Question for Theists

[Debunker]

That is like saying "why didn't birds develop hard shells like a turtle" or "why didn't humans develop skin like a chameleon". Having a brain with the size and computing capabilities that we have is a very costly affair and natural selection would not necessarily allow it for many other species, or as the case may be, none at all. There are however comparable brains out there. Chimpanzees, ravens and elephants have all passed the Gallup Mirror test, and many species show potential for reasoning skills.

Science says that fish developed into dinosaurs and dinosaurs into birds and now you say that does not happen with brain development. You confuse us. Your argument is semantical and not based on science at all. Well maybe just a little science.

 

[Debunker]

Forgetting for the moment that this has absolutely nothing to do with the comment you apparently replied to, what is your reasoning for the bolded sentence above?

Because your explanation of science is that man created science and in fact man did not nor did man create logic which is necessary to science.

 

[Willamena]

Science says that fish developed into dinosaurs and dinosaurs into birds and now you say that does not happen with brain development. You confuse us. Your argument is semantical and not based on science at all. Well maybe just a little science.

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

 

[Debunker]

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

Yes, you are correct and I mifgt have been once.

 

[The Wizard]

All of this completely sidesteps the point I was making.
Just because belief itself is real, useful, valuable or whatever you like, that does not mean that what that belief is about is real.

I think you raise a very good question about the blue goblin scenerio Mr. jarofthoughts. It would be another interesting territory to map out. I would definately like to see what others would say towards that aspect.

I certainly would not be the one to say that the blue goblin exists in meatspace under your sink. But, the "belief in the blue goblin" would in fact be real and have real and measurable results... Ponder on this more, I will..... :yoda:

P.S. We react to our thoughts and the objects of our thoughts as if real. We do not require most of those thoughts to have meatspace qualities in order to react to them and benefit from the effects. What would be the difference then when looking at the use of belief and objects of belief?

 

[painted wolf]

I have a question for those of you who believe in a god or gods, and it is actually a very important question so please take some time to consider the implications before you answer.

If no God existed, would you still want to believe in one?

I'm not sure "want" is a proper term... I don't think I can not believe. I've tried, it just doesn't work.

IMHO faith is a part of the spectrum of human behavior... like all behaviors it exhibits a degree of expression not unlike a standard curve.

I think that a combination of genetics and socialization can influence your exact placement on the curve, but that the population as a whole remains the standard curve. It's just biology.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Science says that fish developed into dinosaurs and dinosaurs into birds and now you say that does not happen with brain development. You confuse us. Your argument is semantical and not based on science at all. Well maybe just a little science.

What on Earth are you on about here? :sarcastic

 

[jarofthoughts]

Justify that statement, explain yourself, I would like to rip you to pieces here....for fun.

You seem to have a different interpretation of the theory of inflationary expansion....please elucidate.

Physical cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me where it says that the universe came from nothing.
Heck, show me one credible cosmologist who claims that the universe came from nothing.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Entertaining pleasure is an attempt to satisfy ones natural longing for euphoria. Pleasure is simply the round peg we are stuffing into a square hole. Indeed pleasure is sweet to the taste, but it sours in the stomach.

No-one is claiming that we're not to a varying degree driven by pleasure.
It's the fact that you attempt to inject something mysterious into it that needs justification.

I am assuming motive not volition.

And?

Human nature is indeed in a state of corruption. Therefore our ability to abide continuously in the desired state is hindered. Death is the only thing that can remove the obstacle that keeps us from a perfect state of euphoria, which btw is the effect of being in God's full presence.

Complete and utter hogwash.

All people have a longing to satisfy our natural thirst for perfect euphoria. Pleasure is the only counterfeit substitute for the real thing.

And if we all just follow you then we'll find that "salvation"?
Pull the other one. It's got bells on it.

As do athletes. Maybe work is your drug of choice. We call them workaholics.

Right.

No I mean our quest for space travel.

And you're of course expecting science to find god any day now, aren't you?

 

[jarofthoughts]

While I consider the implications of your question upon yourself, let me ask a similar one. If you were sure that God existed, would you still not want to believe in Him?

I would most definitely believe in him/her/whatever if I for some reason was sure of his/her/whatever's existence.
Whether I would worship him/her/whatever is a completely different question.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Potential you say but where are they? You offer none as an example of your science is true. I only ask for a few. You must produce or give this point up in your reasoning process. You view of science is not true or you could show duplication of your postulations. Is that not the crux of the scientific method?

Here you go: Animal cognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jarofthoughts]

I understand your wish to to deny the fact you said it was not scientific to assume there was a God, but what I was saying that it is equally true of science for you to say there is not a God.I hope this helps.

I never said that there isn't a god.
That would be very unscientific of me.
What I've been saying is that there is no reason to think that there is a god.

Difference.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Which is also true of atheist, right?

Atheism makes no claim.
Gnostic Theism does.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Me too. I read the same papers as you but I have a total different conclusions. You do not use science correctly, foe example, your example of evolution does not duplicate itself. What other parts of the scientific method do you leave out in your interpretation of what is real? As with Ale Gore, you fudge the facts about the real world and as this is discovered, you lose credibility.

If it's that obvious to you show me, from a scientific point of view, where I am wrong. Right now you're just mouthing off.
Bring some substance please.

 

[jarofthoughts]

New science has a theory that matter can be created by ontological thought processes.

Source?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Source?

Should be interesting....

 

[Danmac]

No-one is claiming that we're not to a varying degree driven by pleasure.
It's the fact that you attempt to inject something mysterious into it that needs justification.

Our quest for pleasure demands a cause, say's the scientific law of causality. My question to you is, what is causing our thirst for pleasure?

And?

And what is your motive for seeking pleasure?

Complete and utter hogwash.

Which scientific method did you use to arrive at your conclusion? Or are you speculating without evidence?

And if we all just follow you then we'll find that "salvation"?
Pull the other one. It's got bells on it.

Experience does not lie. You are disputing experience, not assumption.

And you're of course expecting science to find god any day now, aren't you?

At sub atomic levels, where causality is not needed.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Our quest for pleasure demands a cause, say's the scientific law of causality. My question to you is, what is causing our thirst for pleasure?

I already explained this. Pleasure, the feeling of varying degrees of euphoria, is the result of an electrochemical reaction in your brain that has evolved as a reward mechanism for actions that either promote survival or procreation. That is the basis.

And what is your motive for seeking pleasure?

Because it gives me pleasure. Seriously, come on...

Which scientific method did you use to arrive at your conclusion? Or are you speculating without evidence?

Didn't have to. You made the claim, you back it up. What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And if anything, from a moral point of view, humans have never been less corrupt than we are now.

Experience does not lie. You are disputing experience, not assumption.

Nonsense. Experience lies all the time. Do us all a favour and read some more about how perception, memory and our senses actually work.

At sub atomic levels, where causality is not needed.

Right... Let me know when that happens. Until then my statement stands. There is no reason to think that there is a god or gods.

 

[Danmac]

I already explained this. Pleasure, the feeling of varying degrees of euphoria, is the result of an electrochemical reaction in your brain that has evolved as a reward mechanism for actions that either promote survival or procreation. That is the basis.

Pleasure does not promote survival. In many cases it is harmful to ones health.

Because it gives me pleasure. Seriously, come on...

You are speaking of a motivation to excite the sensibility. I am speaking of ultimate preference that urges the motivation.

Didn't have to. You made the claim, you back it up. What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And if anything, from a moral point of view, humans have never been less corrupt than we are now.

You say you are an atheist. You are assuming there is no God. Your assertion that you are an atheist is not in response to anyone's question to you. You made the declaration without provocation. What scientific method did you use to arrive at your conclusion? Is there a cure for cancer?

Nonsense. Experience lies all the time. Do us all a favour and read some more about how perception, memory and our senses actually work.

So the next time fire burns my finger I should try it again to see if the experience lied to me?

Right... Let me know when that happens. Until then my statement stands. There is no reason to think that there is a god or gods.

There may be no reason for you to believe, but real science doesn't dismiss anything without evidence. You are abandoning science to make unscientific assumptions. Science can neither believe or disbelieve without evidence. The science you claim is on your side you are abandoning for faith that god doesn't exist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Pleasure does not promote survival. In many cases it is harmful to ones health.

Our bodies and therefore also our brains did not evolve for the kind of life we are living now. For instance, a craving for sweet, salty and fatty foods would have been an excellent survival strategy in a hunter/gatherer society.

You are speaking of a motivation to excite the sensibility. I am speaking of ultimate preference that urges the motivation.

I think you're going to explain that some more before I can properly respond then because right now I don't see the point you are trying to make.

You say you are an atheist. You are assuming there is no God. Your assertion that you are an atheist is not in response to anyone's question to you. You made the declaration without provocation. What scientific method did you use to arrive at your conclusion? Is there a cure for cancer?

I'm an empiricist first and foremost. The fact that that also makes me an atheist is more of a consequence. I am also a-unicorns, a-astrology, a-crystal healing and a-homoeopathy if that matters. The question may not have been addressed to me specifically, but the claim is being made by theists that there is a god. I don't make the counter-claim that there is no god, but rather that there is no reason to believe the theist claim.
As for science... Well, in science you're not allowed to make claims without proper backing by evidence and in that respect theists are way out of their depth with their god-claim.

So the next time fire burns my finger I should try it again to see if the experience lied to me?

I don't know. Perhaps you should do a study on it and see if you can get it published. I'm not sure trying it again will help though, since if you suspect your senses/perception/experience lied to you why wouldn't it do so a second time. Try gathering some objective evidence and conduct some repeatable experiments and maybe we'll get somewhere...

There may be no reason for you to believe, but real science doesn't dismiss anything without evidence. You are abandoning science to make unscientific assumptions. Science can neither believe or disbelieve without evidence. The science you claim is on your side you are abandoning for faith that god doesn't exist.

Faith (in the religious sense) has nothing to do with my position.
Also, see above for the explanation on scientific claims.