What is Faith?

[El Cid]

Did they record these observations?

Yes, see my post above.

 

[El Cid]

It is unlikely they will be able to. Since both gods are unified solitary beings, how would they know what language is since they never spoke to anyone for the eternity before they created the universe. Though of course, Vishnu became the universe, therefore it is basically not a personal being. So it would not know what love is in order to create it, and etc.

No, the ancient hebrews didnt fully understand those aspects of reality or the universe, so they could not have fitted him to reality.

Who did the God of the Bible speak to?

To the other members of the triune Godhead.

What aspects of reality or the universe as presented in the Bible would the ancient Hebrews not have understood?

That the universe came into existence from something not detectable, that the universe is expanding and that it is winding down energetically to name three things.

 

[Tiburon]

To the other members of the triune Godhead.

So he talked to himself?
The triune Godhead is a human invention.

That the universe came into existence from something not detectable, that the universe is expanding and that it is winding down energetically to name three things.

Does the Bible say that God is not detectable? Where does the Bible mention expanding? Where does the Bible mention winding down?

 

[El Cid]

You are claiming that they are if the mind comes from the physical. There is no evidence that chemical reactions can reason.

No I'm not. Of course chemical reactions can't reason in themselves, but a particular combination of brain cells and chemicals can give rise to self consciousness and so reasoning powers.

There is no empirical evidence for this, you are assuming what you need to prove. Brain cells are just chemicals too. Reasoning requires utilization of the laws of logic, chemical reactions operate according to the laws of physics, two very different things.

Again, part of the evidence for this is when the brain goes wrong, our ability to reason goes wrong.

See below my response.

El Cid said:
WIF: One evidence that the physical brain gives rise to consciousness is, that if you damage the physical brain, you damage the corresponding aspect of consciousness. Dementia is a case in point, where the physical brain stops working properly because of plaques that form in the brain. When this happens a person ceases to be who they were, including the ability of abstract thought about concepts such as logic.

el cid: That is one interpretation, but it could also be that the mind uses the brain to interact with the outside world, it would be similar to my keyboard missing several keys, you would think I was mentally damaged when I started typing with my broken keyboard, but in actuality I was mentally ok, so it is with the mind, when the brain is damaged it is like the keyboard of the mind being damaged while in fact there is nothing wrong with mind.

This is no more than a speculation on your part, you are introducing elements for which there is no evidence.

Yours is speculation as well. If the mind can no longer interact with the outside world using a damaged brain, you would have the same results.

 

[Whatsisface]

There is no empirical evidence for this, you are assuming what you need to prove. Brain cells are just chemicals too.

There is no empirical evidence for your contention, yet you believe it true.

Reasoning requires utilization of the laws of logic, chemical reactions operate according to the laws of physics, two very different things.

What does this even mean? People all too often reason poorly paying no attention to the laws of logic, committing logical fallacies.

Yours is speculation as well. If the mind can no longer interact with the outside world using a damaged brain, you would have the same results.

So you admit your contention is speculation? At least what we know is, alter the brain and we alter reasoning ability and personality. That is a definite connection of cause and effect, where your contention has no such connection, it's pure speculation.

 

[El Cid]

If a person with dementia insists that her best friend is trying to poison her (which is something that happened to my mother's best friend, near the end of her life), how is that compatible with that person having an undamaged mind? Where is the paranoid delusion taking place, if not in her mind?

I think brain damage is similar to living in a dream state. Your damaged brain can cause you to say things that you dont intend to say. I have experienced this myself when dreaming. It could also be similar to a computer virus, where the mind is the computer operator but because of the virus (brain damage), what comes across thru the computer is nearly totally unrelated to what the operator is typing or intending to communicate.

 

[Komodo]

I think brain damage is similar to living in a dream state. Your damaged brain can cause you to say things that you dont intend to say.

I brought up a woman with dementia who accused her best friend of trying to poison her. Are you claiming she actually did not believe this, but was only saying it because her damaged brain was garbling her thoughts (which were normal and undamaged) in the process of turning those thoughts into speech? that she was actually thinking "hello, it's nice to see you" but that her brain was forcing her mouth to say "you're trying to poison me!" instead? Why in the world would you believe that to be the case?

If you're going to assume such a vast separation between what is happening in our minds and what comes out of our mouths, then maybe I am actually composing a symphony in my mind, one which would put Beethoven to shame, but unfortunately my brain isn't letting that composition out and is forcing me instead to whistle "Yankee Doodle." Why is that hypothesis any less absurd than your hypothesis about the woman with dementia?

I have experienced this myself when dreaming. It could also be similar to a computer virus, where the mind is the computer operator but because of the virus (brain damage), what comes across thru the computer is nearly totally unrelated to what the operator is typing or intending to communicate.

We have good reason in this case to believe that behind the nonsense that we are reading there is an operator whose intended communication is being sabotaged. We can talk to operators to whom this has happened. The operator will actually bring attention to her problem. What reason is there to believe in the existence of a sane, undamaged operator behind the speech patterns of a woman making paranoid accusations? If she exists, is she entirely incapable of alerting anybody to her actual thoughts, and protest this hijacking of her speech? Who made the rules which cause that to happen?

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

My definition of faith:

Faith is accepting as truth that for which there is no sufficiently compelling evidence
Faith is accepting as fact that for which there is no ultimate proof
Faith is believing without seeing
Faith is trusting without good reason

Whenever I share my definition of faith with a Christian it is automatically, and with a high haughtiness, dismissed
And in it's place, the Christian asserts that faith is:

"confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see"

Can somebody please explain to me how my definition of faith differs from the biblical definition?

How does having 'confidence in what one hopes for'
differ from
'accepting as truth that for which there is no sufficient evidence'?

How does an 'assurance about what we do not see'
differ from
an 'acceptance as fact minus ultimate proof'?

The Latin word for one who believes is credit, from which comes words like credentials, credibility and accreditation. In English it was first used in the 1520's, from the Middle French credit meaning belief, trust and the Italian credito, the past participle credere to trust, entrust, believe. That is faith.

Jesus said we could move mountains with faith. If you've ever seen a mining operation where mountaintop removal, a form of coal mining in which the tops of mountains are literally blasted off to access seams of coal is carried out you've seen this in practice. In such a case there had better be sufficiently compelling evidence and trust with good reason. There is, in such a case, believing without seeing, for without credit the mining operation would not likely exist. Without faith they would have no ultimate proof.

If faith in money can move mountains how much more then can faith in God accomplish? Great things. Both wonderful and horrible things. Truth and illusion. I think we should never use faith or facts as a crutch or cudgel. Faith is what it is.

 

[El Cid]

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"?

Yes, but I dont deny that if naturalism is true, then naturalists believe chemical reactions 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"?

Yes, I believe that chemical reactions cannot cause mental events especially abstract mental events, no matter what naturalists believe to be true.

 

[Whatsisface]

Yes, I believe that chemical reactions cannot cause mental events especially abstract mental events, no matter what naturalists believe to be true.

There are two ways of looking at chemical reactions. One is where you have a simple chemical reaction such as iron and oxygen that will produce rust. The other is where a complicated combination of chemical reactions will produce something far more complex, such a working human body. We are full of complex chemical reactions that sustain us. To show our dependence on them, if you take certain reactions away such as iron's part in red blood cell production, we will die.

We are an example of a lot of simple chemical reactions coming together to produce something far more complex. That is what is going on with our brains and our minds.

 

[Komodo]

Komodo said:
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"?

Yes, but I dont deny that if naturalism is true, then naturalists believe chemical reactions cause mental events.

Your response just makes no sense whatsoever. Tell me which of the following claims you deny:

1) Naturalism IS the belief that everything is caused by natural, physical events;
2) Therefore, if naturalism is true, then everything is caused by natural, physical events.
3) If everything is caused by natural or physical events, then mental events are caused by natural, physical events.
4) Therefore, if naturalism is true, then mental events are caused by natural, physical events (chemical reactions in the brain being overwhelmingly the leading candidate).

In other words, if naturalism is true, then the claims of naturalism are NOT just something naturalists believe; they're the truth. Obviously. Self-evidently. Because to deny that would be to assert "even if naturalism is true, naturalism isn't true, it's just a belief." Which, again, just makes no sense whatsoever. Compare:

"Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day."
"Yes, that's true."
"So, if Christianity is true, then Jesus rose from the dead on the third day."
"No, that doesn't follow. If Christianity is true, then Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day."

But that's ludicrous. "Christianity is true" means that the things Christians believe are true. Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, if Christianity is true, it's not just true that Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead, it's true that Jesus rose from the dead. The most dogmatic atheist in the world could not deny this, if he understood how the word "if" works.

Komodo said:
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"?

Yes, I believe that chemical reactions cannot cause mental events especially abstract mental events, no matter what naturalists believe to be true.

You just completely missed the question. I didn't ask what you believed about chemistry and mental events, I asked what you thought the word "naturalism" meant. I say "naturalism" means nothing more or less than "the positions that naturalists believe to be true." Do you in fact believe that "naturalism" means something other than that? If so, what?

 

[El Cid]

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.

Yes, without free will your conclusion is just based on previous predetermined events such as the chemical reactions in your brain. But with free will you can weigh evidence and arguments based on the laws of logic.

El Cid said:
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.

My point is that there is no such thing as a unique series of numbers since the entire series of numbers already exists, so that no number generated by a number generator is unique. But we can actually create original unique things.

El Cid said:
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.

El Cid said:
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.

Millions of people go against all those things everyday. But if there was no free will, then we could not go against them. All our decisions would be predetermined by those things.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yes, without free will your conclusion is just based on previous predetermined events such as the chemical reactions in your brain. But with free will you can weigh evidence and arguments based on the laws of logic.

You need to establish that you need free will to use logic. I've already given you the example of a computer or a calculator that uses mathematical logic, but has not free will.

My point is that there is no such thing as a unique series of numbers since the entire series of numbers already exists, so that no number generated by a number generator is unique. But we can actually create original unique things.

Now you're equivocating on the word "exists," which has to mean actually instantiated (written down, displayed on a screen, etc.) with some sort of Platonic existence that I'm not even sure numbers have.

But, I can make my point without numbers. When I was teaching at another university, I met a music professor who created a computer program that spit out thousands of musical compositions in the style of Mozart, Bach, Scott Joplin, and the like. All of those compositions were unique, and he only set up the computer to generate them, but the computer did the actual choosing of notes. If we don't have free will, we can view our brains as having been programmed, so to speak, to be able to spit out creative utterances, compositions, etc. Being creative is not, therefore, incompatible with not have free will.

Millions of people go against all those things everyday. But if there was no free will, then we could not go against them. All our decisions would be predetermined by those things.

You can't determine that because you don't have sufficient knowledge of all of the inputs from their culture and society - including their day-to-day experiences, much less sufficient knowledge of how their brains will help determine their actions.

 

[El Cid]

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.

El Cid said:
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.

Some people could have a tendency in that direction, but restrain themselves because they have free will. Or they may restrain themselves but then under certain conditions, freely choose to do something evil. Many murderers act like nice people for many years and then one day they murder someone.

El Cid said:
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.

No, you have it backwards. Being able to maintain our identity thru time, and being able to have an NDE and because transgenderism may be real, then that means that the mind is not tied to purely physical cause and effect events, therefore we have a free will.

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.

No, because we are not tied to a cause and effect series which is determined, then our will is not determined but free.

 

[El Cid]

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.

Again, When you police yourself that IS the honor system. You correct those in your group and correct yourself when you receive what you believe is valid criticism from those in your group, ie academia or the "halls of science".

Are you gaslighting me?

Nope.

El Cid said:
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?"

Whats to comment about?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Again, When you police yourself that IS the honor system.

Yes, policing yourself is the honor system. That is not science, though.

You correct those in your group and correct yourself when you receive what you believe is valid criticism from those in your group, ie academia or the "halls of science".

The above is not a description of the absence of science police, which is what you earlier claimed. You're all over the place here. There *is* a science police, any scientist can police - that is, critically examine the work of another and hopefully improve on it - any other scientist. Einstein policed Newton, for example.

Nope.

Good, I'm glad, but your understanding of how science works is woeful, especially for someone with an advanced degree in the sciences.

Whats to comment about?

Seriously? This is about hunches and intuition only being *sometimes* correct, which helps no one with anything.

 

[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.

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

It works great for empirical science but when you get to theoretical science, it doesnt work as well because sometimes unwarranted assumptions sneak in that can't be empirically tested, such as questionable extrapolations into the deep past.

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

Or conclusions are made.

Supposedly in science there are no final conclusions, you need to remain open to other possible explanations.

El Cid said:
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.

No one has empirically seen an intelligent Neanderthal create a spear head, yet experts can tell the difference between a rock shaped like a spearhead and an actual ancient Neanderthal spearhead that has been created by an intelligent mind. So it is with living things.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Yes, I believe that chemical reactions cannot cause mental events especially abstract mental events, no matter what naturalists believe to be true.

At least you acknowledge that it is a belief, and not necessarily a fact.

 

[Whatsisface]

It works great for empirical science but when you get to theoretical science, it doesnt work as well because sometimes unwarranted assumptions sneak in that can't be empirically tested, such as questionable extrapolations into the deep past.

I don't quite know what you have in mind but you're wrong. There is no area of science that holds something true without there being good reason to think it. Where we have partial knowledge that is taken into account and acknowledged.

If you're thinking about evolution or the age of the earth, we have very good reasons to think what we do about them.

Supposedly in science there are no final conclusions, you need to remain open to other possible explanations.

There are both final conclusions and thinking open to revision pending further information. For example, that the earth orbits the sun is a final conclusion.

No one has empirically seen an intelligent Neanderthal create a spear head, yet experts can tell the difference between a rock shaped like a spearhead and an actual ancient Neanderthal spearhead that has been created by an intelligent mind. So it is with living things.

We were talking of an intelligent mind creating the universe. Just because there are spearheads created by men doesn't mean the universe was created by an intelligence.

 

[El Cid]

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?

Without a free will culture and upbringing are irrelevant. You would not have a culture, and as far as upbringing, your parents would just be making sure you were fed and learned how to obtain food, everything else would not exist.

El Cid said:
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.

The NTS fallacy is irrelevant in this discussion, you either have a will or you dont. And animals dont.

El Cid said:
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, I explained it earlier in this thread.

El Cid said:
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.

No, if we didnt have a free will all those things except culture would be programmed in, so they would not be needed. Just like animals. Animals dont have culture and the only upbringing is what I explained above. Your upbringing would just be minimum to survive.