Do you think there is a God? If so, why?

[ratiocinator]

Who writes the software?

It evolves. It isn't really separate, as I said before, the analogy is far from exact.

What is the evidence for an 'autonomous thinker'?

Human behaviour suggests it but it wasn't actually my claim, which is why it was in quotes.

 

[F1fan]

You've misinterpreted my reply. Obtaining a bottle is the first step. If one doesn't take that step, a genie will never appear.

Can you show any case (outside of fiction) that genies emerge from bottles and grant wishes?

 

[YoursTrue]

Cool.

As claimed by the religions I've learned about or claims that I've been presented with? I suspect not. The word is loaded though and means a great deal of different things to a great deal of different people



At the very least, an intelligent creator of the cosmos similar to the god of the bible, since that's what I grew up with. Different ideas of what a god is don't always include these ideas, though

I understand. I can't answer all questions about the Bible, but since I believe God is a person who created the heavens and the earth, I also believe He can direct the sheep.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have no idea if there is a god.
However I would have absolute respect for whatever caused the universe to come into being.
I can see no reason to suppose that a god is micro managing either the universe, this world or us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is that the software as I was taught it is not outside ToE. It is just a different kind (language) than DNA that is still subject to the replication of the fittest information, whether it be genes or language. In the end it still has to work with the ToE.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What do you mean by that exactly? The point is that there is nothing incoherent about learning, thinking, problem solving, 'machine'. What is it exactly that humans do that you think can't be achieved by a "biological automaton"? Why can't it also be an 'autonomous thinker'?

So let’s be clear then; are you arguing that you are a biological automaton? And if so, how do you answer the Hard Problem of consciousness, which I’ll leave you to Google, but which can be summarised bybthe question, Why is it that humans have sentience and awareness?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think there are many.


I envision these gods as their devotees describe them.

Ok I'm sure many might agree with you.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is that the software as I was taught it is not outside ToE. It is just a different kind (language) than DNA that is still subject to the replication of the fittest information, whether it be genes or language. In the end it still has to work with the ToE.

Why is that a problem?

Evolution would have been my answer as well for "who" writes the operating system.
However "apps" can be added through education/experience.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can you show any case (outside of fiction) that genies emerge from bottles and grant wishes?

Oh dear. It was a metaphor. This thread isn’t about genies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is that a problem?

Evolution would have been my answer as well for "who" writes the operating system.
However "apps" can be added through education/experience.

Yeah, but in the end we are back to the problem of free will. And remember it is about mitigating subjectivity as for the original start. And that science can solve this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[F1fan]

Oh dear. It was a metaphor. This thread isn’t about genies.

You never can tell in a religious forum.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, that consciousness is dependent on a functioning brain is not really in doubt. The correlation is clear, but correlation as we know, does not imply causation.

And how, pray tell, does one then establish causation? With controlled studies. We’ve got lots and lots of them. Is it your position that there is no evidence supporting a case for causation?

I note you do not draw a distinction between consciousness and the brain. So it seems you consider consciousness to be entirely reducible to material factors. Taken at face value this would imply that we are biological automatons; obviously you find this unacceptable, so you insert the hardware/software analogy with the intent of preserving the reductionist narrative, while allowing for the existence of some sort of autonomous thinker. I find this somewhat incoherent and unconvincing tbh. As is so often the case when the naive materialist tries to banish all metaphysical concepts from his description of the world.

I would first note that I would not rule out our being biological automatons on the basis of whether I subjectively find it unacceptable or not. How a particular fact of reality makes me feel is immaterial to that fact. The software analogy simply represents the observation that behavior can change from experiential learning or conditioning.

As to being automatons, I would argue many underestimate the degree to which our actions are autonomous. I see us as not having a free and unencumbered will nor a fully deterministic behavioral expression, rather, it is more of a probabilistic will encumbered or influenced by pre-wired behavioral instincts, any conditioning or indoctrination, and the sum of all prior experiences.
[/QUOTE]

 

[MikeF]

So let’s be clear then; are you arguing that you are a biological automaton? And if so, how do you answer the Hard Problem of consciousness, which I’ll leave you to Google, but which can be summarised bybthe question, Why is it that humans have sentience and awareness?

Perhaps it's a hard question because we do not fully understand how our complex brain works. Regardless, not a problem that would be answerable within the discipline of philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps it's a hard question because we do not fully understand how our complex brain works. Regardless, not a problem that would be answerable within the discipline of philosophy.

No, philosophy ask questions in the end. And some of them haven't even been solved by science. And then you answer that science can do that beyond natural science and then we are back to this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

And then you have to show how science solves that and not just does natural science, but go beyond natural science.
So please give an example of what science can't do, yet can do.

 

[ratiocinator]

So let’s be clear then; are you arguing that you are a biological automaton?

No, I'm asking why you seem to think it impossible.

And if so, how do you answer the Hard Problem of consciousness, which I’ll leave you to Google, but which can be summarised bybthe question, Why is it that humans have sentience and awareness?

I know what the 'hard problem' is and I don't know the answer. However, I'm not sure that adding something non-physical really helps. More to the point I don't see how it helps in explaining anything about human minds. It seems to be used as some sort of universal magic trick that excuses people from actually providing answers to difficult problems.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I'm asking why you seem to think it impossible.


I know what the 'hard problem' is and I don't know the answer. However, I'm not sure that adding something non-physical really helps. More to the point I don't see how it helps in explaining anything about human minds. It seems to be used as some sort of universe magic trick that excuses people from actually providing answers to difficult problems.

No, not just that. It is also against the objectivists who claim that objective evidence can do everything. It is to guard against GIGO. That is not limited to only one side.
In the end it is part of if there are limits to knowledge or we can become all knowing like God.

 

[MikeF]

No, philosophy ask questions in the end. And some of them haven't even been solved by science.

Asking the questions is the easy part. It's getting the right answer that is hard. To be clear, if science can't answer it, philosophy will not be able to.

And then you answer that science can do that beyond natural science and then we are back to this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

You keep posting this link like some magic talisman to ward away science. Here is a link to my rebuttal to your talisman in another post:

Subjective problems with philosophies on Morals and ethic such as Moral Tralism

And then you have to show how science solves that and not just does natural science, but go beyond natural science.
So please give an example of what science can't do, yet can do.

Whether you like it or not, human beings are a part of nature and therefore science or "natural science" applies.

 

[an anarchist]

2. this method all of you use to base your beliefs on, is unreliable

I question that.

I'm not sure that my methods are reliable or not. And I won't be sure if the "proper" methods i.e. meditation is a reliable way to gauge the existence of anything spiritual / supernatural until I am much further into my practice.

But conversations like these do get me considering atheism/agnosticism. I guess one reason I'm still a believer is because the gaps in human knowledge. But that's not the only reason.

 

[F1fan]

No, not just that. It is also against the objectivists who claim that objective evidence can do everything.

Who are "objectivists" and where do they claim that "objective evidence (valid evidence is usually objective) can do everything"? What is the "everything"?

It is to guard against GIGO. That is not limited to only one side.

Who is GIGO, a pimp?

In the end it is part of if there are limits to knowledge or ...

Knowledge is limited by numerous things, like facts, data, instruments, and time.

...we can become all knowing like God.

You surely mean the fictional version of the Abrahamic "all-knowing God" since no gods are known to exist, nor any of their properties known as an obvious fact, yes?

Given your uncertainty of everything I would expect your treatment of God (as a concept since there is no evidence to work with) would be two tiers down. Even if there was evidence for any God you would have doubts, yet given there is no valid evidence for any of the many god concepts your natural skepticism would render it even less likely than the average atheist does.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who are "objectivists" and where do they claim that "objective evidence (valid evidence is usually objective) can do everything"? What is the "everything"?

Who is GIGO, a pimp?

Knowledge is limited by numerous things, like facts, data, instruments, and time.

You surely mean the fictional version of the Abrahamic "all-knowing God" since no gods are known to exist, nor any of their properties known as an obvious fact, yes?

Given your uncertainty of everything I would expect your treatment of God (as a concept since there is no evidence to work with) would be two tiers down. Even if there was evidence for any God you would have doubts, yet given there is no valid evidence for any of the many god concepts your natural skepticism would render it even less likely than the average atheist does.

GIGO you can google that.
Now for "I know" here is an example involving logic and skepticism.
It is semi-formal for a claim like say the cat is multicolored and not monocolored

Person one: I know that X is Y and not Z
Person two: I know that X is Z and not Y

First it is general and not just about religion. Secondly there are 3 possible outcomes. Two for respectively one is right and the other is wrong and one for they are both wrong because it is unknowable. Thirdly at least one of the two doesn't know, yet it doesn't follow that the person will die because of this or even have a horrible life.

So I wondered about this and checked the different versions of skepticism and figured out that I didn't have to know anything. I just have to have a set of beliefs, which apparently works for me and to me that is what I mean by to know.
So for knowing what the real world as independent of my mind is, I don't know that. I don't even know the probability of being a Boltzmann Brain or not. But since you know that, I would like evidence for that.

So since you know what knowledge is and are a scientist, you can explain the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism and how come is that the former is based on unproveable axiomatic assumptions and not knowledge. And the latter is not science, but philosophy.

As for God, not all versions are religious. Some are philosophical and sometimes used as a theoretical placeholder for testing something.
If I know something, then what would it take not just to know something, but know all of the universe or even everything?
In that tradition God is simply the placeholder for all X in some sense.
So I am not a theist, I am even as religious and a deist not supernatural in the standard sense. I am philosophical and use God as a placeholder for the beliefs that the universe is fair, real, orderly and knowable. But since those 4 properties are not physical, but rather ontologically a case of idealism, I am religious and the universe is a case of ontological idealism and thus in a sense a God.