What is Faith?

[Komodo]

The Big Bang, where the mental produced the physical.

Then your support for the claim, "the gap between physical and mental is insurmountable by non-supernatural forces." is another claim, that the universe was caused by a supernatural mind. As I'm sure you realize, atheists don't find either claim persuasive.

Moreover, even if the universe was caused by a supernatural mind, it doesn't follow that the physical cannot produce the mental.

I do not dispute that that is the belief of naturalists as I stated earlier.

If naturalism is "what naturalists believe," and if naturalists believe "chemical reactions cause logical reasoning," then it follows that "If naturalism is true, chemical reactions cause logical reasoning," correct?

Please be unequivocal: is "If naturalism is true, chemical reactions cause logical reasoning" a true statement, a false statement, or an ambiguous statement? If you think it is false or ambiguous, why?

You also did not answer my question, "do you dispute the claim that if you are presented with a syllogism, and you do not dispute either premise, and you do not dispute the logic, you cannot dispute the conclusion?"

The neurological connections that produce speech may be damaged so, that what the mind intends to say does not what comes out of the mouth. I myself have been dreaming and have said things that I never intended to say, and I could even hear myself say them with my own ears because I actually spoke in my sleep. Given that when sleeping the mind is no longer truly in control and the brain is not really functioning correctly this could be very similar to the situation of brain damage and the minds relationship to it.

I wasn't talking about the aftermath of a stroke, where it often is the case that people know what they want to say but struggle to say it. I was talking about a Korsakoff patient who was told his father had died, broke down in tears, and then asked the next day if his father was going to visit him, was told his father had died, broke down in tears again, and then asked the next day if his father was going to visit him... Are you saying that his mind did know that his father had died, he simply behaved entirely as if he lacked that knowledge? How would that work?

 

[El Cid]

P1 is, "If naturalism is true, then chemical actions (which are in themselves non-rational) cause mental states in people such as considering, judging and concluding." Are you saying that "chemical actions cause mental states" is not the claim of naturalism? Then what is the claim of naturalism regarding the cause of mental states?

Or are you -- once again! -- refusing to see the difference between a statement about what naturalism claims to be true, and a statement that naturalism is true? Because if you mean "it has not been demonstrated that chemical reactions cause mental states," that's exactly what you are doing. If P1 had been "chemical reactions cause mental states," then "that has not been demonstrated" would be a reasonable objection. But that's not what P1 says. What P1 says is "If naturalism is true, then chemical reactions cause mental states." That's a true statement, even if naturalism is not true, and chemical reactions do not cause mental states!

"If flat earthers are right, then if you travel far enough in any direction, you will eventually come to the great ice wall." This is a true statement, even though such an ice wall has not, of course, been demonstrated to exist. It's a true statement of what flat earthers believe. The same principle applies to my P1.

I dont deny that that is what naturalists believe.

 

[Komodo]

I dont deny that that is what naturalists believe.

You don't deny, "Naturalists believe that chemical actions cause mental events":

but you do deny, "If naturalism is true, chemical actions cause mental events"?

What is the difference between the two statements? Do you think that "naturalism" is something other than "the positions that naturalists believe to be true"?

 

[El Cid]

But if we dont have free will, we are just like computers, bound by our flow chart program. We cannot do anything original.

That's not an argument against not having free will, you're just mentioning some of the implications.

Initially that was all this discussion was about. Now you seem to be changing it to you wanting me to prove that we have free will. But originally I was just giving you all the results of not having a free will.

Also, originality doesn't depend on free will. A random number generator will produce an original - new, unique, never-seen-before - series of numbers.

No, the set of infinite numbers either exists in the mind of God or exists in the number of subatomic particles in an infinite universe if there is no God so there is no such thing as a unique series of numbers. Because humans have a free will that can create original things, we have created things that even God has not created.

El Cid said:
Determined choices are not free choices.

By definition, so, so what?

So if our choices are determined then our choices are not free right? So you admit it.

El Cid said:
And they controlled by your program and limited to what is on your flow chart.

Right. I acknowledge there are many things I can not and will never able to do that other people can. Again, this isn't news, and it's not an argument that we have free will.

Ability is not the same thing as will. Free will does not mean infinite abilities. Just having a free will does not turn you physically into Superman. It just means that your decisions are not predetermined.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Initially that was all this discussion was about. Now you seem to be changing it to you wanting me to prove that we have free will. But originally I was just giving you all the results of not having a free will.

Well, your argument - informally - was that, because we can reason, we must have free will, because we couldn't reason without it. My argument was that I saw no reason why we couldn't reason without free will.

No, the set of infinite numbers either exists in the mind of God or exists in the number of subatomic particles in an infinite universe if there is no God so there is no such thing as a unique series of numbers. Because humans have a free will that can create original things, we have created things that even God has not created.

You don't need a set of infinite numbers to have an original set of numbers, so I don't see the relevance of infinite numbers to the issue of whether originality depends on free will.

So if our choices are determined then our choices are not free right? So you admit it.

Of course. It looks to me like we don't have free will, so our choices are determined by everything that came before the choice.

Ability is not the same thing as will. Free will does not mean infinite abilities. Just having a free will does not turn you physically into Superman. It just means that your decisions are not predetermined.

Fine, I still acknowledge that my actions are limited by my programming. The major sections of the programming are my genetics, the culture and society in which I was raised, and how my family raised me.

 

[El Cid]

No, see above how we are bound by a program without free will. You could say X or Y but you cant say Z. With a free will you could say Z or an infinity of other things.

You don't have free will to flap your arms and fly off the ground and sustain it.

Free will only gives you the ability to freely choose to do things that are physically possible.

You don't have the free will to stab a baby for no reason. Etc., etc., etc.

Actually you do. One of the things that free will gives you is the free will to choose evil.

El Cid said:
Here are three things that point to that fact, maintenance of identity thru time, NDEs, and transgenderism if it is real. And there are others, but these three will suffice for now.

Why is maintaining identity thru time necessarily point to free will?
Why do NDEs necessarily point to free will?
Why does transgenderism necessarily point to free will?

Because all those things show that the mind is not tied to the purely physical laws of cause and effect. So that since it is not, it can operate according to the laws of logic so that we can freely make decisions based on evidence and rationality.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Free will only gives you the ability to freely choose to do things that are physically possible.

If you mean by definition, then I'm fine with that.

Actually you do. One of the things that free will gives you is the free will to choose evil.

There is no possible world in which I - as I am now - could ever choose stabbing a baby for no reason. How can I have the free will to do that, then? It's meaningless to say you have free will for something you could never do.

Because all those things show that the mind is not tied to the purely physical laws of cause and effect. So that since it is not, it can operate according to the laws of logic so that we can freely make decisions based on evidence and rationality.

OK, here's what I think you're claiming:

• 1. the mind is not tied to purely physical cause and effect.
• 2. Because of 1., we can maintain identity through time, we can have an NDE, and transgenderism exists.

Both 1 and 2 need to be demonstrated. Demonstrating 2 does not mean that you demonstrate that we maintain identity, etc., but that, only if 1 is true, then can 2 be true.

Also, you can't use the fact that we maintain identity, etc., as a proof of 1, because you're using 1 to prove 2.

Furthermore, you're also claiming (I think)

• 3. Because of 2, we have free will.

You need to demonstrate that 3 is necessarily true, and you can't use the fact that we have free will to demonstrate 3, because that would be circular.

 

[El Cid]

Only human scientists (who can never be completely unbiased) can come to conclusions. There is no impersonal objective infallible source of knowledge called Science.

Agreed. Science is as close as we can get.

El Cid said:
Well it sounds you may agree with me then. Glad you are willing to admit there was a bias against the supernatural.

Not quite:

Gus Bovona said:
Here is the account from the Chronicle of Higher Ed, http://arn.org/docs2/news/criticreinstated031803.htm. It sounds like it very well could be a case of denying academic freedom, but it’s hard to tell for sure.

To me it is pretty obvious and there are many other examples.

El Cid said:
Actually a better term than hunch is intuition. Many things have been discovered thru intuition, ask almost any woman.

All your comment does is to swap out one word for the other, because we're still left with my comment that

Gus Bovona said:
”Sometimes” doesn’t help us at all before we know whether any particular case is one of those times or not.

El Cid said:
Masters in Wildlife Biology. I am a biologist and environmental scientist for the department of transportation.

You do know that scientific investigation is based on the honor system right? There are no science police.

How could you have gotten a masters in Wildlife Biology and think that science is based on the honor system?! And that there are no science police? Forgive me, but those are howlers! Can you cite anything from a scientific source - textbook, peer-reviewed paper, a trade book from a scientist at a university or research institute, etc. - that says that science is based on the honor system? Furthermore, all of science is the science police, that's what scientists do, they police each other.

Exactly, policing yourselves IS the honor system. Again there are no science police.

El Cid said:
No.

Then you should understand that you claim about such a survey is worthless, it's indistinguishable from someone just making it up. In science, you have to be able to back up what you claim.

I will have to try to find it again sometime.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Exactly, policing yourselves IS the honor system. Again there are no science police.

That is not science. Have you ever been to a scientific conference at which papers are presented? Everyone just doesn't accept what anyone says. That is not how it works. Everyone tries to poke holes in what people say. That's the science police.

Are you gaslighting me?

I will have to try to find it again sometime.

Right.

And, you had no comment about me criticizing your use of the word "sometimes?"

 

[El Cid]

See my post to Gus above.

Sorry, but no. I don't know what you might mean specifically.

Only human scientists (who can never be completely unbiased) can come to conclusions. There is no impersonal objective infallible source of knowledge called Science.

El Cid said:
Uhh science is inferences from data.

That can be part of it, but in science before anything is taken as true it has to be shown as so, the inference has to be demonstrated as true.

No, the DATA is demonstrated true by experimentation and then inferences are made from the demonstrated and gathered data.

El Cid said:
There are inferences from the data that support the possibility of design by a personal creator.

But those inferences have no evidence they are true.

Yes, they do. For example, all of human experience and empirical observation has shown that complex linguistic codes can only come from an intelligent mind. In 1953 we discovered that a complex linguistic code is in every living cell, ie DNA, therefore it is a logical inference that living things originated from an intelligent mind.

El Cid said:
Just as there are a few inferences that may not point to design, but overall there is more evidence for design than random impersonal processes.

This is just not true. If you properly look at at evolution you will see an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows it true and yet it is an impersonal process. The mechanism of it is well understood, and that understanding shows that although impersonal, it's not random because it works within and because of the laws of physics.

Macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is a questionable historical extrapolation of microevolution. The concept of genetic entropy has shown that over time genes lose information so that no new major morphological structures can be "created' by natural selection after a period of time thereby stopping macroevolution in its tracks. And it is random at its core, because even though natural selection is not random, natural selection is guided by changes in the environment, which ARE random.

 

[Whatsisface]

Only human scientists (who can never be completely unbiased) can come to conclusions. There is no impersonal objective infallible source of knowledge called Science.

There is the scientific method that helps guide human thinking. It also is designed to filter out human bias. It works.

No, the DATA is demonstrated true by experimentation and then inferences are made from the demonstrated and gathered data.

Or conclusions are made.

Yes, they do. For example, all of human experience and empirical observation has shown that complex linguistic codes can only come from an intelligent mind. In 1953 we discovered that a complex linguistic code is in every living cell, ie DNA, therefore it is a logical inference that living things originated from an intelligent mind.

Macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is a questionable historical extrapolation of microevolution. The concept of genetic entropy has shown that over time genes lose information so that no new major morphological structures can be "created' by natural selection after a period of time thereby stopping macroevolution in its tracks. And it is random at its core, because even though natural selection is not random, natural selection is guided by changes in the environment, which ARE random.

Empirical observation shows chemistry doing what chemistry does. There is no empirical observation of an intelligent mind, and yet empirical observation is the principle on which you dismiss evolution.

 

[El Cid]

Only if it is programmed to recognize those symbols. If they are not part of the program it would not. Like animals, no animal recognizes those symbols, unless an intelligence intervenes and reprograms the animal.

Depending on exactly what we mean by "programming," that programming is called education.

Yes, but we would also have to have a built-in linguistic program to be able to understand being educated with symbols. Which is probably genetic.

El Cid said:
Yes, a true will is free. If the will is not free then it is not a true will. A healthy animal will eat when it gets hungry because it has no will to overcome its survival instinct. Only humans have the ability not to eat when they get hungry, because they have a true will and it is free. And there are other examples such as our sexual drives as well.

This is the no true Scotsman fallacy, look it up. "True" is doing no work in that sentence for you. You're just defining a will to be free will, but you don't establish an empirical fact, like whether people have free will, by definition.

No, animals have some minor aspects of a will but not a full orbed true will which is needed for it to be free.

El Cid said:
Exactly, and a free will and love are not needed to leave more offspring. In fact most organisms that have large numbers of offspring do not shows signs of either of those behaviors.

So where are you going with this? What's your point (that you haven't already made and to which I've already responded)?

My point is that without a free will there would be no such thing as love.

El Cid said:
If there is no free will then yes, we would be programmed from birth, though different programs would kick in at different ages, such as there would be no sex drive in babies.

You're ignoring the possibility of our programming changing as we live, which is what families, cultures and education do.

Yes, but some things are genetic and dont change. Such as alcoholism or our sex drive. And yet because we have free will, we can go against our genes and not drink alcohol or not have sex.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yes, but we would also have to have a built-in linguistic program to be able to understand being educated with symbols. Which is probably genetic.

We have a genetic predisposition to learn language, but we don't learn language without the input from our culture and upbringing. It takes both. So what does that have to do with free will?

No, animals have some minor aspects of a will but not a full orbed true will which is needed for it to be free.

That has nothing to do with my point about the true Scotsman's fallacy with you using the word "true" in regard to free will.

My point is that without a free will there would be no such thing as love.

This is another claim of yours that you have to demonstrate.

Yes, but some things are genetic and dont change. Such as alcoholism or our sex drive. And yet because we have free will, we can go against our genes and not drink alcohol or not have sex.

So what? Our culture, society, and upbringing sometimes give us the ability to not do things that we would have done had we not had been received the input from our culture, society, and upbringing. Nothing in there establishes that we have free will.

 

[El Cid]

Is it possible that the Christian God exists but doesn't answer all prayer? Is it further possible that a particular thing prayed for comes to be not by God's doing but coincidentally?

Yes, God does not always answer prayer especially the way we think He should and of course sometimes His answer is no. And it is true that God does not always directly answer prayer. Sometimes it is indirectly by His natural laws or the free choices of other people, but ultimately this is still Gods doing by either allowing certain things to happen or directly causing them.

There is a fallacy of thinking called Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this')

No, see above.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, God does not always answer prayer especially the way we think He should and of course sometimes His answer is no. And it is true that God does not always directly answer prayer. Sometimes it is indirectly by His natural laws or the free choices of other people, but ultimately this is still Gods doing by either allowing certain things to happen or directly causing them.

Then how do you tell the difference between an answered prayer and a coincidence?

 

[Whatsisface]

Yes, God does not always answer prayer especially the way we think He should and of course sometimes His answer is no. And it is true that God does not always directly answer prayer. Sometimes it is indirectly by His natural laws or the free choices of other people, but ultimately this is still Gods doing by either allowing certain things to happen or directly causing them.

No, see above.

What @Eightcrackers said.

 

[El Cid]

If.

But let's say there's a prominent person that I hated, and I prayed for them to die... and, later that day, they did.
Was that an answered prayer?

It could be, or God could have just allowed natural law to take its course. But it was Gods plan for them to die at that time of course.

 

[El Cid]

Yes it does. All you have to do is put a microphone and record the sound when no humans are present and then replay the sound when a human is present, and it matches it almost perfectly.

But that's because the mechanism of recording and playing back reproduces the original waves in the air via speakers or headphones which hit our eardrums and then again through electrical activity the brain gives us the experience of sound. The sound we experience doesn't exist in itself.

Evidence it doesnt exist? If it didnt exist then the recorder would not have recorded anything. If there is a correlation between what you hear and the sound waves that are produced, then the sound you experience does exist. And there can only be a correlation if we were created by a personal creator. But you are right if there is no Creator then you have no way of knowing if the sound is real.

El Cid said:
Because there is evidence that we can have thoughts totally independent of brain biology.

I find this baffling, that you make such a claim and yet not give the evidence. What is the evidence?

NDEs, personal identity thru time, and transgenderism if it is real.

 

[Whatsisface]

Evidence it doesnt exist? If it didnt exist then the recorder would not have recorded anything.

The recorder records air waves.

If there is a correlation between what you hear and the sound waves that are produced, then the sound you experience does exist.

The air waves are just that, air waves. The experience of sound is created in your head.

And there can only be a correlation if we were created by a personal creator. But you are right if there is no Creator then you have no way of knowing if the sound is real.

So far this is an unsupported assertion.

NDEs, personal identity thru time, and transgenderism if it is real.

NDEs are not properly understood so they are weak evidence. How personal identity through time and transgenderism support the idea of thoughts independent of the body I do not know and you haven't said.

 

[El Cid]

Please, give examples. My understanding is Hynek never saw a UFO himself.

Look up the DOD report that came out this summer.