What is Faith?

[El Cid]

es, but those laws are well known and have been empirically proven through experimentation and real time observation. But No law has ever been discovered that can change one kind of animal into another.

That's beside the point. You claimed that we cannot know what went on in the past, now you're saying we can.

I didnt say that. The history and formation of the physical universe can be seen in real time due to the time delay of light. But the history of living things is a little more complicated. You have to make extrapolations into the past which can be questionable.

There is no law of evolution. Evolution happens within the laws you've admitted have been empirically proven.

No, those laws would never even allow it to get started such as how ultraviolet radiation kills all life unless it is protected somehow.

El Cid said:
Yes, but you cant do that with historical events on the earth.

No, those are all extrapolations into the past, none have been empirically observed except carbon decay, which I dont have a problem with.

Space travel has allowed us to directly observe the earth orbiting the sun.

Rocks that look like spearheads have been found. Archaeologists can differentiate real spearheads from rocks that just look like spearheads without observing their creation everyday. How do you think they do that?

You've spent the rest of your post dismissing things that can't be empirically observed in the past, in support of your contention that the universe was created , which hasn't been empirically observed.

See above, because of the nature of light, we can empirically observe the formation of the physical universe in real time and it shows us that it is an effect that needs a cause.

 

[Whatsisface]

I didnt say that. The history and formation of the physical universe can be seen in real time due to the time delay of light. But the history of living things is a little more complicated. You have to make extrapolations into the past which can be questionable.

What books have you read on evolution?

No, those laws would never even allow it to get started such as how ultraviolet radiation kills all life unless it is protected somehow.

From a New Scientist article on this very subject …

Life on Earth is thought to have evolved about 3.7 billion years ago, when there was no protective ozone layer encasing the planet and UV radiation was 100 times more intense than today. The nucleotides that make up RNA have three components – a sugar, a phosphate and nitrogen-containing base. “And these bases have very peculiar properties of being extremely efficient at quenching UV light,” says Mulkidjanian, protecting the sugar and phosphate components which form the spine of the chain.

The team fed data on the photochemistry of various organic molecules into a computer model designed to simulate the effects of UV light on stability. “The effect was very pronounced in RNA,” he says. In the presence of strong UV light, RNA was much more likely to form long chains than other molecules.

“The suggested mechanism turns the high UV levels on primordial Earth from a perceived obstacle to the origin of life into the selective factor that, in fact, might have driven the whole process,” write the team in BMC Evolutionary Biology.

Found here.

What research have you done into this? Have you only been reading creationist literature?

See above, because of the nature of light, we can empirically observe the formation of the physical universe in real time and it shows us that it is an effect that needs a cause.

That the universe is an effect that needs a cause is an interpretation of the physical universe on your part. There is no science or evidence that shows this. Possibilities you are excluding are, the universe is necessary, that the reason there is something rather than nothing is something beyond our current understanding. Granting the universe is an effect, that effect is unknown and it certainly hasn't been shown to be the Christian God.

 

[El Cid]

You seem to have trouble sticking to the point. We were talking about prayer always being answered so I gave the example of Lourdes hardly, if at all, healing anyone. My point was that there are are obviously many people who pray for healing who don't get healed,

Yes, many times God's answer is no. Suffering is one way of great spiritual growth. Many great spiritual leaders in the Bible suffered. The apostle Paul had a thorn in his flesh that God never removed.

 

[Whatsisface]

Yes, many times God's answer is no. Suffering is one way of great spiritual growth. Many great spiritual leaders in the Bible suffered. The apostle Paul had a thorn in his flesh that God never removed.

This is also consistent with God not existing.

 

[El Cid]

At time = 0 there were no laws of physics.

You really don't know that, no one does.

I can't prove it, but most scientists agree that that is true. IOW there is evidence that that is true.

El Cid said:
Read Von Lommel "Near Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands" Lancet 358 (2001), pp. 2039-2045.

Why? That you say there are some that can "probably" only be explained by the mind leaving the body, doesn't indicate the study came to a firm conclusion.

Again, none of this can be proven but there is evidence which is my point.

El Cid said:
You are assuming what you need to prove. If all your cells are different where were your memories and thoughts stored if those cells no longer existed?

In the patterns of connections that the brain cells make.

How can physical entities store non physical entities?

El Cid said:
But the chemical factors come from the opposite gender cells so they dont match what the person thinks. Thereby showing that if transgenderism is true, then mind is not the same thing as the brain.

I am not saying it can be proven but the evidence from transgenderism (if real) shows that the mind is not totally controlled by the brain.

I agree, hormones etc have their part to play.

But the hormones are excreted by the opposite sex brain cells so that the hormones are also opposite sex, so you are contradicting yourself.

 

[Whatsisface]

I can't prove it, but most scientists agree that that is true. IOW there is evidence that that is true.

Quotes please, to the effect that there are no laws of physics at T=0. I have heard that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the singularity, or whatever it was before expansion. Maybe you are confusing that with no laws?

Again, none of this can be proven but there is evidence which is my point.

There is evidence of an experience. There is not evidence that the experience means there is an afterlife.

How can physical entities store non physical entities?

My knowledge of these things is limited, but what you ask is what neurologists call the hard problem meaning that currently we don't have all the answers. So two questions. Does not having all the answers mean there isn't one, and, what research into how the brain works have you done, what books have you read?

But the hormones are excreted by the opposite sex brain cells so that the hormones are also opposite sex, so you are contradicting yourself.

This seems very confused. What do you mean by opposite sex brain cells?

 

[El Cid]

I have yet to see this evidence.

Only the Christian bible teaches that there is a definite beginning to the universe and coming from nothing detectable by humans. In addition, only the Christian bible teaches that the universe is expanding and winding down energetically. All of these have been confirmed by the BB theory.

 

[Tiburon]

Only the Christian bible teaches that there is a definite beginning to the universe and coming from nothing detectable by humans. In addition, only the Christian bible teaches that the universe is expanding and winding down energetically. All of these have been confirmed by the BB theory.

Actually it doesn't.

 

[Whatsisface]

Only the Christian bible teaches that there is a definite beginning to the universe and coming from nothing detectable by humans. In addition, only the Christian bible teaches that the universe is expanding and winding down energetically. All of these have been confirmed by the BB theory.

It's all rather vague correlations. Now, if there was an equation or two then you would have something.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I can't prove it, but most scientists agree that that is true.

An argument from authority fallacy - these scientists' opinions are no more informed than yours or mine, because we're talking about something that's outside their scope of expertise.

You might as well say that most truck drivers agree that it's true.

Only the Christian bible teaches that there is a definite beginning to the universe and coming from nothing detectable by humans.

But why did the Bible writers believe this?
How do we know that this was not just a guess?

 

[El Cid]

Yes when they are programmed to, but remember brains are not programmed.

Whether brains are programmed or not is irrelevant to the point that chemicals operating according to the laws of physics are still capable of doing math. Will you finally admit that the fact of something being mere chemicals does not prevent it from doing math?

Yes, it does. There is no evidence that chemicals can do math.

El Cid said:
We may not fully or exhaustively understand such things but we can understand a pretty significant piece of such things. Many scientists believe that someday we understand how the complete universe operates, ie the theory of Everything. We can use math to understand how four or more spatial dimensions may work, ie look up string theory where there much more than four dimensions.

Will you admit that our minds are not boundless?

Actually I think they are, especially in the area of creativity. In addition, every major survival problem that we have encountered in human history has been solved. Including the ability to travel to another body in space, ie the moon, a habitat that we were not designed to live in.

El Cid said:
No twoness exists irrespective of whether it is instantiated in a mind.

Now you're just repeating your claim as if it is evidence for you claim.

So you deny that there were two rocks under a tree 65 mya?

El Cid said:
Not being a music expert I am not certain but your description of it as an expert has convinced me that it is more limited than other arts. For examples novelists and painters can create an unlimited number of worlds and universes and each with their own infinite number of characters and rules of existence.

Was that expert an expert in music?

Yes, you said you were.

Show me the math - even the back-of-the-envelope-variety math - that demonstrates this. Otherwise, it's just a baseless assertion. I'm especially interested in how the infinite number of novels and paintings was calculated.

I am saying if we had unlimited time I think we could create an infinite number of those things. Of course, we have only existed for a few million years and so if we could count them there has probably been millions of novels and paintings created but our existence on this earth is coming to an end so it will only be able to happen in the next world.

Once again, you just spout off claims that feel intuitively right to you without a moment's thought to whether there is anything behind them or not.

In what way?

El Cid said:
Not choices in the sense of going against their "programmng". Such as no healthy animal that is hungry will refuse to eat and no animal that is in breeding season will refuse to look for a mate. But humans will.

As if it it's impossible that not eating when hungry, nor refusing to look for a mate, isn't part of human programming (evolutionary + cultural + social).

Most scientists agree that the strongest influence on our behavior is our genes, and yet we can go against them.

El Cid said:
No, culture is far more than that.

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. I've already linked to you the Wiki article on culture in animals. Obviously, their culture is not as developed as ours, not anywhere near, but it's the same principle.

I disagree.

El Cid said:
They dont have a true culture and your article has not proven that.

You just committed the no true Scotsman fallacy. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.

No, unlike Scotsmen, there is an actual definition of culture so it doesnt apply.

El Cid said:
All of it. It provides many problems with so called animal culture.

C'mon, don't jerk me around. Name one specific issue from that section and show why it is a problem with the idea that animals can have some sort of rudimentary culture.

I will have to go back and reread it.

El Cid said:
Yes, but you can override those desires caused by your genes. You may desire to have sex with every pretty girl you see, but you dont because you can override those desires with your free will.

I can't override the fact that I am heterosexual by having homosexual sex.

Actually you can, many heterosexuals do in prison.

That is an example - regardless of whether there are some genetic desires that I *can* override - of a genetic programming that I cannot override. You claimed, "Without a free will people would be controlled by biology like animals, so genes would have a much stronger influence on your behavior, but we dont see that in humans because we do have free will" and I just gave you an example of exactly that stronger influence on behavior by my genes.

No, see above.

El Cid said:
As a biologist I have never heard of an example of a healthy animal being able to override their genetic programming.

So what? You're just one biologist. Biology is not what one biologist knows.

Well I have been studying and reading about animals for over 40 years.

El Cid said:
Yes, and no healthy animal has ever overrode them.

Here's one example:

In 1845, the Illustrated London News reported that a Newfoundland dog had been acting less lively over a period of days before being seen "to throw himself in the water and endeavor to sink by preserving perfect stillness of the legs and feet".[14] Every time he was rescued he attempted to do this again before he finally held his head underwater until death

We have no idea what he was actually doing. A few days before his head may have been struck by a horse kick and damaged his brain. Brain damaged animals do very strange things.

 

[Gus Bovona]

El, you are contradicting yourself. Here you say chemicals/electricity can do math ("Yes. . . .")

Computers operate according to electrical and chemical laws, like brains do, but they can instantiate or represent mathematical laws when they are arranged in certain ways, just like brains can, too.

Yes when they are programmed to, but remember brains are not programmed.

But here you say they can't:

Will you finally admit that the fact of something being mere chemicals does not prevent it from doing math?

. . . . There is no evidence that chemicals can do math.

My patience for your problems thinking logically is running out. Pretty soon I'm going to end this conversation, I think.

In addition, every major survival problem that we have encountered in human history has been solved. Including the ability to travel to another body in space, ie the moon, a habitat that we were not designed to live in.

That we have solved some problems doesn't mean that our minds are infinite; at least until we solve an infinite number of problems. How close are we to that?

So you deny that there were two rocks under a tree 65 mya?

I'm not going to respond to some random question until you acknowledge my most recent post on this point, that you are merely repeating your claim.

Yes, you said you were.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

I am saying if we had unlimited time I think we could create an infinite number of those things.

This is a great example of your illogic. If we can create an infinite number of novels, say, with unlimited time, couldn't we also create an infinite number of musical compositions with unlimited time? What is the essential difference between novels and music that makes it impossible to create an infinite number of musical compositions with unlimited time but not so for novels?

In what way?

Look at what "In what way?" is in reply to, and your answer is there. In that way.

Most scientists agree that the strongest influence on our behavior is our genes, and yet we can go against them.

See the bottom of this post.

I disagree.

No, unlike Scotsmen, there is an actual definition of culture so it doesnt apply.

Just don't make your claim that it doesn't apply, show me why the actual definition of culture necessarily makes it not apply.

I will have to go back and reread it.

OK.

Actually you can, many heterosexuals do in prison.

No, see above.

Well I have been studying and reading about animals for over 40 years.

We have no idea what he was actually doing. A few days before his head may have been struck by a horse kick and damaged his brain. Brain damaged animals do very strange things.

I take your point about overriding genetics, but what does this have to do with free will? Why does the ability to override genetics mean necessarily that we have free will? It seems like another possibility that accounts for overriding our genetics is the cultural, social, familial, and education programing of our brains.

 

[El Cid]

You are still all over the place on this. When you actually say something that isn't incoherent, I'll respond.




For all three comments above: it's not the intuition that is showing something to be true, though. *Nothing* in science has been shown to be right *because* it was verified *through* intuition. If an intuition proves to be correct, it's merely coincidental, because factors other than intuition are what verify a hypothesis.

I didnt say things are verified through intuition, I said many things have been discovered through intuition.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I didnt say things are verified through intuition, I said many things have been discovered through intuition.

OK, but what significance is that to the issue of free will?

 

[El Cid]

How?

I have provided evidence.

Rather than spend a lot of time finding quotations and tracking down the history of our conversation to answer your "how" question, it will be better if you answer the first part of my earlier question, which was, "can you lay out for me in full what you're saying about free will, culture, and animals?"

I thought I explained that earlier. What did you not understand? Animals do not have a true culture because they dont have free will. When a culture is developed you need set up a system of justice. Animals dont mete out justice because they do not have a moral conscience and therefore have no concept of justice and since they dont have free will they dont commit any crimes. Since we do have free will we blame people for freely choosing to do something wrong. Why do you punish people like they have free will responsibility if you dont believe that we do?

El Cid said:
I am the authoritative source, as a biologist I have studied animals for 40 years and have not seen such a thing.

But you're making a claim about all animals, not just the ones you've seen in your experience. How many species have you worked with, approximately? How extensive is your observation of all their behaviors? You are not an authoritative source for all animals, but your claim is about all animals.

There are some things that scientists know about all animals without actually testing every single animal. Such as belief in God, no animal has religious beliefs. No animal understands calculus, no animal can do geometry, no animal can speak a language, and etc.

El Cid said:
For humans that is generally the case. Though I am not claiming it is always for love.

You didn't answer my question, which was "how do you know [that]?" And what difference does it make to whether there is free will if it's only true generally?

No, I am just saying that not all humans love their children.

El Cid said:
While lack of evidence for A does not PROVE not A. it IS evidence for not A.

But it's not sufficient evidence. And if it's not sufficient evidence, what difference does it make as to whether humans have free will?

Without free will there is no justice.

El Cid said:
I never said it PROVES that they cant, but just that there is no real evidence they do. In fact given that healthy hungry animals never refuse food, I believe that in itself is pretty strong evidence that they would not willfully commit suicide especially by refusing food.

What does this have to do with free will?

Because they are programmed to eat food when they are hungry. And they are programmed to live at all costs. This shows that they do not have free will but we do because we CAN refuse to do those things.

El Cid said:
I usually dont need to, especially regarding animals, see my experience above.

You don't have experience with all animals, but you're making a claim about all animals. I could grant for the sake of argument that some animals would never refuse food and would never commit suicide, especially for animals that developed earlier in evolutionary history. What does this have to do with whether humans have free will?

See above.

El Cid said:
See above about my experience and education.

You don't have experience with all animals, but you're making a claim about all animals.

See above.

El Cid said:
Rotting food smell triggers instinctive repulsion behavior, but I was referring to healthy food. We have to be taught to eat healthy food.

There are some things that humans need to be taught to survive, and some things they don't need to be taught (like not eat rotting food). Agreed? So what does that have to do with free will?

If we didnt have a free will then we would already be programmed to do those things and not have to be taught those things.

El Cid said:
Evidence that programming as distinct from learning can continue after birth?

Learning *is* programming. (I'm not sure if there can be programming that isn't learning, I'll have to think more about that.) See below, too.

No, if there is no free will then we would already be programmed, no learning necessary other than instinctual stimuli. Your genetic code already would have the programming to eat right and etc.

El Cid said:
Fraid so, see above.

There are some things that humans need to be taught to survive, and some things they don't need to be taught (like not eat rotting food; and, breathing; and, digesting food). Agreed? So what does that have to do with free will?

See above.

El Cid said:
Learning not programming.

What do you think programming after birth is if not learning (from parents, culture, society, etc.)?

But with learning, you can choose to reject that learning if you have a free will.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I thought I explained that earlier. What did you not understand? Animals do not have a true culture because they dont have free will. When a culture is developed you need set up a system of justice. Animals dont mete out justice because they do not have a moral conscience and therefore have no concept of justice and since they dont have free will they dont commit any crimes.

How does this matter in terms of whether we have free will or not?

Since we do have free will we blame people for freely choosing to do something wrong. Why do you punish people like they have free will responsibility if you dont believe that we do?

to try to reprogram them, to give an incentive not to do bad things, and to protect the rest of society.

There are some things that scientists know about all animals without actually testing every single animal. Such as belief in God, no animal has religious beliefs. No animal understands calculus, no animal can do geometry, no animal can speak a language, and etc.

how does this matter in terms of whether or not we have free will?

No, I am just saying that not all humans love their children.

I was asking you how you knew something.

Without free will there is no justice.

that may be a consequence of not having free will, but it does nothing to demonstrate that we have free will or not.

Because they are programmed to eat food when they are hungry. And they are programmed to live at all costs. This shows that they do not have free will but we do because we CAN refuse to do those things.

how does that matter in terms of whether or not we have free will?

If we didnt have a free will then we would already be programmed to do those things and not have to be taught those things.

why is that statement true? Why isn’t learning programming?

No, if there is no free will then we would already be programmed, no learning necessary other than instinctual stimuli. Your genetic code already would have the programming to eat right and etc.

See above.

But with learning, you can choose to reject that learning if you have a free will.

And you can choose to reject that learning if you have learned to reject other learning.

 

[El Cid]

But no one thinks it's chemicals alone that would be doing the reasoning, but rather neurons that are made of chemicals are what enable us to reason.

That has yet to be proven. Reasoning is a nonphysical process, how can the physical produce the non-physical?

 

[Whatsisface]

That has yet to be proven. Reasoning is a nonphysical process, how can the physical produce the non-physical?

If proof is the criteria you are using here, why believe any other explanations which have also not been proven?

What is known is that reasoning is a mixture of the physical, neurons working, and the mental or non physical which is our awareness which can control our reasoning. But take away the physical and our reasoning also disappears. This is shown when particular areas of the brain are damaged. Everyone's brain is similar and we know that certain areas are responsible for different cognitive abilities, damage an area of the brain and we lose the corresponding ability. One such ability is facial recognition. If the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition is damaged that person loses the ability to recognise faces. This is called prosopagnosia. It's also caused by said area of the brain not developing properly.

When you say "Reasoning is a nonphysical process," what you fail to recognise is the physical aspect of the process which has been shown to be necessary for reasoning as my examples show. Even if we don't fully understand how the physical gives rise to the mental, we do understand that it's a necessary part of it.

​

 

[El Cid]

I didnt say that. The history and formation of the physical universe can be seen in real time due to the time delay of light. But the history of living things is a little more complicated. You have to make extrapolations into the past which can be questionable.

What books have you read on evolution?

Too many to name.

El Cid said:
No, those laws would never even allow it to get started such as how ultraviolet radiation kills all life unless it is protected somehow.

From a New Scientist article on this very subject …

Life on Earth is thought to have evolved about 3.7 billion years ago, when there was no protective ozone layer encasing the planet and UV radiation was 100 times more intense than today. The nucleotides that make up RNA have three components – a sugar, a phosphate and nitrogen-containing base. “And these bases have very peculiar properties of being extremely efficient at quenching UV light,” says Mulkidjanian, protecting the sugar and phosphate components which form the spine of the chain.

The team fed data on the photochemistry of various organic molecules into a computer model designed to simulate the effects of UV light on stability. “The effect was very pronounced in RNA,” he says. In the presence of strong UV light, RNA was much more likely to form long chains than other molecules.

“The suggested mechanism turns the high UV levels on primordial Earth from a perceived obstacle to the origin of life into the selective factor that, in fact, might have driven the whole process,” write the team in BMC Evolutionary Biology.

Found here.

There is still a long way to go from long chains of RNA to even a very simple bacterium. And during that whole process UV can destroy it in minutes. And then there are the problems with homochirality and a multitude of other obstacles and problems.

What research have you done into this? Have you only been reading creationist literature?

I read both sides.

El Cid said:
See above, because of the nature of light, we can empirically observe the formation of the physical universe in real time and it shows us that it is an effect that needs a cause.

That the universe is an effect that needs a cause is an interpretation of the physical universe on your part. There is no science or evidence that shows this. Possibilities you are excluding are, the universe is necessary, that the reason there is something rather than nothing is something beyond our current understanding. Granting the universe is an effect, that effect is unknown and it certainly hasn't been shown to be the Christian God.

Initially in science every effect has an unknown cause. How do you think they determine what the cause is? They study the characteristics of the effect and then determine what type of cause could produce those characteristics of the effect. The Christian God fits those characteristics perfectly for the universe.

 

[Whatsisface]

Too many to name.

Just one or two would be interesting.

There is still a long way to go from long chains of RNA to even a very simple bacterium. And during that whole process UV can destroy it in minutes. And then there are the problems with homochirality and a multitude of other obstacles and problems.

Before we move on, do you concede that your original statement that UV would not let life get started is probably wrong?

I read both sides.

Initially in science every effect has an unknown cause. How do you think they determine what the cause is? They study the characteristics of the effect and then determine what type of cause could produce those characteristics of the effect. The Christian God fits those characteristics perfectly for the universe.

Now all science has to do then is show the hypothesis that the Christian God is the cause is the correct explanation, because it hasn't done it so far.