, but are they following evidence, or their pre-concieved notions of the nature of reality? Physicists have thought about, and hypothesized on the origins of the universe, but all admit that they have no conclusive answer yet.  They will continue to explore the question, maybe for as long as there are physicists to do so. One thing is pretty clear though: So far no evidence of a divine origin has been found.  Thus, the hypothesis of a divine origin is no more valid than any other hypothesis, and in fact, adds an element to the origin that makes the theist's explanation more complex than a naturalistic explanation.

Well put, and easily understood.  Thank you.

Quote from: "Recusant"However, in order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you do need to explain why a designer is a more plausible explanation than the mechanisms currently understood as the origins of biological complexity.

Not only that, the ID hypothesis should be able to explain countervailing facts, such as organs like the appendix or the inverted retina, without appealing to the evolution is spurns elsewhere.

QuoteNothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

And all those examples produce tangible results establishing their level of trustworthiness.

But theology? Not so much.

Quote from: "Sophus"If not existing physically, wouldn't that be to say he doesn't exist at all? Is there anything, other than thoughts (which are caused by physically existent neurons and such) which can be said to exist beyond physics?  

In popular terms, no, we can say God exists. In the purest scholastic vocabulary, God does not exist, because that would be to say something is common between God and the creature, which is impossible. God is the cause of existence in us.

QuoteDo you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

We know God exists by His effects. An analogy is would be a black hole. You can't directly perceive it, but you know it is there by the effects it has on its surroundings. So likewise, we know God is there by a study of effects, most particularly, by the study of being.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Magic Pudding"Yes I know things aren't simple, but god is supposedly all powerful, why doesn't he provide an understandable message for the masses, why does he rely on corruptible priests?  

I don't know how an ipod is built, but it works, what priests provide is less reliable.

Theists say here is the world and god created it.
I say yes, who created god?
And you give me ineligible gobldy gook.
You are much better at gobldy gook than any I've seen, but still it doesn't satisfy.

This is not science.
You may say I don't know the language so I can't understand.
I say you can't explain because you don't understand.

I'll say again, I object to a god created universe only explainable by an elite.
I suspect a confidence trick perpetrated on the common people.

Lots of things aren't science (by which I assume you mean hard science like physics) that we know to be true. History is but one example. But even outside of that, you can't say, "The only thing we can know to be true is that which comes from science," because the statement itself is not scientific. It's philosophical and thus is self-defeating.

There's nothing difficult in the concept that God doesn't need creating. He is, by definition (should He exist), the cause of existence. It is meaningless to speak of what created Him. You may as well talk about a married bachelor. I can point you to quite a few atheists who are more than willing to admit this. They just don't think that this cause of existence actually exists.

As far as God providing a more simple proof, again, nothing in the universe is simple, including your ipod. I'd venture to say that you don't know how it works. You may know a thing or two about it, but there's plenty you don't know that you have to accept on authority. Most of what we know in life we accept on authority. You could, of course, go to school and get degrees in engineering, programing, and ultimately even quantum physics and you would be a lot closer to knowing how it works. You still wouldn't know completely.

Again, nothing is simple. Now, you can do what a great many people do in this world and accept the issue on authority (what we all call blind faith), which you do with a great many issues anyway, you can study the issue and come to a rational conclusion, or you can refuse to study and complain that it is the one thing in all the universe that isn't easy. There's not a lot to say if you choose the last option. I've pointed you to the road you have to go down if you want more than belief on authority. It's the same with this road as any other road in everything in the world. I can't make you travel it, but it isn't God's fault if you don't.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Whether god's complexity is biological or otherwise, it still needs explaining.  I mean, if you were walking on a beach and came across a watch ...

Also, you're right that causes need not be fully understood to be considered.  However, they should be reasonable.  A god is obviously an unreasonable "cause" -- particularly the Judeo-Christian variety.

Also, Craig is an a priori apologist par excellence.  You may as well cite Lee Strobel.  Both these men discard evidence which contradicts them, and this disqualifies them my attention.

If God were complex, you would be right. He is not complex. He is absolutely simple, which needs no explanation. It perhaps needs to be expounded on, but not explained, as it is the explanation.

May I ask for proof that God is an unreasonable cause?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "i_am_i"True, but not every "ordinary" person has the time or inclination to learn these disciplines and test them for themselves. What you're doing here by presenting everything you have to say in a highly classical/academic way is playing with a deck that's stacked in your favor, which I see as being a little intellectually dishonest. You're dazzling us with your very scholarly and erudite presentation. In music we call that playing with all chops and no musicality. In other words you're playing a lot of notes just for the sake of playing a lot of notes.

I don't think anything is much worth saying if only a few people are qualified to understand it, not on a forum such as this anyway. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm just not qualified to understand what you're saying the way you say it.

Then ask questions for clarification. This is a discussion board, not a lecture hall. You are expected to have a certain level of competence to attend a college class. As such, some questions can rightfully be ignored and the student removed from the class for the sake of the group. No such competence level is required on a discussion board, and we should all be glad for that.

As far as complaining about my vocabulary, it's the terminology used to describe concepts. If a word isn't clear, then ask what it means (or, as my fourth grade teacher used to say, look it up), and someone can explain. There's no shame in asking for clarification. It is a waste of everyone's time, however, to ask a theist to demonstrate God's existence and then tell him not to use the tools necessary. You may as well ask a person to write an essay without using letters.

Now, if I were talking to children, I would obviously use different words. I wouldn't make so many distinctions. You, however, are all adults. You are very bright, extremely intelligent adults, and because of that, I am not capable of using simplistic language, since simplistic language covers up necessary distinctions. Being the intelligent people you are, you would immediately perceive the vagueness and challenge the argument, and rightfully so. To give one practical example, suppose I were to say:

A causal chain needs a cause.

That sounds simple enough, but what do we mean by causal? If I am thinking about the kind of cause in which every event is simultaneous (as in the case of a hand pushing a rock pushing a stick), are you going to perceive that? Probably not. You are likely going to think about the type of chain in which one event leads to another (like hitting a ball, it hitting a window, and the window breaking). I have to distinguish between those two ideas to get what I am talking about across to you, and so the first type is called an essentially ordered causal chain, whereas the second is called an accidentally ordered causal chain. The vocabulary is necessary. Again, we can always stop for clarification when needed, but it does you absolutely no good to ask me to explain why I believe in God and then complain when I make the necessary distinctions to be sure that we are thinking about the same thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "dloubet"And all those examples produce tangible results establishing their level of trustworthiness.

But theology? Not so much.

Philosophy has produced a great many tangible results. Empiricism is a fantastic philosophy that has resulted in a great deal of new knowledge being gained. Hegelianism has resulted in much bloodshed. Further, this objection ignores the fact that historically speaking philosophers continually end up making the same arguments from different perspectives. To take only one example, Davin and penfold, independently, came upon the same objection to the doctrine of simplicity, namely, that it makes "god-talk" meaningless. Further, that was the objection of Duns Scotus, and I would bet that neither has read him. It is, then, simply factually incorrect that philosophy and theology have produced no tangible results.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Sophus"Do you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

We know God exists by His effects. An analogy is would be a black hole. You can't directly perceive it, but you know it is there by the effects it has on its surroundings. So likewise, we know God is there by a study of effects, most particularly, by the study of being.

Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Sophus"Do you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

We know God exists by His effects. An analogy is would be a black hole. You can't directly perceive it, but you know it is there by the effects it has on its surroundings. So likewise, we know God is there by a study of effects, most particularly, by the study of being.

Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  

Indeed, these effects can be attributed to anything. Maybe it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote from: "Tank"Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  ;)

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  

Existence is one such effect. I'll make a new post later today that argues rationality is another. We'll continue down this line.

We should note here that everything in this universe is an effect. All effects need explanation. Not all explanations, however, are equal. There are also initial and ultimate explanations. For example (since my mind is on Dexter), a person's cause of death may be blunt force trauma, but obviously requires more explanation in both directions. Blunt force trauma doesn't kill. The blood loss it leads to in turn leads to the shut down of certain organs, etc. But "blunt force trauma" is no real explanation, because what is the cause of that? A hammer strike? But what of that? A murder? But what of that? His psychological condition? But what of that? This is what I mean by "we know God exists by His effects." Through study, we find that all effects must have a first cause. We'll continue to look at that in various ways in the future, but don't take my statement to mean that we can put God in a lab and weigh Him.

If you can't put your God in a lab and weigh Him then He is of no consequence to me at all. All your fancy words and clever rhetoric are meaningless and exist only in your head. If you can't put flesh on the bones of your ideas I can and will dismiss them as I would those of any historical flim flam merchant. You can obviously think and elucidate your ideas very eloquently. But that is simply not good enough for me and I would suggest many, many others that you present a case that only contains words. It just isn't good enough.

Logic is a fine tool, but using logic without a basis in reality is like trying to carve fog with a chisel. The chisel can been the best in the world but with no material to work on a chisel is useless.

Quote from: "Tank"If you can't put your God in a lab and weigh Him then He is of no consequence to me at all. All your fancy words and clever rhetoric are meaningless and exist only in your head. If you can't put flesh on the bones of your ideas I can and will dismiss them as I would those of any historical flim flam merchant. You can obviously think and elucidate your ideas very eloquently. But that is simply not good enough for me and I would suggest many, many others that you present a case that only contains words. It just isn't good enough.

Logic is a fine tool, but using logic without a basis in reality is like trying to carve fog with a chisel. The chisel can been the best in the world but with no material to work on a chisel is useless.

You can't put lots of things in a lab you hold to be true, Chris. You can't put "George Washington was the first president of the United States" in a lab, but it is both true and meaningful. Further, you are dangerously close to making an irrational statement here. If the only things that are meaningful, consequential, or true are those things which are scientifically testable, then the fact that the only things that are meaningful, consequential, or true are those things which are scientifically testable is itself not meaningful, consequential, or true, because it itself is not scientifically testable. That view is called verificationism. It was proposed by A. J. Ayer and was pretty much universally rejected a long time ago because it is self-defeating and thus irrational.

Again, I would encourage you the same way I encouraged Sophus, don't confuse philosophy with logic. The former employs the latter as do all disciplines, but they are not the same thing. The material with which philosophy works is the sensible world. Logic in and of itself has no material to work with. It simply tells us how to think about X. Did you read my brief historical example of the mistake Abailard made when he confused the two? I think it illustrates the difference quite well.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"If you can't put your God in a lab and weigh Him then He is of no consequence to me at all. All your fancy words and clever rhetoric are meaningless and exist only in your head. If you can't put flesh on the bones of your ideas I can and will dismiss them as I would those of any historical flim flam merchant. You can obviously think and elucidate your ideas very eloquently. But that is simply not good enough for me and I would suggest many, many others that you present a case that only contains words. It just isn't good enough.

Logic is a fine tool, but using logic without a basis in reality is like trying to carve fog with a chisel. The chisel can been the best in the world but with no material to work on a chisel is useless.

You can't put lots of things in a lab you hold to be true, Chris. You can't put "George Washington was the first president of the United States" in a lab, but it is both true and meaningful.

Don't need to put it in a lab. The information available to both you and I is adequate to agree that "George Washington was the first president of the United States".

I understand that logic is not the same as philosophy.

If a God exists then it would have to be measurable for me to believe it existed. If God chooses to not be measurable that's not my fault and not my concern. I will stick with reality as I perceive it as it has never let me down yet and nothing any theists has said (that an atheist could not equally say) about the nature of reality has ever been worth listening to, sorry.

So things don't have to be measurable for you to believe it, so long as there is information to point to a conclusion. The information that points to God is available. We're looking at one piece of it now. We'll look at others in the near future. You have the right to reject it, but if you are to be consistent, you will need to reject the arguments for a specific fault in their logic or for their reliance on statements you believe to be false. Out of hand dismissals don't work.

Quote from: "Jac3510"So things don't have to be measurable for you to believe it, so long as there is information to point to a conclusion. The information that points to God is available. We're looking at one piece of it now. We'll look at others in the near future. You have the right to reject it, but if you are to be consistent, you will need to reject the arguments for a specific fault in their logic or for their reliance on statements you believe to be false. Out of hand dismissals don't work.

Neither does an assertion that the supernatural exists, which all your points rely on.

You have yet to prove anything of any real meaning to me. I'm quite happy to read what you have to write, it is fascinating. I, however, refuse to be drawn into your minds eye in exactly the same way I don't believe the assertions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists that can't be supported with some sort of real world information. I do not dismiss things out of hand, if I did I'd be on a forum where theists are simply picked on and forced off.

I also think that what you call information is an accountant's description of information, accurate but useless. There is no information that points to the existance of a supernatural being, if there were I wouldn't be an atheist. Millennia of superstition has bread the idea that there is such information deep into human culture and it's only since the enlightenment that humankind has begun to shed that inculcated superstition.

Quote from: "Tank"Neither does an assertion that the supernatural exists, which all your points rely on.

You have yet to prove anything of any real meaning to me. I'm quite happy to read what you have to write, it is fascinating. I, however, refuse to be drawn into your minds eye in exactly the same way I don't believe the assertions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists that can't be supported with some sort of real world information. I do not dismiss things out of hand, if I did I'd be on a forum where theists are simply picked on and forced off.

I also think that what you call information is an accountant's description of information, accurate but useless. There is no information that points to the existance of a supernatural being, if there were I wouldn't be an atheist. Millennia of superstition has bread the idea that there is such information deep into human culture and it's only since the enlightenment that humankind has begun to shed that inculcated superstition.

I don't think I've said anything that relies on there being a supernatural. Would you care to elaborate?

And, by the way, the underlined statement is a bit over the top. If I said, "There is no information that points to the existence of France, if there were, I would believe in it," would you take me very seriously? Your disbelief is no evidence of a lack of information. There may be no such information, no such evidence. But your disbelief is no reason to assert that there is not. You could, after all, just be wrong.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"Neither does an assertion that the supernatural exists, which all your points rely on.

You have yet to prove anything of any real meaning to me. I'm quite happy to read what you have to write, it is fascinating. I, however, refuse to be drawn into your minds eye in exactly the same way I don't believe the assertions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists that can't be supported with some sort of real world information. I do not dismiss things out of hand, if I did I'd be on a forum where theists are simply picked on and forced off.

I also think that what you call information is an accountant's description of information, accurate but useless. There is no information that points to the existance of a supernatural being, if there were I wouldn't be an atheist. Millennia of superstition has bread the idea that there is such information deep into human culture and it's only since the enlightenment that humankind has begun to shed that inculcated superstition.

I don't think I've said anything that relies on there being a supernatural. Would you care to elaborate?

And, by the way, the underlined statement is a bit over the top. If I said, "There is no information that points to the existence of France, if there were, I would believe in it," would you take me very seriously? Your disbelief is no evidence of a lack of information. There may be no such information, no such evidence. But your disbelief is no reason to assert that there is not. You could, after all, just be wrong.

God has to be supernatural as any God worthy of the name can defy his own laws thus He is supernatural. You claim God exists so by definition you believe in the supernatural.

I could be wrong but as yet nobody who has claimed that God exists has been able to provide evidence that could not be explained in a simpler fashion. In the past theists have repeatedly made up supernatural reasons for things they didn't really understand. Disease being caused by daemons and possession being just one example. Assuming you reject the 'daemon theory of disease' then you reject the errors made by superstitious humanity. To paraphrase Dawkins 'I just go one superstition further.'

And I stand by my statement there is no information that points to the existance of God, I realise it is a very bold statement. I am a sceptic, decades in sales, purchasing and other areas has tuned my 'sales pitch' detectors to a high degree and Ned, Edward and yourself all send those detectors off the scale. That doesn't mean I won't listen to your pitch with interest and attention, it just means I can see it for what it is.

You just don't have the right stuff to convince me. But I'll keep reading, if only out of morbid curiosity and the hope that I'll find a gem of illumination.  

Quote from: "Jac3510"Existence is one such effect. I'll make a new post later today that argues rationality is another. We'll continue down this line.

I haven't seen you defend the proposition that existence is an effect.

QuoteWe should note here that everything in this universe is an effect.

I will note that this is false, and we've known that it's false for about 90 years now, which is enough time for word to have gotten around.

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Existence is one such effect. I'll make a new post later today that argues rationality is another. We'll continue down this line.

I haven't seen you defend the proposition that existence is an effect.

QuoteWe should note here that everything in this universe is an effect.

I will note that this is false, and we've known that it's false for about 90 years now, which is enough time for word to have gotten around.

What in the universe is not an effect?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Existence is one such effect. I'll make a new post later today that argues rationality is another. We'll continue down this line.

I haven't seen you defend the proposition that existence is an effect.

QuoteWe should note here that everything in this universe is an effect.

I will note that this is false, and we've known that it's false for about 90 years now, which is enough time for word to have gotten around.

What in the universe is not an effect?

Let's see.  The vacuum fluctuation is the most clear, as there isn't any matter there to cause it.  Spontaneous radioisotope decay.  Decay of positronium.  Measurements of entangled pairs of photons.

Some of these things cannot follow rules of causality, because if they did, then they would violate Special Relativity, which is hugely supported.

Now, it so happens that, especially when quantum numbers are large (as in the macroscopic world), the classical approximations work well, because a lot of things average out.  Sometimes it's also useful at the particle scale.  However, it is never 100%.  In many cases, it is so close that you could run an experiment for the age of the universe without getting a contradiction, which is probably good enough.

Dawkin's first fault was arguing against religion from the perspective of only orthodox Christianity (and orthodoxy generally in the Abrahamic religions).  Brahman, the supreme Being of Hinduism, who/which encompasses the whole universe would be exempt from his arguments and conclusions.  His arguments have no negative effect on religions of praxis rather than dogma/doctrines.

The second fault is anthropomorphism, which cannot be applied to an unknowable God, i.e. unknown in human thinking and language, but really known through effects that produce religious praxis.  The words evolution, nature, causality, and anything that applies to physical reality by definition do not apply to deity.  But consciousness is not physical, and can be applied to deity.  The only problem with that is lack of evidence, and that's pretty important.  But could be!

Richard.

I just thought I'd point out that this:

Quote from: "Jac510"Lots of things aren't science (by which I assume you mean hard science like physics) that we know to be true. History is but one example.

Is as wrong as a wrong thing on wrong juice. History is science, albeit a specific form of it. It is empirical in nature, because it rests on the persistence of evidence, from which hypotheses are drawn to be tested against the revelation of future evidence. It refines and revises its models of the past based on those revelations.

This doesn't support the argument of the poster. Further, the contention that 'being' constitutes evidence for any sort of deity is simply laughable, and I would expect better from this poster, much as I loathe his particular brand of pseudophilosophical sleight-of-hand.

Quote from: "meta"Dawkin's first fault was arguing against religion from the perspective of only orthodox Christianity (and orthodoxy generally in the Abrahamic religions).  Brahman, the supreme Being of Hinduism, who/which encompasses the whole universe would be exempt from his arguments and conclusions.  His arguments have no negative effect on religions of praxis rather than dogma/doctrines.

Given that he was writing for, generally speaking, a Western audience, this is an understandable presumption on his part.

QuoteThe second fault is anthropomorphism, which cannot be applied to an unknowable God, i.e. unknown in human thinking and language, but really known through effects that produce religious praxis.  The words evolution, nature, causality, and anything that applies to physical reality by definition do not apply to deity.  But consciousness is not physical, and can be applied to deity.  The only problem with that is lack of evidence, and that's pretty important.  But could be!

If a god is unknowable, that what use is any religious text?  What use is any pondering of this god-thing at all?

Quote from: "meta"But consciousness is not physical, and can be applied to deity.

Sorry, but I can't let that go. Why do you think so? The only examples of consciousness we've ever seen are associated with lumps of physical stuff called brains.

God as unknowable comes from Eastern philosophy/religion and Christian and Sufi mystics.  Supposedly God is known only through his/her/its effects in the human mind, or perhaps for some the world also.

Consciousness as pervasive and ubiquitous in the universe is a philosophy such as with David Chalmers, a Naturalist who argues for that.  The evidence comes from extrapolation, a method not foreign to science. For myself I don't buy that, but I do understand, as believed in cognitive science, that consciousness while being the result of brain processing is more than that, and it is based on first-person experience versus third-hand description.

That's a heavy subject: consciousness.  Perhaps we need to discuss this in another forum, or here if you wish.

Richard.

Quote from: "meta"That's a heavy subject: consciousness.  Perhaps we need to discuss this in another forum, or here if you wish.

Yeah, except I don't see how you're going to get anywhere with me. Without hard evidence, I don't see how I could move away from my current stance that consciousness, while fascinating and deeply mysterious, probably doesn't include any new physics. It's probably electromagnetic in origin, and the laws of electromagnetism are pretty well understood on a fundamental level.

I've been reading more and more about these incredible brain scanning technologies (MEG and the SQUIDS) that allow researchers to sense thoughts. More and more the evidence shows what of course had to be true all along - thoughts are real things, physical events in the brain. Consciousness doesn't feel like a chemical reaction, but I think that's the default position until there's hard evidence to the contrary.

Funny how we understand computation to be a physical thing based on electromagnetic interaction between circuits, but we can't seem to grasp that consciousness is the same basic thing with neurons instead of circuits.

If and when consciousness emerges from a computer, I think that will answer a lot of questions, in the same way that a single example of life with a separate origin will answer lots of questions about life.

At this point you need to define "consciousness" for the sake of this discussion.  As I see it, the common definition of "consciousness" (when asked to quantify it) is nothing more than the individual counting itself as a variable in its computation.  Were someone to program a computer to include itself in its own computations, I think consciousness would immediately emerge.  Video games already show emergent decision making abilities.  As I posted elsewhere:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5729&p=83088&hilit=beta+testing#p82969 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5729&p=83088&hilit=beta+testing#p82969)
This reminds me of an article I have in the July '10 issue of Game Informer magazine. It was about notable game glitches. Many of them were unexpected emergent behaviors in the game that wasn't programmed in, yet happened anyway.

1 - The Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion - The game contains a quest wherein a prisoner needed to be spoken with. The glitch was that he was periodically found dead. An intensive investigation discovered that the guards were getting hungry and killing the prisoner for his food. Remember, the guards were not programmed to do this, they chose to do so on their own based on an interaction of other programmed behaviors.

2 - Dead to Rights: Retribution - The main character's (Jack) pet dog was programmed to fetch ammunition. One of the side effects to this was that he recognized live grenades as ammunition, which he would fetch and obediently drop at Jack's feet. They didn't program the dog to fetch live grenades, indeed, they aren't even ammunition, yet they had ot add programming to tell the dog that ONLY inactive grenades were valid ammo.

3 - Terminus - In testing, missiles fired would simply blow up. It turns out that the mechanics of the game were so detail oriented that the game was accounting for the missile's diameter and it was getting caught in the firing tube. They didn't program the game to worry about the size of the missile, but by programming those two details, the game assumed that the missile would get stuck in the tube.

4 - The Maw - One of the achievements in this game was to feed every creature. It was soon discovered, however that some of the creatures were disappearing. The conundrum was solved when a tester noticed a hostile creature slamming the small creatures into mountains. When one was slammed hard into a narrow crevice, the game didn't like that it was getting stuck, so it spewed the little guys out at near infinite velocity, rocketing them into space. Again, the game wasn't programmed to do this, it did so on its own.

The above examples are nothing compared to some of the emergent properties found in nature, but then computer programs are simple compared to the detail in nature as well. The first example to me is the most striking, as it involves the computer generated character making a decision it wasn't programmed to make.

Quote from: "meta"God as unknowable comes from Eastern philosophy/religion and Christian and Sufi mystics.  Supposedly God is known only through his/her/its effects in the human mind, or perhaps for some the world also.

I know.  My point is that talking about the unknowable is a profitless enterprise.  What might you teach, or learn?

QuoteFor myself I don't buy that, but I do understand, as believed in cognitive science, that consciousness while being the result of brain processing is more than that, and it is based on first-person experience versus third-hand description.

What experience do you have wherein you could discount entirely the physical interactions of neurons?  And how did you know that?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"As I see it, the common definition of "consciousness" (when asked to quantify it) is nothing more than the individual counting itself as a variable in its computation.

I don't really have anything to add, other than to say those are some pretty interesting examples. Thanks for sharing those.

Quote from: "ablprop"

Quote from: "meta"That's a heavy subject: consciousness.  Perhaps we need to discuss this in another forum, or here if you wish.

Yeah, except I don't see how you're going to get anywhere with me. Without hard evidence, I don't see how I could move away from my current stance that consciousness, while fascinating and deeply mysterious, probably doesn't include any new physics. It's probably electromagnetic in origin, and the laws of electromagnetism are pretty well understood on a fundamental level.

I've been reading more and more about these incredible brain scanning technologies (MEG and the SQUIDS) that allow researchers to sense thoughts. More and more the evidence shows what of course had to be true all along - thoughts are real things, physical events in the brain. Consciousness doesn't feel like a chemical reaction, but I think that's the default position until there's hard evidence to the contrary.

Do you count first-person experience as evidence?  It is distingished from third-person reporting.  I would say quantum physics rather than electromagnetic force.  Where do you see force in consciousness?  Sensing someone elses thoughts is very different from experiencing the thoughts by the thinker.  Of course thoughts are produced by brain function, aka events, but that doesn't mean that's all they are.  You may have a problem with your criterion for evidence.

Richard.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "meta"God as unknowable comes from Eastern philosophy/religion and Christian and Sufi mystics.  Supposedly God is known only through his/her/its effects in the human mind, or perhaps for some the world also.

I know.  My point is that talking about the unknowable is a profitless enterprise.  What might you teach, or learn?

QuoteFor myself I don't buy that, but I do understand, as believed in cognitive science, that consciousness while being the result of brain processing is more than that, and it is based on first-person experience versus third-hand description.

What experience do you have wherein you could discount entirely the physical interactions of neurons?  And how did you know that?

The point is that God is not known through discursive thought and language, and cannot be abstracted into concepts, much less theologies.  But God can and is known through his/her/its effects in the human mind, and maybe (but doubtful) also in the world.  You have different categories there.  Of course ALL experience of any sort is produced by neurons, their connections, networks, etc.  But that doesn't imply that is the only explanation.  Most theoretical scientists claim consciousness "emerges" from brain processes, as something totally dependent on them but yet different.  Where would you place first-person experience?

Quote from: "meta"I would say quantum physics rather than electromagnetic force.

I say electromagnetic because I don't think it likely that consciousness is the result of gravity, the strong interaction, or the weak interaction. Quantum mechanics of course is at the root of everything, but it still has to act on things like mass, charge, and frequency.

What I mean is that I doubt that consciousness, once and if it is understood, will add anything to fundamental physics. I think it will be an emergent property of known laws. Of course I could be wrong.

As for the rest of it, I can experience my own thoughts, but I have no idea what they are, any more than I have any idea what complex chemistry my body is performing when I digest an apple.

It isn't clear whether consciousness can be achieved by computers, and it's entirely possible that the mind is qualitatively different from anything we'll ever be able to produce.

For anybody really interested in this topic, I recommend The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose. Supremely hard going, as all his books seem to be, because he doesn't dumb anything down, but ultimately rewarding.

QuoteMost theoretical scientists claim consciousness "emerges" from brain processes, as something totally dependent on them but yet different.

Emergence doesn't mean it's different, emergence means that simple processes interact in complicated ways.

Quote from: "meta"The point is that God is not known through discursive thought and language, and cannot be abstracted into concepts, much less theologies.  But God can and is known through his/her/its effects in the human mind, and maybe (but doubtful) also in the world.

Yes.  The point of my first comment is that if god is ineffable and insensible, then how the eff do you know him?  Be specific.

 

QuoteYou have different categories there.  Of course ALL experience of any sort is produced by neurons, their connections, networks, etc.  But that doesn't imply that is the only explanation.

Of course these are different categories.  My question is: how can you state surely that those effects are god?  "I think so" is not enough for me, and in the absence of anything else I don't see this idea as worthy of much attention.  Let's ask some questions:  By what mechanism does this proposed deity project consciousness into the brain?  Is there a consciousness module? How parsimonious is this explanation compared to what we currently know? What specific effects can be attributed to this deity to the exclusion of other factors?  Any?  All?  None?

QuoteMost theoretical scientists claim consciousness "emerges" from brain processes, as something totally dependent on them but yet different.

They claim that it emerges from the interaction of various brain processes, positing "consciousness" as that part of the brain assigned to oversee the smooth interaction of the many modules.  

QuoteWhere would you place first-person experience?

What does this question mean?  Where would I place it in the brain?  Where would I place it in terms of evidence?  Might you clarify?

I suggest your learning "emergence theory," which you can find on the internet.  You might begin at Wikipedia.

When I say God's effects in the human mind, this is not physical in itself, although of course it is produced by brain processes.  As someone said, a thought is not a set of neurons but something else.  Thought is an emergence, not explain by physical entities, and the same with consciousness.  The evidence for God, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of God without discursive thought and language.  Thus they try as best as they can, imperfectly.

Richard.

The evidence for ghosts, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of ghosts without discursive thought and language.  


^Just because people talk about and keep record of a belief doesn't mean it is based in reality.

Quote from: "meta"The evidence for God, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of God without discursive thought and language.

Well, then let's have a look at some of that evidence, some of these "overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping."

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed...but each time one of Jac's "arguments" is successfully refuted, he does not revisit it.  He is a master at deflection, and I seriously wonder if someone as clearly intelligent as him actually believes everything he is saying.  This may all be a game to him, to see if he can make any of us angry.

Quote from: "DropLogic"I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed...but each time one of Jac's "arguments" is successfully refuted, he does not revisit it.  He is a master at deflection, and I seriously wonder if someone as clearly intelligent as him actually believes everything he is saying.  This may all be a game to him, to see if he can make any of us angry.

I doubt that as there would be far easier ways to achieve that aim with a lot less work.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "DropLogic"I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed...but each time one of Jac's "arguments" is successfully refuted, he does not revisit it.  He is a master at deflection, and I seriously wonder if someone as clearly intelligent as him actually believes everything he is saying.  This may all be a game to him, to see if he can make any of us angry.

I doubt that as there would be far easier ways to achieve that aim with a lot less work.

He says with paragraphs what can be said with a few words or one sentence.  He kind of reminds me of Kent Hovind, talking fast, but never really saying anything.

Quote from: "meta"I suggest your learning "emergence theory," which you can find on the internet.  You might begin at Wikipedia.

I have, don't sweat.  Also, I suggest you shitcan the condescension.

QuoteWhen I say God's effects in the human mind, this is not physical in itself, although of course it is produced by brain processes.  As someone said, a thought is not a set of neurons but something else.  Thought is an emergence, not explain by physical entities, and the same with consciousness.

Given that functional localization is clear, and given that electrochemical interactions are required for thought, I don't regard this as worthy of serious consideration.  It eschews parsimony.

QuoteThe evidence for God, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of God without discursive thought and language.  Thus they try as best as they can, imperfectly.

The fact that religious experiences can be induced chemically or through varying states of meditation, or mental or physical stress, indicate that these reports of god you cite here are more easily explained by physical processes.  

You have an interesting take on how god might work, but I find it unconvincing.