|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
How is that in any way convincing that there are legitimate reasons for accepting the reality of what you (or anyone) believes spiritually? Isn’t the number of faithful happy believers the evidence for god? It is a solid number that can be scientifically determined. So there is scientific evidence for GDR’s god, yes?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Here is an interesting wiki piece on the subject. Quantum Mind I won't say much about it, either, other than that I am skeptical. Quantum mechanics is involved in everything, so it is likely to be involved in consciousness. But that doesn't mean we have to look for anything special. When we look at someone, we can usually tell whether that person is conscious or unconscious. As far as I am concerned, consciousness should just mean the state of being conscious. But somehow, people have managed to throw in a lot of bullshit and woo. As Stile argued in Message 592, being conscious is just part of our evolved nature. There isn't any real "problem of consciousness" .Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
There isn't any real "problem of consciousness" . There is a major problem with consciousness. Like dark matter. We don't know what it is or how it works but we are damn well going to find out. The sooner we figure this out the sooner we can have real progress. Then we can make AI systems with an AC (artificial consciousness) and they will be our gods. Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Then we can make AI systems with an AC (artificial consciousness) I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I'm not so sure. We are a very brilliant though very stupid species. We'll figure it out and then do something stupidly dangerous with it.
Where do see the stop that would keep us from such glory?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
PaulK writes:
C'mon, gimme a break. I'm not going to say that if it isn't true. If you get a copy of "Jesus and the Eyewitness" he writes `14 pages on the subject. (Pages 369 to 383)
Or more likely he never says any such thing, because he would know that it isn’t true. PaulK writes: In most of the book he doesn't use the 3rd person but only when he particularly wants to emphasize a point and establishing that he has personal knowledge.. A bit like the use of the Royal We Which is not nearly enough to make it evidence of authorship. As I explained before. Do you really not realise that the third person is used for a great many people who are NOT the author? I shouldn’t have had to make that point once, but that you should still not see it after repeated examples suggests a serious problemHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Stile writes: I don't see you acknowledging that huge jump. You seem to simply assume that if God exists - then He definitely created humans, on purpose. I see three levels: 1. God exists-maybe God doesn't exist 2. God created humans-maybe God didn't create humans and humans were created by something else (naturally? a bigger/different God?) 3. God created humans on purpose (ie - "bothered" to create humans.)-maybe God didn't want to create humans, but had to. That is, perhaps in order to create all the stars He wanted in the way He wanted to, God had to accommodate for the low possibility of humans also being created. And then setup a contingency that for when human-creation happens they are contained to a very small portion of the universe. To me - going from "if God exists, then He definitely created humans and it was definitely on purpose" is just a really big jump in itself. There's no evidence for God, no evidence for God creating humans, and no evidence for God bothering to create humans on purpose. The problem is for me that I am in some ways something of an agnostic on the belief that God created the universe. Frankly, it doesn’t matter one way or another to me. I have read so many books that I can't remember where I read the hypothesis that our universe is an "emergent property of a greater reality". My thinking goes kinda along with that line of thought. I'll assume that hypothesis to be correct which means that our universe always existed in some form but only as one aspect or part os something much more, which would help explain the apparent infinite nature of our universe, as we are unable to perceive this greater reality. I also am basically in agreement with Chris Barragar and his book Freedom All the Way Up where he proposes that God’s intention was to create creatures that were capable of “agape” love. That the evolutionary process was an open system and did not need humans as we are now. He suggests that God could know with a very high probability of what evolution would lead to but it was to be a world with an open future and thus the future was/is not there to be known. I'll assume that hypothesis to be correct which means that our universe always existed in some form but only as one aspect or part os something much more, which would help explain the apparent infinite nature of our universe, as we are unable to perceive this greater reality.
Stile writes:
OK, say that it did evolve as simply a part of the evolutionary process. It still has very different properties than the physical world that we are used to. However, even if it did evolve naturally, (which I personally doubt), that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t ultimately the handiwork of a creative intelligence. It goes back to the question of why do natural processes exist, which is a much bigger question in my mind than the question of why does anything exist.
Consciousness existing is not the physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally.The physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally is that it appears to be exactly the same as everything else we know to have evolved naturally. And that other aspects of life we used to think "couldn't possibly evolve naturally" - we have learned more about evolution and identified that, actually, they did evolve naturally (like "the eye" and "fish -> mammals -> whales" and every other creationist issue that used to not have a natural answer and now does.) Consciousness existing, alone, isn't evidence of anything other than its own existence.There is A LOT of physical evidence for evolution and things evolving naturally. Consciousness is just another "thing" that looks like all the other "things" we know to have evolved naturally. Stile writes:
But as you know, I don’t claim absolute knowledge. It is my belief, which I don’t expect it to be proven in this life. Nor do I expect scientific evidence for, but who knows. I do suggest though that philosophy, theology and maybe Uncle John asks questions which we can subjectively come up with answers. f you move beyond what can be tested, for any reason, you don't "turn to philosophy" for answers. You understand that "answers" are currently unknowable.Philosophy may provide answers. Religion may provide answers. Uncle John may provide answers. Looking at the stars/bones/cards may provide answers. But... all those answers are just as good as any other: meaningless if you're concerned with truth as the answer is currently unknowable. I am out of time but I think that deals with all of your post.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Where do see the stop that would keep us from such glory? A conscious AI would seem to require an objective account of the subjective. This looks impossible. Our objective accounts emerge from our own subjective accounts. If subjective can come from objective, and objective comes from subjective, then that would seem to leave the objective disconnected from reality.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You have no problem saying things that aren’t true. As a simple matter of logic it can’t be true that third person references are evidence of authorship. It wouldn’t be true even if authors always used the third person to refer to themselves - which is not the case. More importantly if Bauckham does make that claim, it would be a very serious problem.
quote: Most of which would be completely irrelevant. Anything establishing that ancient authors did refer to themselves in the third person, for instance. It’s the argument that matters here not the evidence (because we understand the evidence and the claim is laughably false).
quote: The author of Matthew does no such thing. Assuming you mean John, this behaviour still seems strange. [Corrected] How does pretending not to be a witness establish personal knowledge? That’s bizarre. A Roman author wanting to establish personal knowledge would indicate such - using the first person. [ABE]Reading around I have found that the reality is even worse for you than you are prepared to admit. Bauckham does not endorse Matthean authorship and does endorse Q. The whole idea that Bauckham argued that the use of the third person is evidence of authorship in Matthew is clearly false. He clearly doesn’t endorse your false argument for Matthean priority - that it gets rid of Q - either. Edited by PaulK, . Edited by PaulK, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
AZPaul3 writes: Isn’t the number of faithful happy believers the evidence for god? It is a solid number that can be scientifically determined. So there is scientific evidence for GDR’s god, yes? I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious. How is what someone believes exists, whether it's unicorns or Thor or the Christian God, evidence that it does actually exist? How could baseless unevidenced beliefs ever be evidence of anything real? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
He is being facetious! AZ is a staunch anti-theist. He knows there is no way to "prove" God even through the logical fallacy known as Appeal To Popularity. I would suggest that even if every human on the planet except you and AZ Paul3 insisted that God was real and relayed story after story after story of their own personal experience, you and he would dismiss ALL of them due to no objective evidence. That's the real E in EvC. EVIDENCE vs Creationism. It's the whole argument.
Believers such as myself feel a need to validate God and enter Him into the record while critical thinking humanists such as the lot of you defend the sacredness of objective evidence and swat down any and ALL Gods, GODS and gods presented. It's what we do here. Tangle jumped with glee recently when I tacitly admitted the logic of my opponent's arguments. The only thing GDR and I have is the defense of our own belief and how we rate it on a par with objective evidence. I don't know about him, but I don't see myself backing away from that stance and joining the rest of you. I may have lost the argument but I see my God winning the war. (Again...no objective evidence that He even exists) In general, believers not only need no objective evidence, but they also don't WANT to question and throw God away, as jar always suggested that I do. He claimed that I did not know how to think. What he and you and others here really mean is that I won't embrace critical thought as a tool to validate or refute my beliefs. And so here we are."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Sorry. That was a throw-away post. I wasn't expecting a response given how dumb it was.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
I once told somebody here, "I could do a thousand posts standing on my head." If you get a copy of "Jesus and the Eyewitness" he writes `14 pages on the subject. But quantity doesn't guarantee quality."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If there were evidence in what you've read then you would present it here.
Arguing that, "Some very smart guys believe this," is easily countered with, "Some very smart guys don't believe this." We've been over this time and again. Why are you raising this issue yet again? If you've got evidence, present it. If you don't have evidence, if all you can do is continually cycle through all your unevidenced arguments, then you don't really have anything. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That may be the smartest thing you've ever said here.
That's the real E in EvC. EVIDENCE vs Creationism. It's the whole argument. Phat writes:
I see a war long ago in a galaxy far, far away - but I can distinguish that from the computer I see in front of me.
I may have lost the argument but I see my God winning the war. Phat writes:
Two smart things in one day. In general, believers not only need no objective evidence, but they also don't WANT to question.... It is all about what you WANT, not what IS.
Phat writes:
Hat trick! What he and you and others here really mean is that I won't embrace critical thought as a tool to validate or refute my beliefs. The question is, "Why not?" Why wouldn't you use a saw to saw a board or a drill to drill a hole or a hammer to hammer a nail?"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024