Thought Experiment

That post doesn't tell me how that defies the laws of physics, nor does it tell me what you mean by saying minds operate according to the laws of logic.
It's actually pretty clear that minds can operate without being able to apply logical reasoning. No one will argue that young children and the developmentally delayed or impaired lack minds, but such minds lack the capacity to perform some simple logical reasoning:


Clearly logical reasoning is a skill that must be developed: it is not at all clear to what degree it is innate.
 
Last edited:
So you agree that numbers which are nonphysical entities existed before humans.
It's difficult to know how to put it, but there are such things as necessary concepts. They are necessary because they can't be other than they are, they are absolute and non contingent and would be true whether a God existed or not. For example, the Idea of the number one can only be about a single thing. The idea of one thing can't be about two things by definition. Whether you can say these concepts exist or not I'm not sure, maybe you can, but they need a mind for them to be realised.
Not sure what you mean by realized but they plainly did exist before human minds did. And if they did need a mind to be realized, there was only one intelligent Mind 65 mya.
It may FEEL unfair but how do you know it is actually and objectively unfair?
Really? You have to ask this? It's unfair because in my example someone is receiving preferential treatment of course. Why would God say something was unfair?

Hitler thought the jews were being unfair to the German people. So how do you know whose version of unfairness is wrong?
It's not hard to understand when someone is being treated unfairly. I certainly don't need a God to tell me that to execute someone, for example a Jewish doctor or nurse who would help others, just for being Jewish is at the very least grossly unfair.

Do you need a God to tell you this?
Animals are unfair to other animals everyday. According to evolution we are just animals too, so why should the Nazis be punished just for doing what other animals do everyday?
 
Animals are unfair to other animals everyday. According to evolution we are just animals too, so why should the Nazis be punished just for doing what other animals do everyday?
Different animals are different from each other. Humans have a uniquely elaborate social organization, and we treat each other accordingly. Ants do it by smell and hormonal signals: are you suggesting that if we were principled that we should be like ants, or that ants should be like us? Presumably not. So we do not act like other species because we are not them, and they act like themselves and not like us because they are themselves.
 
Not sure what you mean by realized but they plainly did exist before human minds did. And if they did need a mind to be realized, there was only one intelligent Mind 65 mya.
This answer ignores most of my post about this, that numbers are non contingent. Yes, numbers need a mind to be realised but not to be as they are.
Animals are unfair to other animals everyday. According to evolution we are just animals too, so why should the Nazis be punished just for doing what other animals do everyday?
Really? You have to ask? It's because we humans have the ability to reflect upon the consequences of our actions, which makes us moral agents. It doesn't matter whether we are animals or not, what matters is said ability to reflect on the consequences of our behaviour
 
Right, such as:

Lev 25:44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Atheists do not have such appalling scripture as a basis for morality, and so do not believe slavery - owning another person as property for life - is morally acceptable.

During the American civil war, it was the pro-slavery south - Bible Belt - that used the Bible to argue that they were right.

They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
...
Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.
...
It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice.
— Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone speech​
The parties in the conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders. They are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake.
— James Thornwell, American Presbyterian preacher, pointing out that atheists were anti-slavery​
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God ... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation ... it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
— Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America​

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.
— Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention​

Meanwhile, Darwin's new book was cited by abolitionists. See for example here:

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species sent shock waves around the world when it was published in 1859. The suggestion that all human beings, of whatever race or color, share a common ancestry, had an especially seismic impact on a country teetering on the brink of civil war, as Randall Fuller shows in The Book That Changed America: How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation.
...
A number of prominent American scientists at the time argued that God had created black people, brown skinned and white people separately, and each of them were different, had different capacities, and there was a hierarchy. Some went so far as to suggest that black people were a different species, and that they were not only different, but inferior. These scientists were praised in the South and provided the perfect rationalization for slavery. Darwin’s argument that all living things shared a common ancestor provided the abolitionists with a great rebuttal of the dominant, American science of the time.

And here:

What is the relevance of all this to abolitionism? At the time, it was debated whether humans had a single origin or several, with each race being separately created. The multiple-creation school, polygenism, was popular with apologists for slavery. If, as they supposed, the Adam-and-Eve creation produced whites, but other races derived from earlier and inferior acts of creation, then whites were justified in applying a different moral standard to people of nonwhite race, who were not created in God’s image. Polygenists sometimes saw blacks as subhuman intermediates or even as members of a different species, justifying their subjugation and enslavement.
But if humans had a single origin (monogenism), as Darwin proposed for other species, then all human races were genealogically connected: Blacks were every bit as human as whites — equivalent to distant cousins — and slavery became morally untenable.

You can keep God's moral laws. I prefer a system that makes it clear slavery is wrong.
Actually most Christian scientists were monogenists. Which is plainly what the Bible teaches as well. And most abolitionists were Christians. And contrary to what you posted Darwin thought blacks were much more closely related to apes. Read his Descent of Man. And was a polygeneist. But as far as slavery is concerned I have demonstrated in the other thread I have been posting under this heading the Bible only allows for voluntary slavery except for POWs. Irrespective of what some southern antebellum theologians thought. And evolution was the scientific backbone of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's justification for it. The reason most atheists are against slavery is because most of them were raised in Western Christian founded nations. But their basis for being against it is purely emotional, unlike Christians they have no rational objective basis for condemning slavery. And if your morality is just emotion based then it is much more likely to be undermined and begins a slippery slope towards tyranny as seen in Nazi Germany and Communist countries.
 
Actually most Christian scientists were monogenists. Which is plainly what the Bible teaches as well. And most abolitionists were Christians. And contrary to what you posted Darwin thought blacks were much more closely related to apes. Read his Descent of Man. And was a polygeneist.
Even if true, this doesn't mean evolution is false.
But as far as slavery is concerned I have demonstrated in the other thread I have been posting under this heading the Bible only allows for voluntary slavery except for POWs.
No you haven't. Exodus 21:7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are".

There is nothing voluntary here, the daughter is being sold as a slave. That's what the text plainly says.

Slavery is immoral, don't you agree?
Irrespective of what some southern antebellum theologians thought. And evolution was the scientific backbone of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's justification for it.
No it wasn't, it was good old fashioned human nature in the form of prejudice.
The reason most atheists are against slavery is because most of them were raised in Western Christian founded nations. But their basis for being against it is purely emotional, unlike Christians they have no rational objective basis for condemning slavery.
Unlike Christians, atheists have no rational justification for slavery.
And if your morality is just emotion based then it is much more likely to be undermined and begins a slippery slope towards tyranny as seen in Nazi Germany and Communist countries.
Why would God say rape is wrong?
 
Actually most Christian scientists were monogenists. Which is plainly what the Bible teaches as well.
ALL evolutionists are and were monogenists.

But plenty of Christians were monogenists who believed slavery of blacks was justified by the curse of Ham.

And most abolitionists were Christians. And contrary to what you posted Darwin thought blacks were much more closely related to apes. Read his Descent of Man. And was a polygeneist.
Not true, not by a long way. The Descent of Man was the book that proved monogenism.

By the way, here is Darwin's view of slavery:

Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter;--what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.
- Voyage of the Beagle 496-98​

He makes clear he is against slavery; the Bible does not.

But as far as slavery is concerned I have demonstrated in the other thread I have been posting under this heading the Bible only allows for voluntary slavery except for POWs.
No, you asserted that on the other thread.

The Bible clearly shows otherwise - that gentile slaves were regarded as property and kept as slaves for life. Just as was the case for slaves in the US.

Irrespective of what some southern antebellum theologians thought.
It is a fact that race-based slavery was justified by the Bible.

Did you know the Southern Baptist Convention was founded because of slavery? They split from thee Baptist Convention because the Baptist Convention was against slavery. The whole raison d'être for the largest Protestant denomination in the US was slavery!

The founding faculty of this school—all four of them—were deeply involved in slavery and deeply complicit in the defense of slavery. Many of their successors on this faculty, throughout the period of Reconstruction and well into the twentieth century, advocated segregation, the inferiority of African-Americans, and openly embraced the ideology of the Lost Cause of southern slavery.
...
Eventually, the questions come home. How could our founders, James P. Boyce, John Broadus, Basil Manly Jr., and William Williams, serve as such defenders of biblical truth, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the confessional convictions of this Seminary, and at the same time own human beings as slaves—based on an ideology of race—and defend American slavery as an institution?

See here.

And evolution was the scientific backbone of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's justification for it.
Not true.

Nazi Germany was 94% Christian. All those men rounding up Jews and gassing them - they were Christians.

Hitler was a great admirer of Martin Luther.

"I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing."
"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."
- Hitler​

That is where the blueprint for the Holocaust comes from - the anti-Semistism of the founder of Protestantism.

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. ...
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ...
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...
Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ...
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. ..."
- Martin Luther​

The reason most atheists are against slavery is because most of them were raised in Western Christian founded nations. But their basis for being against it is purely emotional, unlike Christians they have no rational objective basis for condemning slavery.
What rational objective basis is that?

Surely not the Bible, which states explicitly that chattel slavery is allowed.
 
Actually most Christian scientists were monogenists. Which is plainly what the Bible teaches as well. And most abolitionists were Christians. And contrary to what you posted Darwin thought blacks were much more closely related to apes. Read his Descent of Man.

And was a polygeneist.
Not so. In the Descent, he lays out all the arguments for polygeny but concludes:

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, etc., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."


and:

"Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man. "

and

"Nevertheless, at this early period, the intellectual and social faculties of man could hardly have been inferior in any extreme degree to those possessed at present by the lowest savages; otherwise primeval man could not have been so eminently successful in the struggle for life, as proved by his early and wide diffusion."

IOW he felt that all the "races" of man had a common origin that was roughly on par in intellectual development with "savages" all over the world.

And evolution was the scientific backbone of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's justification for it.
Not so. Darwin and Darwinian evolution was proscribed teaching in Nazi schools, and his books were burnt. The Nazis did not hold to the fixity of the species, but by the 20th century everyone had given up on that Biblically based doctrine. Heck, Linnaeus doubted it himself, towards the end of his life.
 
Did you mean prohibited?

What is the difference between proscribe and prohibit?

The main difference between the words is that prohibit always carries the sense that the action is forbidden by some authority. Proscribe, on the other hand, can mean "denounce or condemn", which doesn't mean that it has been outright forbidden, just very strongly disapproved, though it usually means prohibited, too.



So you didn't know that whatever is prohibited is proscribed?
 
What is the difference between proscribe and prohibit?

The main difference between the words is that prohibit always carries the sense that the action is forbidden by some authority. Proscribe, on the other hand, can mean "denounce or condemn", which doesn't mean that it has been outright forbidden, just very strongly disapproved, though it usually means prohibited, too.



So you didn't know that whatever is prohibited is proscribed?
Neither did I. Thanks for looking it up for us. :)
 
No, that is due to a nonphysical characteristic, ie intelligence.
Which is due to the physical characteristics of the brain. Did you know that Einstein's brain was a little unusual?

Einstein's brain had a much shorter lateral sulcus that was partially missing. His brain was also 15% wider than the other brains. The researchers think that these unique brain characteristics may have allowed better connections between neurons important for math and spatial reasoning.
Found here.
Alot of people's brains have been a little unusual. Neanderthals generally had much larger brains than modern humans. How come they didnt produce an advanced civilization? Many years ago, A hydrocephalic man who had only a thin layer of brain tissue and the rest of his head was fluid, got a college degree. There is far more to the mind and intelligence than just the physical brain and its size.
The ability to reason. Physical entities cannot reason, they operate by the laws of physics. The product of the physical brain would just be based on the ratio of chemicals in the brain. But the mind reaches conclusions based on the weighing of evidence and the rationality of argument.
Brains work because of far more than ratio of chemicals. Your reductionist assessment points to a naivety of what we actually know about brains.
I agree, they have a nonphysical mind within them. As an atheist what else besides chemicals is the brain made up of?
For more abstract reasoning yes, but we quickly learn that ourselves and an eighteen wheeler cannot occupy the same space at the same time and in the same relationship. This is the basic law of noncontradiction. We also learn to communicate based on that law.
But that's not logic determining how our minds work, that's our minds working within logic when we become aware of it. All too many people aren't aware of logical principles and think illogically.
Children can learn to communicate without contradicting themselves without ever taking any class in logic. This points to it being built into the human mind. But of course, people can be taught to improve their use of the logic they were born with.
 
Back
Top