Question for Atheists...

[Audie]

I'd love to see you explain the reasoning behind that decision. How you determined that an incredibly complex and highly ordered existence exhibits, in your mind, no indication of purpose.

It is exceptionally logical to presume that the result of a complex, organized process is the purpose of the existence of that process. How do you conclude otherwise?

Why are you assuming these two events (the sun and our evolution) are mutually exclusive? Why aren't they both mutually supporting events in the same life-creating process? The result (sentient life) then being the purpose of that process.

It's not "exceptionally" logical.
Its facile, shallow, lacking in completeness and integrity
Making a conclusion into a premise in trailer park
funny style.

You are applying a principle well applied to things
that were built by living things to things that were not.

Like atoms or galaxies.

What purpose does a waterfall serve?
Custom designed to get the water from here to there,
is it? That's a fantasy world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did I ask you to seek ghosts?

Or something that is indistinguishable from it.

Seek understanding what is staring you in the face through your free choices.

I do that already, by following the evidence. Not by pretending to have the answers before even understanding the questions.

WIDEN THAT VIEW!!!

In the hilarious words of richard dawkins: "my mind is wide open, just not SO open that my brains are falling out"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look for the Method in the madness rather than fitting it into your box of beliefs.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

If by my "box of belief" you mean the confines of rational reasoning and logic, then no.

 

[PureX]

And that is precisely why I try to show my ideas *wrong*. I look for ways that they fail.

I have no difficulty with that whatsoever.

I know that people claim this. But feeling good isn't *evidence*. It has no bearing on the truth of the idea that makes you feel good.

I have no problem with people feeling good. But feeling good doesn't imply truth. You can feel good and be in a drug induced haze all the time. You can feel good and think that you are the president of the world. Delusions often feel good, but are simply wrong.

It's amazing to me how completely blind you and others here are to the bias of your own philosophical materialism. You really do believe that physical existence is the only truth and that science is the only pathway to determining that truth, and that's what you're doing with it. No difference whatever from the inerrant Bible believer that is likewise convinced that his Bible contains, illuminates, and validates the only truth that matters, exclusive of any other method. All doubt has been eliminated. It's as automatic as gravity.

Humans are amazing.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's amazing to me how completely blind you and others here are to the bias of your own philosophical materialism. You really do believe that physical existence is the only truth and that science is the only pathway to determining that truth, and that's what you're doing with it. No difference whatever from the inerrant Bible believer that is likewise convinced that his Bible contains, illuminates, and validates the only truth that matters, exclusive of any other method. All doubt has been eliminated. It's as automatic as gravity.

Except that the comparison is absurd in the extreme. Physical existence my not be the only truth but it is something that can be evaluated objectively. Science is a methodology that can uncover 'truths' (in the sense of good descriptions of how things work) that apply to everybody regardless of whether they believe them or not. Outside of purely abstract subjects like mathematics or logic, it appears to be unique in this respect.

Certainly all the thousands of years of religion have not uncovered a single 'truth' that is universally accepted and works regardless of belief. Not one.

The comparison to the bible doesn't stand up to a single second of rational consideration. The bible is not even self-consistent and the associated religious beliefs are supposed to not change, rather than change in response to new evidence, just for starters.

I'd be perfectly happy to accept that there are other truths that don't relate to physical existence but we can't properly investigate them unless there is some means to arrive at conclusions about them that are anything more than some person's, or some group's, unsupported opinions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Course. I meant philosophical naturalism.

ciao

- viole

Yeah, but that is not the only philosophical way of understanding the world.
So it is not just the supernatural or philosophical naturalism.

 

[Audie]

It's amazing to me how completely blind you and others here are to the bias of your own philosophical materialism. You really do believe that physical existence is the only truth and that science is the only pathway to determining that truth, and that's what you're doing with it. No difference whatever from the inerrant Bible believer that is likewise convinced that his Bible contains, illuminates, and validates the only truth that matters, exclusive of any other method. All doubt has been eliminated. It's as automatic as gravity.

Humans are amazing.

Not so amazing that your " arguments"
consists primarily of trashing others with
accusation of greed and scientism.

And otherwise making up mean spirited falsehoods to
prop up your religion and " philosophy".

With regard to evidence and your ism
the above ( base and ignoble) behaviour is
clear evidence that there's no "there" there.

 

[F1fan]

I'd love to see you explain the reasoning behind that decision. How you determined that an incredibly complex and highly ordered existence exhibits, in your mind, no indication of purpose.

What purpose would that be? To worship a God? To cure cancer (that is part of your incredibly complex and highly ordered existence, Doh!!)? To create a better tasting cola? Explain your thinking.

It is exceptionally logical to presume that the result of a complex, organized process is the purpose of the existence of that process. How do you conclude otherwise?

Is exceptional logic better than ordinary logic? And you are admitting to presuming purpose, not following facts that an "incredibly complex and highly ordered existence" has purpose. What is this purpose that isn't our own making? What is the purpose of dogs, cats, cows, snakes and other similar organisms to humans? The same purpose, or something different?

Why are you assuming these two events (the sun and our evolution) are mutually exclusive? Why aren't they both mutually supporting events in the same life-creating process? The result (sentient life) then being the purpose of that process.

If you follow facts, as science does, these are all natural mechanisms that happens to have worked the way they do. The dilemma with some religious folks is them feeling the temvtation to apply old religious traditions and thinking these natual mechanisms were some sort of planned and intended actions. This of course forces the assumption of a God existing. This way of thinking is all fueled by simple assumptions that are not fact-based.

 

[Polymath257]

It's amazing to me how completely blind you and others here are to the bias of your own philosophical materialism. You really do believe that physical existence is the only truth

I don't know of anything other than 'physical existence' except, possibly, in abstract situations like mathematics, where existence and proofs are notions in a formal system.

What do *you* mean by the term 'existence'? Can we agree that Sherlock Holmes does not really exist? How about elves? How do deities differ?

and that science is the only pathway to determining that truth,

Only because I have not yet found another method that is ultimately reliable. Can you suggest another?

and that's what you're doing with it. No difference whatever from the inerrant Bible believer that is likewise convinced that his Bible contains, illuminates, and validates the only truth that matters, exclusive of any other method. All doubt has been eliminated. It's as automatic as gravity.

Humans are amazing.

I am certainly willing to look at alternatives. But simply 'feeling good' is not a reliable way to determine truth. Can you at least agree with that?

So what *is* a reliable way? How about observation, hypothesis formation, testing with a goal of finding faults, and repeating until stabilization? In other words, the scientific method?

 

[Audie]

It's amazing to me how completely blind you and others here are to the bias of your own philosophical materialism. You really do believe that physical existence is the only truth and that science is the only pathway to determining that truth, and that's what you're doing with it. No difference whatever from the inerrant Bible believer that is likewise convinced that his Bible contains, illuminates, and validates the only truth that matters, exclusive of any other method. All doubt has been eliminated. It's as automatic as gravity.

Humans are amazing.

Not so amazing that your " arguments"
consists primarily of trashing others with
accusation of greed and scientism.

And otherwise making up mean spirited falsehoods to
prop up your religion and " philosophy".

With regard to evidence and your ism
the above ( base and ignoble) behaviour is
clear evidence that there's no "there" there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see plenty of purpose in what humans create. Not so much what happens outside of that.

Yeah, the magic of words. I can't see as see, but I can see as understand, but that is not objective and not suitable for scienitific testing and experimenmts as it has not objective referent.
In effect it is not a fact as per science, but an opinion. Now I share the opinion that humans create purpose, but that is not sceince as per hard, natural science.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd love to see you explain the reasoning behind that decision. How you determined that an incredibly complex and highly ordered existence exhibits, in your mind, no indication of purpose.

Sure. Can 'incredibly complex and ordered systems' form naturally without an intelligent agent intervening? Yes, they can. In fact, with certain types of non-linear dynamics, they are almost assured to arise. And we know that the laws of physics have exactly such non-linear dynamics.

So, we have many situations where we know that non-linear dynamics are relevant. We know that such dynamics naturally lead to complex and ordered systems. Those systems match the characteristics we see in the universe.

So there is no reason to postulate a 'purpose' (which requires an intelligent agent not otherwise in evidence).

It is exceptionally logical to presume that the result of a complex, organized process is the purpose of the existence of that process. How do you conclude otherwise?

Because complex and ordered systems naturally arise and so have no purpose at all.

Why are you assuming these two events (the sun and our evolution) are mutually exclusive? Why aren't they both mutually supporting events in the same life-creating process? The result (sentient life) then being the purpose of that process.

I don't assume they are mutually exclusive. In fact, the energy from the sun is what drives life on Earth. But that does not imply that the purpose of the sun is to support life. The sun is a rather ordinary star, so to assume a purpose not shared with other stars is going way beyond the evidence.

That the vast majority of the energy from the sun simply goes off into space (less than one part in a billion gets to Earth) would show that the 'purpose' of that energy is NOT to support life (unless designed by an incompetent engineer).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure. Can 'incredibly complex and ordered systems' form naturally without an intelligent agent intervening? Yes, they can. In fact, with certain types of non-linear dynamics, they are almost assured to arise. And we know that the laws of physics have exactly such non-linear dynamics.

...

That is philososphy and not science as such. Just do your science as a practical human behaviour and stop doing philosphy as for in the end metaphysics/ontology for natural.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Certainly all the thousands of years of religion have not uncovered a single 'truth' that is universally accepted and works regardless of belief. Not one.

That remark shines like a beacon in this thread! Kudos!

 

[PureX]

I don't know of anything other than 'physical existence' except, possibly, in abstract situations like mathematics, where existence and proofs are notions in a formal system.

The cognitive fact that you "know of physical existence" does not itself exist. And yet this bias for physicality is so strong that you just can't acknowledge that 'physicality' is, itself, an idea that does not physically exist.

What do *you* mean by the term 'existence'? Can we agree that Sherlock Holmes does not really exist? How about elves? How do deities differ?

Everything that "exists", exists as an idea in our minds. As a 'cognitive conception' generated by sensory input and cognitive processing. Existence, itself, is a cognitive conception. Perception IS conception. Neither happens without the other happening. And it ALL exists.

Sherlock Holmes and gravity both exist. One is man-made and the other is not. One is experienced through imagination while the other is experienced through the body and through circumstance (memory). Those different methods of experience and cognition do not define, nor negate existence. Ideas exist, circumstances exist, values exist, and mysteries exist. As surely as gravity exists.

Only because I have not yet found another method that is ultimately reliable. Can you suggest another?

Let's analyze the term "reliable". What does it mean for something to be "reliable"? And what is the criteria for determining this reliability? Why is reliability so important to you? Is it the quality of being predictable? Why would that matter? It it about control?

The reason I ask is that a lot of your fellow humans are not as concerned with existence being reliable and predictable. They aren't trying to 'figure it out'. They aren't obsessing over "physical evidence" looking for the trth of it all. They're just trying to survive and be happy. And maybe create some sense of meaning and purpose for themselves.

I am certainly willing to look at alternatives. But simply 'feeling good' is not a reliable way to determine truth. Can you at least agree with that?

Feeling good IS IT'S OWN TRUTH. In much the same way as doing good is it's own value. These require no "evidence" to be true. They simply are their own truth.

So what *is* a reliable way? How about observation, hypothesis formation, testing with a goal of finding faults, and repeating until stabilization? In other words, the scientific method?

How about just BEING HERE and letting it all be the truth. Without the evidential analysis and presumptions of validation and invalidation. How about we just let good be good for it's own sake. And joy be joy, and God be God; without all the doubt and judgment and obsession with the physics and predictability of it. Believe it or not people all over the world are already living this way and they're fine with it. They don't need mathematics to tell them it's OK. And they don't need to understand God to rejoice in the divine benevolence of being alive and being human. They can just let the miracle of it all be what it is.

But not the atheist. Ain't gonna be no damn miracles in HIS universe! Just mindless physics. That's IT! And he's gonna figure out how it all works so he can predictably control EVERYTHING! Science gonna make him GOD!

 

[lukethethird]

The cognitive fact that you "know of physical existence" does not itself exist. And yet this bias for physicality is so strong that you just can't acknowledge that 'physicality' is, itself, an idea that does not physically exist.

Everything that "exists", exists as an idea in our minds. As a 'cognitive conception' generated by sensory input and cognitive processing. Existence, itself, is a cognitive conception. Perception IS conception. Neither happens without the other happening. And it ALL exists.

Sherlock Holmes and gravity both exist. One is man-made and the other is not. One is experienced through imagination while the other is experienced through the body and through circumstance (memory). Those different methods of experience and cognition do not define, nor negate existence. Ideas exist, circumstances exist, values exist, and mysteries exist. As surely as gravity exists.

Let's analyze the term "reliable". What does it mean for something to be "reliable"? And what is the criteria for determining this reliability? Why is reliability so important to you? Is it the quality of being predictable? Why would that matter? It it about control?

The reason I ask is that a lot of your fellow humans are not as concerned with existence being reliable and predictable. They aren't trying to 'figure it out'. They aren't obsessing over "physical evidence" looking for the trth of it all. They're just trying to survive and be happy. And maybe create some sense of meaning and purpose for themselves.

Feeling good IS IT'S OWN TRUTH. In much the same way as doing good is it's own value. These require no "evidence" to be true. They simply are their own truth.

How about just BEING HERE and letting it all be the truth. Without the evidential analysis and presumptions of validation and invalidation. How about we just let good be good for it's own sake. And joy be joy, and God be God; without all the doubt and judgment and obsession with the physics and predictability of it. Believe it or not people all over the world are already living this way and they're fine with it. They don't need mathematics to tell them it's OK. And they don't need to understand God to rejoice in the divine benevolence of being alive and being human. They can just let the miracle of it all be what it is.

But not the atheist. Ain't gonna be no damn miracles in HIS universe! Just mindless physics. That's IT! And he's gonna figure out how it all works so he can predictably control EVERYTHING! Science gonna make him GOD!

Christianity came to my ancestors on the end of a sword and it was rammed down my throat as a child so cry me a river. All we are doing is debating for debates sake and discussing for the sake of discussion so why don't you just cool your jets.

 

[Polymath257]

The cognitive fact that you "know of physical existence" does not itself exist. And yet this bias for physicality is so strong that you just can't acknowledge that 'physicality' is, itself, an idea that does not physically exist.

Ideas exist as physical processes in our brains. At least, that is what all the evidence shows. And, even if false, that falsehood would be determined via the scientific method.

Everything that "exists", exists as an idea in our minds.

??? Not even close. Protons existed long before anyone thought of them. The planet Neptune existed long before anyone had the conception of it.
our ideas are how we *know* things exist, but that is not the same as saying that things only exist if they are ideas in some mind.

As a 'cognitive conception' generated by sensory input and cognitive processing. Existence, itself, is a cognitive conception. Perception IS conception. Neither happens without the other happening. And it ALL exists.

No. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. Our conception of existence is not the same as existence. Existence is independent of us. Our knowledge of that existence depends on our senses, though.

Sherlock Holmes and gravity both exist. One is man-made and the other is not.

No. One is a fictional character and the other is a real phenomenon. The *idea* of Sherlock Holmes exists, but that is not the same as Sherlock Holmes existing.

One is experienced through imagination while the other is experienced through the body and through circumstance (memory). Those different methods of experience and cognition do not define, nor negate existence. Ideas exist, circumstances exist, values exist, and mysteries exist. As surely as gravity exists.

No, one exists in the real world and the other does not. One exists merely as a fantasy, the other exists independently of us.

Let's analyze the term "reliable". What does it mean for something to be "reliable"? And what is the criteria for determining this reliability? Why is reliability so important to you? Is it the quality of being predictable? Why would that matter? It it about control?

No, it is about knowledge and truth. And yes, the truth is important to me. And what distinguishes truth from falsehood is precisely the reliability of the truth.

I don't care about control. People have an absolute right to believe falsehoods. But I don't want to.

The reason I ask is that a lot of your fellow humans are not as concerned with existence being reliable and predictable. They aren't trying to 'figure it out'. They aren't obsessing over "physical evidence" looking for the trth of it all. They're just trying to survive and be happy. And maybe create some sense of meaning and purpose for themselves.

So they are not interested in the truth. They are interested in pleasant falsehoods. I am not.

Feeling good IS IT'S OWN TRUTH.

That is a misuse of the notion of truth. Feeling good is its own *value*. Some choose that over truth.

In much the same way as doing good is it's own value. These require no "evidence" to be true. They simply are their own truth.

Yes, feeling good is a value, not a truth. Truth is a different value. of the two, I choose truth.

How about just BEING HERE and letting it all be the truth.

That is, again, a misuse of the word.

Without the evidential analysis and presumptions of validation and invalidation. How about we just let good be good for it's own sake. And joy be joy, and God be God; without all the doubt and judgment and obsession with the physics and predictability of it.

Well, it matters whether we are deluding ourselves or not. That is why truth is a higher value for me.

Believe it or not people all over the world are already living this way and they're fine with it. They don't need mathematics to tell them it's OK. And they don't need to understand God to rejoice in the divine benevolence of being alive and being human. They can just let the miracle of it all be what it is.

Yes, most people are quite happy living with false beliefs.

But not the atheist. Ain't gonna be no damn miracles in HIS universe! Just mindless physics. That's IT! And he's gonna figure out how it all works so he can predictably control EVERYTHING! Science gonna make him GOD!

Correct. I am NOT happy living with false beliefs. Otherwise, why not just go into a pleasant drug-induced coma? Control has nothing to do with it. Knowledge does. Curiosity does.

 

[Audie]

Ideas exist as physical processes in our brains. At least, that is what all the evidence shows. And, even if false, that falsehood would be determined via the scientific method.

??? Not even close. Protons existed long before anyone thought of them. The planet Neptune existed long before anyone had the conception of it.
our ideas are how we *know* things exist, but that is not the same as saying that things only exist if they are ideas in some mind.

No. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. Our conception of existence is not the same as existence. Existence is independent of us. Our knowledge of that existence depends on our senses, though.

No. One is a fictional character and the other is a real phenomenon. The *idea* of Sherlock Holmes exists, but that is not the same as Sherlock Holmes existing.

No, one exists in the real world and the other does not. One exists merely as a fantasy, the other exists independently of us.

No, it is about knowledge and truth. And yes, the truth is important to me. And what distinguishes truth from falsehood is precisely the reliability of the truth.

I don't care about control. People have an absolute right to believe falsehoods. But I don't want to.

So they are not interested in the truth. They are interested in pleasant falsehoods. I am not.


That is a misuse of the notion of truth. Feeling good is its own *value*. Some choose that over truth.

Yes, feeling good is a value, not a truth. Truth is a different value. of the two, I choose truth.

That is, again, a misuse of the word.

Well, it matters whether we are deluding ourselves or not. That is why truth is a higher value for me.

Yes, most people are quite happy living with false beliefs.

Correct. I am NOT happy living with false beliefs. Otherwise, why not just go into a pleasant drug-induced coma? Control has nothing to do with it. Knowledge does. Curiosity does.

What do you do with people who just say things.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. The mental is a subset of the collection of physical processes.

Yes, the mental is the same as physical?

What part do you think is missing?

Me? I'm not to be considered. Ask the experts.
What do you mean by "What parts"? Are we talking about objects?

Here are a few articles:

ScienceDaily: Search Archives

Search ScienceDaily's archives of articles by keyword or phrase.

www.sciencedaily.com

Isn't that the link I posted? Which says...
As the Explanimator video above points out, there are two possible definitions of a thought. Either it's a part of the material world - physical patterns of electricity generated by the neurons in our brains - or it's a part of something else, some kind of cosmic consciousness that floats around the Universe completely undetectable by the instruments of modern science. Okay, unsurprisingly, the former definition is the one we're going to focus on here…

Um, most people?

Really? Link to that data please.

Hmmm...OK, can you give an example? What makes the E&M emissions from a person special as compared to those from a radio?

Is your disposition like emissions from a radio?

 

[nPeace]

You insist on misunderstanding. There is nothing I can do against that.

What? Or you insist on misleading? Which.

In that case, ALL evidence is subjective. The fact that I see a chair in my room isn't actually evidence that there is a chair in my room because my perceptions are subjective.

Like here. Misleading.
The chair doesn't need your opinion to determine that there is a chair in your room. You observe it directly.
On the other hand...
You do not directly observe a whale evolving from a 'small dog'

You have circumstantial evidence, for which you make inferences.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.

It's the same with using genectics.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences to infer common descent is a hypothesis.
Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity.

Phylogenetics - Wikipedia
In biology, phylogenetics is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree) - a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms

Noone need your ideas on if there is a chair in your room.
...and please don't give me that light nonsense again.
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

I really hope you aren't going to that level.

As low as you have gone? I promise not to go there.

Correct. That they are my ideas doesn't mean the evidence supports them. And yet, the evidence does, in fact, support them. This is witnessed in multiple scientific articles over the last century and a half. And, even when people try to prove basic evolutionary theory wrong, they always fail.

That's the claim.

Creationist fail because they don't understand the theory well enough to make serious arguments. others fail because of the weight of the evidence.

I figure if anyone understands the theory well enough, it would be "Creationists" like Douglas Axe, that director... forgot his name... I think his Sir name is Dean, and other biologist.
So your statement is absolutely false.

Um, no.

Um... Yes.
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.