|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Domovoi are not material entities...I provided a link for you to help. I know, but what's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Well, in that case, the fact that I can provide thousands and thousands of names of Christians who believe both Christianity and also that the TOE is a valid explanation of life as we can see it will not be accepted as evidence falsifying your assertion? No, that is not evidence. You are all wrong. It is evidence, however, of the popularity of this illogical belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
why is your god a liar? My god is not a liar. The God I don't believe in is a good God and always tells the truth. Let's have some religious tolerance here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I'm not sure what to do except to reiterate my argument. The argument is that meaning is created by mind. It cannot be objective or subjective, except as created so by a mind. Then meaning has no place in this discussion. Rationality and logic does not necessitate that meaning be objective (applying to everything / all people) or subjective (applying to only one person). Meaning is created by a person. If you are that person, the meaning is objective. And there is no way to objectively see that it is not objective. If you are not that person, then that person's meaning looks subjective. In other words, the "objectivity" of meaning is observer-dependent. There are observers who have objective meaning. Just because you view it as subjective doesn't make it subjective. Just because it is only one person holding that meaning doesn't make it subjective. In other words, there's nothing that can make meaning "objectively subjective". Everybody judging meaning is an observer, and has meaning attached with their viewpoint. There is no observer-dependent position on meaning. Meaning is only subjective insofar as the observer sees it that way. There is no abstract, observer-independent view on meaning. Nihilism, inasfar as it is true, is only true because that is what you have chosen, and insofar as you are the observer. There is no logical necessity beyond that bare point. Because meaning is created, and you can't ... BE without it. Just ask Faith. If Faith can explain this mumbo-jumbo, she's a genius.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
robinrohan,
The God I don't believe in is a good God and always tells the truth. So he is a liar, then? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, that is not evidence. You are all wrong. I don't think I can be wrong since all I have done so far is ask questions, I have not provided any answers which could be considered right or wrong TTBOMK. Let's examine what has happened so far in the hopes that you can point out where I might be wrong. You said in your OP that someone who agrees that the TOE is a valid explanation for the life we see must also accept atheism.
If you accept TOE, you must also accept the following: 3. atheism Is that correct? This message has been edited by jar, 01-21-2006 10:14 AM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I know, but what's your point? My point is that upon learning that somebody accepts that the Theory of Evolution is useful explanatory framework for explaining why populations change (ie they accept the ToE), can you make the deduction that they do not believe in slavic house spirits? My point is that you have not shown how such a deduction is possible. Your logic does not follow. This is why I said 'non sequitur'. Does that clarify things for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If there is such a thing as evolution, presumably it would not have been possible without the fall. There would have been no death thus no survival of the fittest to enable evolution. Evolution, if it happened seems to rely on the fall and is thus reconcilable with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
RR writes: Yes. Physical events are deterministic in the sense that they happen automatically, like water running downhill. The water does not make a decision to run downhill. Brenna writes: why does a physical brain preclude choice? The thoughts you have as a result of reading this are determined. You couldn't have had any different thoughts that the ones you are having now. My input resulted in your output. (proof: if you weren't reading this you wouldn't be having the thoughts you are having now) Your brain is more complex that water but if physical is of the same order as water - simply following laws of nature which act on the matter and energy that constitute it. What piece of matter or energy in your brain could do anything other than conform to the laws of nature? How can conformance be said to be choice? What is there about it that can cause it to do anything other that what it does? {AbE}Now, I don't believe the mind is physical unlike the brain which is. The brain is simply a tool employed by the mind. And the mind, not being physical (material) is not forced to conform to the laws of nature which govern the behaviour of material things. And so we have choice. This message has been edited by iano, 21-Jan-2006 05:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The thoughts you have as a result of reading this are determined. Only if the laws of physics are deterministic, which they don't appear to be. From all appearances there's more than enough room in the universe for chance. Furthermore - if all we have is the appearance of choice, and there's no way for us to distinguish that from "real" choice, whatever that is, what's the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
iano
The brain is simply a tool employed by the mind. And the mind, not being physical (material) is not forced to conform to the laws of nature which govern the behaviour of material things. And so we have choice. Would you care to explain the physical mechanism by which the mind is able to manipulate the physical brain? In other wordswhat are the physics of the mind? Also what is the reasoning behind the claim that the mind is not physical? Are you not aware of what makes you feel that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain? But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Only if the laws of physics are deterministic, which they don't appear to be. From all appearances there's more than enough room in the universe for chance. Perhaps, but arrival at a thought by it being determined or it being chance makes little difference. Neither are our choice. As an aside, what is it that would make law of nature non-deterministic? Is it that they vary or that matter and energy don't always conform as they should to consistant laws?
Furthermore - if all we have is the appearance of choice, and there's no way for us to distinguish that from "real" choice, whatever that is, what's the difference? If we are only physical then all we have is the appearance of choice. There is no independant us to make choices
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Would you care to explain the physical mechanism by which the mind is able to manipulate the physical brain? In other wordswhat are the physics of the mind? I don't presume that there are any physics involved - in fact there cannot be if the mind isn't physical. If the location of the mind as part of the physical brain could be established (as opposed to the location of cognitive function - which are of the physical brain) then I would be inclined to believe other than I do. To presume the mind is physical without evidence that it is so is a philosphical decision to which we are all entitled. I just don't share this philosophy
Also what is the reasoning behind the claim that the mind is not physical? Are you not aware of what makes you feel that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain? The reasoning is partily described above (a negative). Positively, I know that I, that is, the essence of what makes me be me is spiritual. Exactly how to two: physical/spirit, interact with each other I have no idea. But it doesn't cause me to lose sleep
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Perhaps, but arrival at a thought by it being determined or it being chance makes little difference. Neither are our choice. How is it free in your model? Under your system, we make choices according to the aspect of our will, or the machinations of a soul, or whatever. How is that any more free than random electric potentials in the brain? Reasonable people make reasonable choices. Even unreasonable choices are made because, at the time in that situtation, the chooser thought that was the best, for whatever reason. It stands to reason that, were a person in that exact situation again, knowing only what they knew then, they'd make the same choice. So how are any of us truly free under your concepts of freedom?
As an aside, what is it that would make law of nature non-deterministic? Is it that they vary or that matter and energy don't always conform as they should to consistant laws? No, just that the laws themselves aren't deterministic. They're statistical. They describe the universe not in terms of this being definately here or that there, but in terms of probability that such a thing will happen, or won't.
There is no independant us to make choices "Us" is the physical. How could we be independant from ourselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If the location of the mind as part of the physical brain could be established (as opposed to the location of cognitive function - which are of the physical brain) This seems like a game of moving goalposts. Any time that something we consider mental is found to have a physical basis in the brain, you're free to simply redefine "mind" in such a way that the function in question isn't part of it. We know where speech and self-awareness are the brain, where memory is, where decision-making occurs. If those things aren't the province of the "mind" then the mind has no relevant function; it's not needed to explain human consciousness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024