leroy
Well-Known Member
A brain capable of wondering about philosophical questions does not make an organism less likely to die nor more efficient in finding a mate to reproduce with.I see no evidence or reasoning to believe this to be so.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A brain capable of wondering about philosophical questions does not make an organism less likely to die nor more efficient in finding a mate to reproduce with.I see no evidence or reasoning to believe this to be so.
Me neither. no one should.Granted evolution is true, he share a common ancestor with chimps…. I have no problem with that.
Obviously there was a great advantage. Hence humans rule earth.The point is that evolution (mutations + natural selection) by itself would have not crated a brain that wonders about philosophical questions, because these brains are unnecessary complex, consume too much energy and have no selective advantage. ¿why did natural selection selected brains with the ability to ask philosophical questions if this ability has no selective advantage?
Indeed you can.As a theist evolutionist I can always say that God guided the process in such way that these types of brains would eventually evolve.
I agree.I was just conceding your point, the fact that we can even wonder about the existence of God is evidence for the existence of God.
You know for sure as we invented the term evolution as a name for the process that nature acts by.We don't actually know that this is so,
Agree. This still doesn't mean evolution has a will.since we do not understand the forces that have generated this specific existential universe, as opposed to any other. And even more than that, we don't know what determined these forces and set them forth, or why (if there is a 'why').
Agreed.Yes, this is so because science cannot explore such a metaphysical question. That's why we humans engage in art, and religion, and philosophy, and so on.
A brain capable of contemplating "philosophical questions" is a brain capable of contemplating murder, suicide, and deliberate mayhem and destruction. And it's a brain then capable of choosing to engage in these actions, or not to. Such a brain exists, and has come to exist via the natural process of evolution. So clearly, evolution is capable of producing a life form that can act antithetical to the process that produced it. That tells us that the process of evolution is does not exhibit logical intent.A brain capable of wondering about philosophical questions does not make an organism less likely to die nor more efficient in finding a mate to reproduce with.
Proving that the natural world had a cause, wound automatically prove that the cause is not natural (supernatural)
The cause of mater by definition has to be inmaterial
The cause of time, by definition has to be timeless
The cause of the first computer that has ever existed by definition has to be something that is not a computer
The cause of the firs “blue thing” that has ever existed, by definition has to be “not blue”
In the same way the cause of the first natural thing that has ever existed by definition would have to be something “not natural”
My only burden is to show that the natural world had a cause,
A brain capable of contemplating "philosophical questions" is a brain capable of contemplating murder, suicide, and deliberate mayhem and destruction. And it's a brain then capable of choosing to engage in these actions, or not to. Such a brain exists, and has come to exist via the natural process of evolution. So clearly, evolution is capable of producing a life form that can act antithetical to the process that produced it. That tells us that the process of evolution is does not exhibit logical intent.
What you demand as verification precludes the possibility of it occurring. This is both illogical and intellectually disingenuous.
Please make an effort and try to understand what I am saying, because I am not making any controversial claim at this point.
The cause of the first "natural thing" that has ever existed, by definition has to be "something not natural" (or supersnatural) this is necessarily true.
If you claim that the first natural thing came from something natural the it would be the first natural thing
There are only 2 options
Ether nature had a supernatural cause or nature is causeless
In order for your assertion to have any validity whatsoever you must first demonstrate that nature has not always existed. You have provided zero verifiable evidence for the assertion that nature required a cause, thus your entire claim can be dismissed as unfounded.
A brain capable of contemplating "philosophical questions" is a brain capable of contemplating murder, suicide, and deliberate mayhem and destruction. And it's a brain then capable of choosing to engage in these actions, or not to. Such a brain exists, and has come to exist via the natural process of evolution. So clearly, evolution is capable of producing a life form that can act antithetical to the process that produced it. That tells us that the process of evolution is does not exhibit logical intent.
Granted, at this point I haven't done anything to show that nature has a begining and a cause.
I am just stablishing the fact that if nature had a cause this would imply that something supernatural excists
The question on whether if nature had a begining and a cause or not, is a scientific question, that can be addressed on scientific grounds.
The implication is that at least in principle it is possible to show that there is something supernatural
So if I provide good arguments for the idea that the natural world had a begining would you granted that there are good reasons to conclude that there is something supersnatural?
I'd love to hear your 'good' arguments that support the notion that the natural world had a beginning. I'm not really sure why you didn't start off with such arguments, because until you can verify that nature had a beginning, the rest of your argument has no foundation to stand on.
Because I was answering to the first post from this thread thatthat st that even in principle it would be imposible to show that God excists.
Some good reasons to think that the natural world had a begining:
1 the big bang: in the 20s it was a controversial theory but today nearly all scientists accept this theory . The standard model states that everything including space and time begin to excist nearly 14b years ago
2 bgv theorem: if you want to argue that there was something before the big bang the bgv theorem shows that nearly all aletranive models even if true, do not avoid the necessity of a begining
3 the second law of thermodynamics: according to this law entropy increases as time passes, given the don't have an entropy of 100%
4 the idea of an actual infinite is absurd: if the universe has always existed, that would imply than an actual infinite number of events has occurred, but as David Hilbert has shown an actual infinite of something can't excist
If you want to argue that the universe is eternal you would have to:
1 show that there was something before the big bang
2 provide a model that would avoid the bgv theorem
3 explain how your model accounts for the high entropy in the universe
4 show that the idea of an actual infinite is at least possible
5 show that your model is empirically better than current models
So do you have any good arguments that show that the universe (the natural world) is eternal ?
The BBT states that everything started to exist in it CURRENT FORM about 14 billion years ago. Prior to that the hypothesis states that everything existed as a physical singularity. Once the BB occurred the physical laws as we CURRENTLY experience them came into existence. PRIOR to that none of the current laws of physics existed.
He doesn't have to verify the proposition to propose it, nor does it have to be "verified" (via your standards) for it to be a viable proposition. No one here has the ability to determine the truth of the origin existence. And presuming unto yourself that right is both dishonest and arrogant.I'd love to hear your 'good' arguments that support the notion that the natural world had a beginning. I'm not really sure why you didn't start off with such arguments, because until you can verify that nature had a beginning, the rest of your argument has no foundation to stand on.
He doesn't have to verify the proposition to propose it, nor does it have to be "verified" (via your standards) for it to be a viable proposition. No one here has the ability to determine the truth of the origin existence. And presuming unto yourself that right is both dishonest and arrogant.
So you figure that the foolishness of others justifies your own?Of course he doesn't HAVE to verify anything in order to propose it, but it certainly helps if he wants people to agree with him. And he does have to verify his proposition if he wants ME to accept it. And how exactly am I being any more dishonest and arrogant to presume that I'm right than he is in claiming that he's right?
Not a troll. A debate. As the title says.
So! Prove me wrong. I'll reply.