Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, it certainly works both ways. Everything we see happening around us our entire lives ends up having a natural cause when we bother to seek it. Nothing ever happens that can be shown with equally valid evidence to have been caused by any supernatural causes.

Like quantum mechanics, the Big Bang? Dark energy and black holes?

On the contrary, the more we learn, the less well everything in reality fits into the simple classical Victorian materialistic model, the more it emphatically moves into everything naturalists used to call 'supernatural' or 'pseudoscience'

Of course they cease to be labeled as such, once established beyond reasonable doubt. So historically, in practice, 'supernatural' is often a word natiuralists use for something that is real, but they just don't accept yet.


So semantics aside, I'm less interested in whether something is 'scientific' or 'supernatural'- and far more interested in whether or not it's actually true.


[/quote]

Yes, there are things we do not know the cause of, but there is no reason to insert the supernatural into the knowledge void. That is why the default is to reject supernatural causes until sufficient evidence can be provided to demonstrate those supernatural causes exist[/quote]

which is why I don't believe in multiverses..

How other hypothetical universes may or may not be created has no bearing on our local reality. None of these theories ( some to me are still hypotheses) bear on the question, either. It matters not how the universe may have been created. We currently only know of natural causes.

Again on the contrary, we are not aware of any natural causes ever being observed- as the creative force behind such information systems, whether in subatomic physics, DNA or computer software.

We only know of one scientifically verifiable originator for these systems, and that is creative intelligence. So it's actually very generous to natural causes, to say there is no 'default here', but I don't rule out natural causes, they are not technically impossible, just not the most probable answer

 

[Hawkins]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

You need to go to the start point of how we deviate from each other. This begs the question that what each and every atheist has the evidence of the existence of black holes. If they can't present the evidence they have (or the lack thereof), why do they believe that black holes exists.

 

[Milton Platt]

Like quantum mechanics, the Big Bang? Dark energy and black holes?

On the contrary, the more we learn, the less well everything in reality fits into the simple classical Victorian materialistic model, the more it emphatically moves into everything naturalists used to call 'supernatural' or 'pseudoscience'

Of course they cease to be labeled as such, once established beyond reasonable doubt. So historically, in practice, 'supernatural' is often a word natiuralists use for something that is real, but they just don't accept yet.


So semantics aside, I'm less interested in whether something is 'scientific' or 'supernatural'- and far more interested in whether or not it's actually true.

Yes, there are things we do not know the cause of, but there is no reason to insert the supernatural into the knowledge void. That is why the default is to reject supernatural causes until sufficient evidence can be provided to demonstrate those supernatural causes exist[/quote]

which is why I don't believe in multiverses..




Again on the contrary, we are not aware of any natural causes ever being observed- as the creative force behind such information systems, whether in subatomic physics, DNA or computer software.

We only know of one scientifically verifiable originator for these systems, and that is creative intelligence. So it's actually very generous to natural causes, to say there is no 'default here', but I don't rule out natural causes, they are not technically impossible, just not the most probable answer[/QUOTE]

How can you say a supernatural cause is the most likely cause when we have absolutely no good evidence that anything has ever been caused supernaturally and everything we understand so far has been caused by natural forces?

 

[Profound Realization]

You've said or implied that the objects of math have objective existence.

Yet you haven't told me where numbers with objective existence are to be found. For example, you haven't shown me an uninstantiated two outside of a brain.

You still haven't told me the test that will distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary.

Skip the abuse and just address the questions, please.

Wouldn't this just be ultimately concluding that the "imaginary" is also matter? How then, or what test would distinguish imaginary matter from objective matter seeing that imaginations come from the brain also?

Would you say that the material brain gives rise to material imaginations or the other way around, the material brain gives rise to immaterial imaginations? How to distinguish?

What do you define "matter" as?

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes, there are things we do not know the cause of, but there is no reason to insert the supernatural into the knowledge void. That is why the default is to reject supernatural causes until sufficient evidence can be provided to demonstrate those supernatural causes exist

Depends on how you perceive what is "natural" or what is "supernatural."

For instance, Nature didn't self-evolve/assemble a gun. A human did. Yet a human came from Nature. I can conclude that the gun evolved/assembled supernaturally. The human, having awareness, creative and intelligent capability... could be considered supernatural. Since, the external environment of Nature(outside of a "living" entity) is not intelligent nor creative, nor aware. . without evidence that it is or once was.

So to me...rejecting the supernatural would be also rejecting the intelligence, creative abilities, and awareness of humans, if objective evidence is based on the external environment of nature.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How can you say a supernatural cause is the most likely cause when we have absolutely no good evidence that anything has ever been caused supernaturally and everything we understand so far has been caused by natural forces?

I didn't, you are one who keeps using the word, and I'm not sure how you are defining it

If you believe the rabbit in the hat appeared spontaneously, on it's own, without any creative intelligence putting it there, I'd call that supernatural

I believe it was probably just put there by somebody on purpose.


Same goes for multiverses v God, I'm deferring to the only scientifically verifiable, known cause for such phenomena, creative intelligence.

If you are calling creative intelligence itself 'supernatural' then in a sense I agree: It transcends nature, in that it can do what natural forces never can- that's what gives it the superior power of explanation here.

 

[Milton Platt]

I didn't, you are one who keeps using the word, and I'm not sure how you are defining it

If you believe the rabbit in the hat appeared spontaneously, on it's own, without any creative intelligence putting it there, I'd call that supernatural

I believe it was probably just put there by somebody on purpose.


Same goes for multiverses v God, I'm deferring to the only scientifically verifiable, known cause for such phenomena, creative intelligence.

If you are calling creative intelligence itself 'supernatural' then in a sense I agree: It transcends nature, in that it can do what natural forces never can- that's what gives it the superior power of explanation here.

I'm game, Threep.....point me to the scientific experiments where the scientists conclusion was "god did it".

How do we know creative intelligence creates multiverses, or even one universe?

 

[Jesster]

I can believe anyone came to their position through logic and reason the moment they show they are capable of presenting logic and reason.

 

[Milton Platt]

Depends on how you perceive what is "natural" or what is "supernatural."

For instance, Nature didn't self-evolve/assemble a gun. A human did. Yet a human came from Nature. I can conclude that the gun evolved/assembled supernaturally. The human, having awareness, creative and intelligent capability... could be considered supernatural. Since, the external environment of Nature(outside of a "living" entity) is not intelligent nor creative, nor aware. . without evidence that it is or once was.

So to me...rejecting the supernatural would be also rejecting the intelligence, creative abilities, and awareness of humans, if objective evidence is based on the external environment of nature.

I reject your idea that humans are not a natural being and a part of the natural world. Supernatural is generally meant to imply "outside of nature, or not a part of the natural world".
You are using a definition that is outside the norm. You can call a pig a cow, but it's still a pig.

 

[Profound Realization]

I reject your idea that humans are not a natural being and a part of the natural world. Supernatural is generally meant to imply "outside of nature, or not a part of the natural world".
You are using a definition that is outside the norm. You can call a pig a cow, but it's still a pig.

Well, the normal definition is weak in my opinion.... anyone can make up anything they want and say it doesn't exist. . nothing intelligent about that.

All imaginations would also then be part of the natural world. All ideas would be part of the natural world. So, you are then rejecting the natural world. The idea, in my mind/brain is part of the natural world correct?

 

[Milton Platt]

Well, the normal definition is weak in my opinion.... anyone can make up anything they want and say it doesn't exist. . nothing intelligent about that.

All imaginations would also then be part of the natural world. All ideas would be part of the natural world. So, you are then rejecting the natural world. The idea, in my mind/brain is part of the natural world correct?

Those things are part of the natural world. They are produced by brain activity in brains which are part of the natural world. I never implyed otherwise. I was rejecting the notion that we have scientifically shown that some form of intelligence created the natural world.

 

[blü 2]

Wouldn't this just be ultimately concluding that the "imaginary" is also matter?

Concepts exist in physical form in the brain ie are material.

The contents of a concept however can be of real things, imaginary things, abstractions, generalizations &c. That is, the contents need not represent real things, any more than a drawing on a piece of paper must represent a real thing. Have you seen those glorious medieval tapestries of unicorns?

How then, or what test would distinguish imaginary matter from objective matter seeing that imaginations come from the brain also?

The test is, does the content of the concept correspond to something having objective existence? So I can have a concept of 'this chair'; or I can have an abstract concept of 'a chair', which is no particular chair and has so has no real correspondent. Likewise the number 2 is an abstraction; all we find in external reality are things which we find it easiest to consider as pairs,

Would you say that the material brain gives rise to material imaginations or the other way around, the material brain gives rise to immaterial imaginations? How to distinguish?

I'm not sure I follow the question. The material brain gives rise to concepts both of real things (this chair, and Harald V, King of Norway) and of imaginary things (a chair, 2, the unicorn &c.).

What do you define "matter" as?

I think the universe is made of energy (or mass-energy, if you prefer that term) and all its contents, including matter, are forms of it. That, after all, is what the Big Bang exclusively consisted of. (But it's an hypothesis: I have no demonstration that it's correct, only that it's not falsified so far.)

 

[Profound Realization]

Concepts exist in physical form in the brain ie are material.

The contents of a concept however can be of real things, imaginary things, abstractions, generalizations &c. That is, the contents need not represent real things, any more than a drawing on a piece of paper must represent a real thing. Have you seen those glorious medieval tapestries of unicorns?
The test is, does the content of the concept correspond to something having objective existence? So I can have a concept of 'this chair'; or I can have an abstract concept of 'a chair', which is no particular chair and has so has no real correspondent. Likewise the number 2 is an abstraction; all we find in external reality are things which we find it easiest to consider as pairs,
I'm not sure I follow the question. The material brain gives rise to concepts both of real things (this chair, and Harald V, King of Norway) and of imaginary things (a chair, 2, the unicorn &c.).

I think the universe is made of energy (or mass-energy, if you prefer that term) and all its contents, including matter, are forms of it. That, after all, is what the Big Bang exclusively consisted of. (But it's an hypothesis: I have no demonstration that it's correct, only that it's not falsified so far.)

I think that it is just the word "matter" that is a misleading term, especially for many.

And I absolutely love the concept of energy, mass-energy. Great interest of mine, personally.

 

[Profound Realization]

Those things are part of the natural world. They are produced by brain activity in brains which are part of the natural world. I never implyed otherwise. I was rejecting the notion that we have scientifically shown that some form of intelligence created the natural world.

I never implied the notion that some form of intelligence created the natural world. I guess you can say I implied that intelligence in the human is currently creating.

I understand what you're saying, that humans and their brains and their concepts are part of natural world and I agree. It's just that many view objective evidence as that existing both externally and internally. Since there is no evidence for external intelligence in Nature outside of the brain, you and many would conclude that as supernatural. But when it's internal within the brain, it is concluded as natural. I think that the difference with me, is that everything undiscovered and discovered and anything at all I would conclude as natural. I can't give examples of what is supernatural, because if intelligence were to ever be discovered free-lancing through the deep cosmos as synaptic, dendritic networks of super dark energy somewhere... it would have been natural all along. Or if intelligence once upon a time did exist and created the natural world and only exists within "life" in present time, than it would have been natural all along. Or if radical concepts such as God(s)/rebirth/ reincarnation exist, it would have been natural all along. It is not possible to falsify too much, therefore I make not too many judgements on what is supernatural and natural in context of how many use the terms. There are virtually infinite things still to be learned about Nature. In many cases, the more we understand, the less we understand.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm game, Threep.....point me to the scientific experiments where the scientists conclusion was "god did it".

How do we know creative intelligence creates multiverses, or even one universe?

Information systems Milton, that's what everything around us boils down to, and something we only recently learned

The problem is no longer where all the 'stuff' physically came from, it came from the math. And so the 'stuff', solid matter itself, is arguably nothing more than than

In the case of DNA we are talking about a literal digital information system with nested hierarchies, the singularity was quite literally a self extracting archive of highly compressed information, specifying precisely how our physical world would operate.

I'm game Milton; show me the scientific evidence for any systems like these, ever being spontaneously originated. We only know one proven method.

 

[Milton Platt]

Information systems Milton, that's what everything around us boils down to, and something we only recently learned

The problem is no longer where all the 'stuff' physically came from, it came from the math. And so the 'stuff', solid matter itself, is arguably nothing more than than

In the case of DNA we are talking about a literal digital information system with nested hierarchies, the singularity was quite literally a self extracting archive of highly compressed information, specifying precisely how our physical world would operate.

I'm game Milton; show me the scientific evidence for any systems like these, ever being spontaneously originated. We only know one proven method.

DNA is not digital. It is chemically produced.
Can you provide studies that confirm that DNA "came from math"? .Math can help describe DNA, but it cannot produce anything.
What is the proven method you speak of? and don't forget to provide the underlying scientific studies that state that as their conclusion.

 

[Milton Platt]

I never implied the notion that some form of intelligence created the natural world. I guess you can say I implied that intelligence in the human is currently creating.

I understand what you're saying, that humans and their brains and their concepts are part of natural world and I agree. It's just that many view objective evidence as that existing both externally and internally. Since there is no evidence for external intelligence in Nature outside of the brain, you and many would conclude that as supernatural. But when it's internal within the brain, it is concluded as natural. I think that the difference with me, is that everything undiscovered and discovered and anything at all I would conclude as natural. I can't give examples of what is supernatural, because if intelligence were to ever be discovered free-lancing through the deep cosmos as synaptic, dendritic networks of super dark energy somewhere... it would have been natural all along. Or if intelligence once upon a time did exist and created the natural world and only exists within "life" in present time, than it would have been natural all along. Or if radical concepts such as God(s)/rebirth/ reincarnation exist, it would have been natural all along. It is not possible to falsify too much, therefore I make not too many judgements on what is supernatural and natural in context of how many use the terms. There are virtually infinite things still to be learned about Nature. In many cases, the more we understand, the less we understand.

Yes, the term supernatural has been stretched to mean too many things, just like "spirituality" which has lost all semblance of meaning.

But when pressed, theists will place their god outside of space and time, (wherever that might be). He is said to be immaterial (not composed of matter) yet he is intelligent and can affect the material world in ways that defy the known laws of physics. That is the sort of supernatural I'm thinking of.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

DNA is not digital. It is chemically produced.
Can you provide studies that confirm that DNA "came from math"? .Math can help describe DNA, but it cannot produce anything.
What is the proven method you speak of? and don't forget to provide the underlying scientific studies that state that as their conclusion.

whether the code uses chemistry, electricity, or wooden beads on an abacus, doesn't change the fact that all are coded information systems.

We only have one proven method by which such systems are originated, we have something far more reliable than 'scientific studies' to prove this, you are using proof of it right now

 

[Milton Platt]

whether the code uses chemistry, electricity, or wooden beads on an abacus, doesn't change the fact that all are coded information systems.

We only have one proven method by which such systems are originated, we have something far more reliable than 'scientific studies' to prove this, you are using proof of it right now

There is nothing more reliable than the scientific method to ascertain information about the world around us.
You earlier stated, in so many words that there was scientific evidence for your claims and I asked for it. You have since drifted on with further assertions and not provided the evidence asked for.
Naming something an “information system” does not make it any less a natural process. You can call it a pink pony too, if you want, but it does nothing to alter the facts.

I am using my brain to respond to your posts.....through a technology built by humans.....what is your point?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is nothing more reliable than the scientific method to ascertain information about the world around us.

agreed!

You earlier stated, in so many words that there was scientific evidence for your claims and I asked for it. You have since drifted on with further assertions and not provided the evidence asked for.
Naming something an “information system” does not make it any less a natural process. You can call it a pink pony too, if you want, but it does nothing to alter the facts.

I am using my brain to respond to your posts.....through a technology built by humans.....what is your point?

Technology that specifically utilizes coded information systems with interdependent nested hierarchies- just like life and the physics and chemistry that support it- we can call these 'pink ponies' or 'natural' processes if you like, but the fact remains, there is only one proven method by which such information systems are originated, and that's creative intelligence.

In other words, spontaneous function ≠ spontaneous origin- that's a purely hypothetical extrapolation

Again that's not to say that they cannot be somehow created spontaneously, naturally, it's just not something we can test, repeat, observe, measure- i.e.. it ain't scientifically verifiable