INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

[/font][/color]

It is possible for the building blocks of life to form from inorganic matter. We know this. You know this. So either you're lying here, or feigning ignorance (which you really can't do anyway since the evidence has been presented to you).

I'm sorry, but you don't get to accuse others of lying, as you're lying.

Yes, it has been shown that 13 of 22 amino acids were made by scientists in a lab guessing at conditions on Earth 4 billion yeras ago. Some of these experiments even cheated and removed oxygen because oxygen destoys everything. Anyway making an amino acid is like saying nature can make iron and copper there fore we have proven that nature built the Empire state building. Nature can build equal or low equilibrium complexity but not higher than equilibrium complexity. Crystals are an example. The guld between amino acids or any similar building block and life is an almost infinite span.

 

[1robin]

A disembodied mind is one of the most complicated objects possible when you include all the information you need to describe how the mind thinks.

Regardless, an omnipotent God is functionally an infinitely complicated hypothesis, because it has no constraints.

How in the world would anyone know what the complexity of a disembodied mind was? First why do you even care? It would only matter if God was caused. Second the only claims by philosophers on it are all that it is a very very simple concept. I take that with a grain of salt because how in the world do they know that. That last statement I think confuses capability with complexity. Dynamite is relatively simple and a computer is relatively complex yet dynamite can take most things that exist apart and a computer can't take much of anything apart. I really think this is a subject where we do not even know what we do not know.

 

[1robin]

Note: disembodied mind isn't necessarily without matter. For instance, "Brain in a vat" is considered a "disembodied" mind.

First: Why is this imporatant? Only a caused entity has complexity issues.
Second: A brain is still a body.
Third: We are discussing God and he is non material so even if the vat idea is true it is a seperate issue.
Fourth: There is no way to know anything much about this subject. I brought it up as an aswer to a question not as a knowable thing to be critiqued but have at if you wish, I how ever have no dissembodied mind education that justifies any comment of mine beyond the self description.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then I no longer see a reason to continue this discussion. Insinuations and theatrics are hallmarks of less than honorable motivations

You mean like your insinuations about a massive scientific conspiracy, and the theatrics involved with this kind of dismissal?

It's simple, really: creationists are almost always dishonest, and you said something which was blatantly false. You obviously possess strong religious convictions, and thus have a vested interest in lying about the facts when those facts contradict your religious beliefs. You have accused scientists of lying or assuming or making things up, and yet you cannot take a single accusation of dishonesty when you present something that is blatantly dishonest? You ignore refutations to your arguments, dismiss any scientist's opinion if they don't disagree with your own, and evoke logical fallacy after logical fallacy in order to protect your deeply held preconceptions from the poisonous influence of reality.

Yes, I can say with dead certainty that you are fully capable, and probably willing, to lie to me about this subject. Since you are willing to deny the honesty and hard work of millions of scientists, I'd say lying isn't out of your moral character in the least.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]

Like who?

Guillermo Gonzalez
Robert J. Marks II
Michael Egnor
Caroline Crocker
Richard Sternberg
Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
(he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology [42]) and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views. Sternberg defended his decision, stating that Intelligent Design was not the overall subject of the paper (being mentioned only at the end) and that he was attempting merely to present questions ID proponents had raised as a topic for discussion. He presented himself and Meyer as targets of religious and political persecution, claiming the chairman of his department referred to him as an "intellectual terrorist". Stein states that the paper "ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began", and goes beyond the findings of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to claim that Sternberg was "terrorized".[28] Stein further alleges that Congressman Mark Souder uncovered a campaign by the Smithsonian and the NCSE to destroy Sternberg's credibility, though he does not provide any details.

 

[camanintx]

No I did not. I said that in physics numbers smaller than that are declared to be zero and dismissed. When probabilities reach this level of unlikelihood they are not worth considering in science. I had an entire year of cal based physics and know very well that this is true and I do not even think this is what you have been contending about anyway. Anyway the numbers for life coming from non life are almost infinately worse.

Pardon me for paraphrasing you, but when you say that something is not worth considering in science you're saying it is equivalent to zero. As for your claim that "when a probability reaches 1 x 10^50 they consider it zero and move on", you broke my ******** meter with that one. Any chance you can dig up a reference from your cal based physics to back this up? Or would you rather explain what prevents me from drawing a sequence of 60 colored marbles from a bag?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not qualified to say. It does not matter anyway, when considering the absolutely necessary, uncaused first cause. Philosophers say a disembodied mind is a very simple concept but all such claims are speculative.

Well sure it does. I mean, at least it matters to people who care about what's true and what isn't.

Let's think it through then. If this god of yours created the entire universe and everything in it, he must be pretty complex, right? Probably vastly more complex than anything else in the universe that you claim needs a cause or creator. So where did your god come from? Simply making the assertion that it doesn't require a creator/cause is meaningless and empty, especially when your argument hinges on complexity.

We have no evidence for the existence of a "disembodied mind." Minds are products of brains.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, it has been shown that 13 of 22 amino acids were made by scientists in a lab guessing at conditions on Earth 4 billion yeras ago.

Right. So we're finally on the same page then: scientists have produced some building blocks of life from inorganic matter, under lab conditions that were produced to simulate the possible conditions present on earth around 4 billion years ago.

These experiments show that it is possible for organic matter to form from inorganic matter - something which you repeatedly claim is impossible. THAT'S THE POINT. It doesn't matter which specific amino acids were formed at this point, what matters is that these experiments show that this is very possible.

Some of these experiments even cheated and removed oxygen because oxygen destoys everything.

So what? It's not cheating - it's called experimentation.

Anyway making an amino acid is like saying nature can make iron and copper there fore we have proven that nature built the Empire state building.

Enough with the poor analogies. What is says is that organic matter can form naturally from inorganic matter. Something you keep saying is impossible.

Nature can build equal or low equilibrium complexity but not higher than equilibrium complexity. Crystals are an example. The guld between amino acids or any similar building block and life is an almost infinite span.

Now you're just making more empty assertions and completely avoiding the point. Still.

 

[paarsurrey]

Second: A brain is still a body.
Third: We are discussing God and he is non material ...

I agree with you.

God could only be known by reason helped by revelation.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Infinately" is not a word.

The word is "infinitely" (comes from "in-finite").

It's annoying to see that word misspelled.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess that si one way to dismiss things you do not like. However that will
not get the dozens of very good biologists back their jobs they lost because they left the door open for God.


Guillermo Gonzalez

Gonzalez is an astrophysicist, not a biologist. He's a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, so it sounds to me like he is employed. He wasn't fired from his job anywhere, he was denied tenure at Iowa State University based on the fact that during his 7 years there he had no major grants, he hadn't published any significant research in all that time and that he had only one graduate student finish a dissertation. Now, I don't know how much you know about professorship and tenures and such, but that's a perfectly valid reason to deny someone tenure. If you're not producing anything (which is your job), why should they keep you on? If you work as a server at McDonald's and haven't served any food to anyone in your 7 years with the company, are you a productive, efficient worker, or not?

He didn't lose his job because he believes in god.

Robert J. Marks II

Marks is a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, not a biologist. He's currently employed at Baylor University.

I'm not sure why you listed him.

Michael Egnor

Egnor is a neurosurgeon, not a biologist. (That's 0 for 3 so far). He has been serving as a professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Stony Brook University since 1991. So this guy wasn't fired from anywhere for believing in god either. (0 for 3 again.)

Caroline Crocker

Crocker is an immunopharmacologist, not a biologist. (She also has a Master's degree in medical microbiology). She wasn't fired from her job for believing in god, her non-tenure contract simply wasn't renewed by . That's not weird or outrageous, it's fairly normal. She's upset because the universities she was employed at wouldn't allow her to make long ago debunked claims about creationism in her classroom (rightfully so) and furthermore, she was teaching material that wasn't part of the curriculum which is unfair to her students.

I don't know why you listed her either.

Richard Sternberg
Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy
(he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology [42]) and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views. Sternberg defended his decision, stating that Intelligent Design was not the overall subject of the paper (being mentioned only at the end) and that he was attempting merely to present questions ID proponents had raised as a topic for discussion. He presented himself and Meyer as targets of religious and political persecution, claiming the chairman of his department referred to him as an "intellectual terrorist". Stein states that the paper "ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began", and goes beyond the findings of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to claim that Sternberg was "terrorized".[28] Stein further alleges that Congressman Mark Souder uncovered a campaign by the Smithsonian and the NCSE to destroy Sternberg's credibility, though he does not provide any details.

I suggest you continue reading the rest of this page you've linked me to.


Funny how you don't mention religious folks like Frances Collins, who is currently Director of the National Institutes of Health. Gee, how did a god believer get to such an important position? Sounds to me like you're not actually describing what's going on, given the fact that none of the people you listed are biologists, none of them lost their jobs due to their belief in god and most of them are currently employed. And the example I just provided (Frances Collins) further refutes your conspiracy argument.

You should probably throw your copy of Expelled into the garbage where it belongs.

 

[1robin]

You mean like your insinuations about a massive scientific conspiracy, and the theatrics involved with this kind of dismissal?

I will make one last attempt to straighten out you misconceptions and if still unsuccessful I give up.

I do not think there is a massive conspiracy in science. In fact I hate and reject just about every conspiracy claim I have ever heard. What they do is attributable to simple human fallibility and their theological presuppositions. It has little organization or cohesion and exists in all belief systems. What makes their actions unique is that unlike most others they deny bias and assert evidence as the judge of all. They and the ones that give them an almost omniscient status go on and own about proof and evidence but violate their own requirements in the majority or areas that are used for arguments against theism. Multiverses, string theory, abiogenesis, eternal universes, oscillating universes, teh dismissal of the supernatural etc... Have almost no evidence what so ever, in some cases not even a potentiality for any, and in some actually contradict very well evidenced science, or claim that things that have never been observed are concrete facts. You may assign whatever motivation to this you wish it exists and is a fact. I only demand consistent standards not any certain standard. In fact I can prove that every single fact of science has a large element of faith involved. I do not even think that is wrong, I just insist it be admitted as I do with my claims.

It's simple, really: creationists are almost always dishonest, and you said something which was blatantly false.

First of all once again even if true you have absolutely no way to know this about creationists. First you do not have the capacity nor the education to have verified the majority of what creationists have said. Second creationists are a diverse group and some of their claims are almost identical to secular science. You did not say the claim I made was false. You said I lied and that will not be put up with by me for several reasons. 1. Asserting a lie is offensive and honor demands that the one making it be sure. 2. Lying requires intent. 3. You can't possibly know that I knowingly made a false statement even if it was true. 4. I am the only human on Earth that knows why I said what I said.
Summary: Your claims of lying are dishonorable, wrong, theatric, and probably made for effect, and there is little to be gained in a discussion with a person with those motivations and lack of honor. I never evangelize but am interested in apologetics. I have spent years watching every debate, reading every transcript and book, and debating people of every persuasion I can. It is always the non-theist (mostly atheistic) evolutionists that are apparently so miserable and mad at everything and everyone that disagrees who will make unknown assertions and false accusations.

You obviously possess strong religious convictions, and thus have a vested interest in lying about the facts when those facts contradict your religious beliefs.

You did the same thing again and even got the motivation so wrong it's abhorrent. You 1. Can't know my intent. 2. Can't know why I lied even if I did. Yet claim knowledge of both. Pathetic, not to mention stupid. I stand to lose everything I have, if I follow a belief I have to justify by lying. There is zero motivation and actually quite a bit of inconvenience. I am not a Pope holding onto power, nor a Jihadist brain washed from child hood. I was an atheist for 27 years and saw things that convinced me I was as you are, wrong. Here is a very important point. I then followed the Gospels spiritual roadmap and found exactly what I it promised. I literally experienced God and it was unmistakable and perfectly consistent with what salvation is described in the Bible as (which I did not even know or expect at the time). I have personal confirmation that God exists and you have no confirmation he does not, even possible. That means I can personally justify my faith even if 95% of the Bible was a fairy tale, I need no lies to protect no claims because my faith is not derived by intellectual consent to a historical proposition but an actual spiritual proof, and evolution is no threat to either. It is simply a bonus the Bible is so reliable, I have no dependency on it being so and there for no need to lie.

You have accused scientists of lying or assuming or making things up, and yet you cannot take a single accusation of dishonesty when you present something that is blatantly dishonest?

That is different. I know that many of the claims they make are guesses, faith based, or nothing based. I never or usually never use lie nor even dishonesty. 9 out of 10 times I say they are using double standards and drawing a metric ton of theory from a gram of data if that much. It is the quality of information not the motive I mention most times, there is no equality with what you said.

You ignore refutations to your arguments, dismiss any scientist's opinion if they don't disagree with your own, and evoke logical fallacy after logical fallacy in order to protect your deeply held preconceptions from the poisonous influence of reality.

Nope, but I do prioritize and am very suspicious of theoretical people. I have 190 sem hours in technical fields and a math degree. I would wager given the odds that my job is vastly more technical and scientific than yours unless you have a masters or higher and I am obsessed with the debates about these issues and have probably watched more than 200 hours of them and have transcripts of many. I know very well what the current status of argumentation is in general. That is why I resent the incessant claims by your side that if anyone disagrees it is because they are stupid or ignorant. I was an atheist at college time and thought science the arbiter of all truth and used to go to the scholar lectures at my universities. Even then I noticed gaping flaws, self-contradiction, and inconsistencies with people I considered heroes. Unlike my faith they have everything to gain by stretching the truth and misstating results. In fact you may have heard of a professor a few years back that shot several professors in a meeting because they denied her tenure that was at my university in Huntsville. If it is worth killing for it is worth fudging for. As for my denials. I will illustrate one such example. For Hoyle's numbers. I found him quickly and I was in a hurry. I knew that there are those that challenge his numbers. After I had time and found much more substantial numbers I thought I would just drop him because I knew little about him and he is controversial. I thought about your objections and found scholars that countered them. I determined that no resolution was possible in a scholar war and instead wanted to concentrate on the later and more detailed numbers that I had given. However you would not allow it and are now saying wrongly that I simply rejected claims against him when what I wanted to do was use my later numbers because they are less controversial and more detailed. With Hoyle it was the opinions of your scholars against me and mine and that was pointless.

Yes, I can say with dead certainty that you are fully capable, and probably willing, to lie to me about this subject.

I am definitely capable but have no will except for the exact opposite. I just do not care what others think that much given my experience with motivations, trends, and the subjects. What makes this so unacceptable is even if I was lying you have absolutely no way to know yet insist you do. That will not be accepted by me. If you must think I am lying for your own convenience then simply stop debating me.

Since you are willing to deny the honesty and hard work of millions of scientists, I'd say lying isn't out of your moral character in the least.

One thing which is wrong in the first place even if true is not indicative of the other by necessity. Your move but any more blind assertions and I am done with you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your move but any more blind assertions and I am done with you.

Says the person making one blind assertion after another.

 

[1robin]

Well sure it does. I mean, at least it matters to people who care about what's true and what isn't.

I do not think that is the criteria that are in play here but you will be dissapointed whatever the case may be. BTW how much evidence is there for multiverses and the fast becoming defunked string theory? Science needs no evidence to posit things, why is it necessary for theology?

Let's think it through then. If this god of yours created the entire universe and everything in it, he must be pretty complex, right? Probably vastly more complex than anything else in the universe that you claim needs a cause or creator. So where did your god come from? Simply making the assertion that it doesn't require a creator/cause is meaningless and empty, especially when your argument hinges on complexity.

You keep asking me questions that 1. I have no way of knowing and that 2. No one has anyway of knowing and that 3. I have answered with all I know about it several times already. That philosophers say a dissembodied mind is an extremely simplistic concept. It can do complex things the same way a crystal can but THEY say it is simple. That's all I got. You can't get any more than that out of me nor anyone else.

We have no evidence for the existence of a "disembodied mind." Minds are products of brains.

I keep meaning to investigate it but so far have no found time. However it is claimed that many tests have shown that mind is greater than the sum of it's biological parts. Again I am pointing you in a direction not making a detailed claim or argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not think that is the criteria that are in play here but you will be dissapointed whatever the case may be. BTW how much evidence is there for multiverses and the fast becoming defunked string theory? Science needs no evidence to posit things, why is it necessary for theology?

Well, like I just said, it matters to people who care about what is true and what isn't.

These theories you keep mentioning are working hypotheses. I.e. They're still under development. They're not on par with well evidenced theories such as gravitational theory or evolutionary theory. They're not posited as facts. But they're not based on nothing either, as you keep trying to say. They're based in quantam mechanics and general relativity.

"Disembodied minds" are based in what, exactly? Every example we have of minds come from brains.

You keep asking me questions that 1. I have no way of knowing and that 2. No one has anyway of knowing and that 3. I have answered with all I know about it several times already. That philosophers say a dissembodied mind is an extremely simplistic concept. It can do complex things the same way a crystal can but THEY say it is simple. That's all I got. You can't get any more than that out of me nor anyone else.

What I'm asking you to do is apply some logic to your assertions. You haven't answered my question at all as to how complex your god would have to be or where it came from. If your answer is "I don't know" that's fine, but then you can't really go on making bald assertions and arguments about god and nature. (e.g. Your assertion that god doesn't require a cause/creator even though everything else does).

I keep meaning to investigate it but so far have no found time. However it is claimed that many tests have shown that mind is greater than the sum of it's biological parts. Again I am pointing you in a direction not making a detailed claim or argument.

I know of no tests that posit such assertions and I've done a fair amount of research on the brain. In fact, every test I've seen shows pretty clearly that the mind is the product of the brain. Since we have no example of a mind existing without a brain, the claim that such a thing does exist is pretty far fetched.

 

[1robin]

Pardon me for paraphrasing you, but when you say that something is not worth considering in science you're saying it is equivalent to zero. As for your claim that "when a probability reaches 1 x 10^50 they consider it zero and move on", you broke my ******** meter with that one. Any chance you can dig up a reference from your cal based physics to back this up? Or would you rather explain what prevents me from drawing a sequence of 60 colored marbles from a bag?

You do realize this is not my rule but a rule used in secular science don't you? If you disagree then tell them they are the ones who decided to equate these things.
Borel's Law = ...Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 1050 have a zero probability of ever happening.... This is Borel's law in action which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel....
I will say I have no idea how pervasive adoption of this law is. Could be everyone, could by only a certain percentage. I have never looked. Heck we can just assume it isn't zero. Still won't get life from non-life. The numbers actually involved are staggeringly higher.

 

[1robin]

Right. So we're finally on the same page then: scientists have produced some building blocks of life from inorganic matter, under lab conditions that were produced to simulate the possible conditions present on earth around 4 billion years ago.

I agree they produced very low complexity entities by guessing what was true 4 billion years ago. I never even thought iron, copper, water; amino acids and countless simple things can't be created by nature. No one does. However higher complexity chemical evolution is problematic and life is on the complexity scale so far away from amino acids it can even be detected.

These experiments show that it is possible for organic matter to form from inorganic matter

Amino acids are not alive. BY the way water and oxygen destroy amino acids yet that is what they are claimed to have been formed in. Something is off. This is part of it:

Miller's first step was to create an atmosphere containing the chemicals of which amino acids are composed. He then passed a spark through his chosen atmosphere. Small amounts of amino acids were produced.2
Does this mean life could form?
There were problems:
• Only around half of the twenty amino acids from which proteins are formed were produced.
• A much larger quantity of other chemicals, mostly useless tars, was also formed.

• Had there been oxygen in the atmosphere it would have combined with the other chemicals in the atmosphere so that no amino acids would have formed. Some researchers think oxygen was there all along:

"But many researchers now hold that the ancient Earth's atmosphere, compared with the earlier view, had more oxygen and less hydrogen-as the atmosphere does today. Amino acids don't form as readily under that condition as they did in the 1953 experiment, and when they do form, they tend to break apart."3
​

• After the first spark had produced amino acids, additional sparks would have broken them down again. To prevent this, Miller built a trap into the apparatus to take newly formed amino acids out of the cycle and save them from destruction. The trap is usually more or less ignored, but its presence means Miller's experiment does not show what might happen in nature. The trap ensured the survival of amino acids. In nature, where there is no trap, if any amino acids were created, the quantity which survived would have been negligible. That is why Miller included the trap.
"How Life Began" - Chapter 1

Again Amino acids are not life. Life is a cell. Amino acids compose things that compose things that compose things that compose cells. The steps in complexity reach insane puposrtions. Is Miller the best they have even after 50 years and he cheated. Surely there has been better attempts even if still abject failures.

something which you repeatedly claim is impossible. THAT'S THE POINT. It doesn't matter which specific amino acids were formed at this point, what matters is that these experiments show that this is very possible.

Let me say it one last time. Actually I will give an example since explanations are not working. If you break up a thousand piece puzzle and put the pieces in a bag and shake, you will occasionally get a few to fit together but never enough to even recognize what the puzzle is. An amino acid is like 2 or 3 pieces getting together. However like all natural processes you will never get a significant portion of the puzzle together. The reason is the simple fact that the chances things form wrong or break apart is absurdly more probable than they form up correctly and stay there until all 3.2 billion pieces of just one DNA strand for instance is created. This is why lower than equilibrium complexity is very common in nature and why much higher than equilibrium complexity never occurs unless directed through information which can only come from mind as it's dynamics are even more restrictive. It is a little simplistic but a very accurate example and I got it from a brilliant and famous Chemist and 3 star General. PhD A. E Wilder (which even if divine and perfect, you will do anything necessary to try and discredit) Good luck.

So what? It's not cheating - it's called experimentation.

No, it's called producing a condition that does not reflect the condition that existed for the specific purpose of getting what you want even if what you want is not 1 trilionth enough.

Enough with the poor analogies. What is says is that organic matter can form naturally from inorganic matter. Something you keep saying is impossible.

What in the world is natural about a scientist in a lab putting the most probable chemicals in tank, making sure the ones that are harmful are absent even when we know they were there and possibly in higher concentrations they are today, and zapping them with an artificial spark until you get what you want and then stopping the spark with a trap. There is not one natural thing in that experiment.

Now you're just making more empty assertions and completely avoiding the point. Still.

Avoiding what? Abject failure to do even a small fraction of what is necessary to overcome abiogenesis, or did you create life while I was not looking. Organic does not equal life. In fact anything containing non binary carbon is organic.

If life is composed of let's say a million things happening. Miller got half of number 6 right by cheating and you yell victory. I hope you grade any tests I take in the future.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

You seriously need to go read the thread
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87669-god-did-not-create-anything.html

It is all about the eternal nature of God and the infinite universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You do realize this is not my rule but a rule used in secular science don't you? If you disagree then tell them they are the ones who decided to equate these things.
Borel's Law = ...Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 1050 have a zero probability of ever happening.... This is Borel's law in action which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel....
I will say I have no idea how pervasive adoption of this law is. Could be everyone, could by only a certain percentage. I have never looked. Heck we can just assume it isn't zero. Still won't get life from non-life. The numbers actually involved are staggeringly higher.

I think it needs to be pointed out here that there is no "secular" science versus "religious" science or something. There is just the scientific method.

And I'll point out yet again, that it is possible for life to come from non-life. Remember how the building blocks of life were found to be able to be formed from inorganic matter? I'm not letting you repeatedly make the claim over and over that this can't possibly happen when we know that it can and when it has been pointed out to you a zillion times now.

 

[1robin]

Well, like I just said, it matters to people who care about what is true and what isn't.

Since there is no way to even if it exists to study or evaluate it I think whatever standards you use will be futile. You are locked onto this exit ramp like grim death. Why?

These theories you keep mentioning are working hypotheses. I.e. they’re still under development. They're not on par with well evidenced theories such as gravitational theory or evolutionary theory. They're not posited as facts. But they're not based on nothing either, as you keep trying to say. They're based in quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Well it is very nice to hear someone actually say this. Let me ask you this then, why are these faith based guesses used as a counter argument to the solid, current, and God consistent cosmological model of a finite universe? How can quantum mechanics which is in it's infancy and relativity which is also little understood but are both only known to be true or applicable to this universe able to identify something we have no access to any level. By all means keep researching them but they are no more substantial that a disembodied mind and currently there is no competing model for many things we find in reality that we can actually access. Not that I think the concept one that can be meaningfully evaluated, at least I am honest about it.

"Disembodied minds" are based in what, exactly? Every example we have of minds come from brains.

Theology and fantasy mostly. It is like Dark matter in a way. Can't be detected, can't be measured, is unlike anything we know about "light" matter but yet almost logically necessary given the reality of Galaxies. Both are place holders for whatever is actually is that is producing effects we can measure. A mind also is consistent with theology, and the only candidate even possible by philosophy. Before nature only two things could exist. A non-contingent mind and abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are non-causal.

What I'm asking you to do is apply some logic to your assertions. You haven't answered my question at all as to how complex your god would have to be or where it came from. If your answer is "I don't know" that's fine, but then you can't really go on making bald assertions and arguments about god and nature. (e.g. Your assertion that god doesn't require a cause/creator even though everything else does).

Not only do I not know how complex, no one does, or even can speculate. As for where he comes from that is simple. Only things that begin to exist have origins. If you balk at this then consider this. Given an effect it can't possibly have an infinite causal regression. It absolutely must have an uncaused first cause. The universe began to exist, (it quite literally can't have always existed and current cosmology agrees). By philosophy it's cause is non-natural, non-material, independent of time, more powerful, and knowledgeable than we can comprehend. That is exactly the way a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age Hebrews described God 4000 years before they had any idea what to fake.

I know of no tests that posit such assertions and I've done a fair amount of research on the brain. In fact, every test I've seen shows pretty clearly that the mind is the product of the brain. Since we have no example of a mind existing without a brain, the claim that such a thing does exist is pretty farfetched.

Well I know little to add but one thing I have checked into is NDEs. This area is a minefield of cons, garbage, mistakes, and a few that defy explanation. There are dozens of stories, well documented of people near or at death that knew things they had no way to perceive like events at other locations. One I saw recently was a lady they literally killed her brain on purpose, not only that they drained the blood from for some last ditch extreme procedure. She woke up with knowledge she had no method of detecting. Others about trips to heaven or hell. Of course we should all be skeptical but every once in a while there are very documented ones that strike me as genuine and details exist that have only one explanation. There are recent bestselling books on some of them. Currently I believe it is possible the mind is greater than biology (more so than millions of universes exist and especially that eternal ones do) but don't know.