What is Faith?

El Cid

Well-known member
If proof is the criteria you are using here, why believe any other explanations which have also not been proven?
I am not saying proof is necessary just evidence. Most of the evidence says that reasoning is non-physical. You cant cut a slice of reasoning or take a picture of reasoning or etc.
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.
Not necessarily. The non-physical mind may causing the neurons to fire when reasoning takes place, it may not be that the neurons are what is doing the reasoning. The mind may actually recognize the face but because of the brain damage they cannot let the outside world know that they know. The wiring may be crossed.
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.
See above how the reasoning may still be occurring just that it does not manifest itself physically if the brain is damaged.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I am not saying proof is necessary just evidence. Most of the evidence says that reasoning is non-physical. You cant cut a slice of reasoning or take a picture of reasoning or etc.
Most of the evidence shows reasoning depends on the physical. If you Injure the brain, you impair reasoning.
Not necessarily. The non-physical mind may causing the neurons to fire when reasoning takes place, it may not be that the neurons are what is doing the reasoning. The mind may actually recognize the face but because of the brain damage they cannot let the outside world know that they know. The wiring may be crossed.
This doesn't make sense. I can't make out any meaning.
See above how the reasoning may still be occurring just that it does not manifest itself physically if the brain is damaged.
That this might be so is speculation on your part.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Too many to name.
Just one or two would be interesting.
Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan and Biology by Karen Arms and Pamela Camp.
El Cid said:
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?
Maybe if it started with RNA but if it started with DNA it would have never started. An RNA beginning is just a theory.
El Cid said:
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.
Given that the leaders of scientific academia are mostly committed naturalists, they will never allow that explanation.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
But you can't know that, because you can't know whether what was prayed for would have happened anyway without God.
We cant know it with certainty but the evidence is strong that if God didnt exist, then neither would we. So there would be no praying if God didnt exist.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Breaking down plainly implies that they dont exist. If you leave a cake out in the rain, it breaks down and after enough time it wont exist anymore.
Ah, I didn't give the full quote, it's the laws of physics as we know them break down, not the laws of physics altogether break down.
If you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing, so no there are no laws of physics if there is no matter or energy.
El Cid said:
It is evidence that the mind can exist outside of the brain. So that at death when the brain dies, the mind lives on.
It's very poor evidence for that because it certainly hasn't been proven that is so, that's an assumption on your part of the explanation.
It has not been proven but nevertheless it is evidence. Many NDEs have not been explained. And it is not just my assumption, other scientists agree.
El Cid said:
The Spiritual Brain by Dr. Mario Beauregard, a neurologist. He has done research showing evidence that the mind is not totally dependent on the brain.
That book is not beyond criticism and is only one side of the coin.
True, but it is a side with evidence too.
El Cid said:
If you are a man, every brain cell in your brain can be identified as male and they secrete chemicals associated with maleness. And yet some men claim that they are mentally female. If this is real, it is strong evidence that the mind is not totally dependent on the brain, otherwise such a thing would not be possible.
I would like some evidence or link to an article that says brain cells secrete chemicals associated with maleness or femaleness.
Dr. Larry Cahill, His Brain, Her Brain, Scientific American. October 1, 2012.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
If you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing, so no there are no laws of physics if there is no matter or energy.
We just don't know. There have been scientific articles recently about the BB not being an absolute beginning.
It has not been proven but nevertheless it is evidence. Many NDEs have not been explained. And it is not just my assumption, other scientists agree.
Right. There is a phenomenon, NDE's, that has no full explanation as yet as there was once no full explanation for lightning, and you think them evidence for God. That's only an inference on your part because there is no evidence that follows from them that there is an afterlife. The best you can hope for so far is that they might be evidence for God. They certainly don't confirm God.
True, but it is a side with evidence too.
See above.
Dr. Larry Cahill, His Brain, Her Brain, Scientific American. October 1, 2012.
The point here is that you said …
If you are a man, every brain cell in your brain can be identified as male and they secrete chemicals associated with maleness. And yet some men claim that they are mentally female. If this is real, it is strong evidence that the mind is not totally dependent on the brain, otherwise such a thing would not be possible.
In reply to me asking for evidence for this, you pointed me to a Scientific American article called "His Brain, Her Brain". I read the article. Nowhere did it do as you claimed. If I missed it, please quote where it says as you claim.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Seem rather obvious to me, not vague at all.
This tells me little about the truth of your assertions, considering that people can be biased, wrong, illogical etc. I'm not accusing you of these things, but your above statement doesn't eliminate them.
Yes, but it is even clearer in the original greek and hebrew.
El Cid said:
It is not a science or math textbook, so there was no reason for Him to put that in it.
Here's what you originally said …

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.
Islam says that Allah created the universe, therefore in Islam it had a definite beginning.
Yes, but they borrowed that from the Bible. Remember the Bible was written long before the Koran.
It's hardly surprising that a creation story would include a definite beginning, so a creation story alone isn't enough to establish that any religion is particularly describing the big bang. It could all be coincidence. That's why you need something that describes the Big Bang that can be verified like an equation in order to establish the link.
No, all other religions teach that there is a pre-existing universe from which the god or gods operate. Only Christianity and the Bible teaches that there was no other pre-existing matter or universe.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Yes, but they borrowed that from the Bible. Remember the Bible was written long before the Koran.
But it's a very different story.
No, all other religions teach that there is a pre-existing universe from which the god or gods operate. Only Christianity and the Bible teaches that there was no other pre-existing matter or universe.
We don't know if that corresponds to the actual universe. We don't know if the universe had a definite beginning from nothing, and time is tricky.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
No, you misunderstood. I believe Brains contain more than chemicals. They contain a mind and ARE programmed. But you dont believe that. If atheism is true, then brains are just chemicals, so they would be unable to do math.
That brains contain a mind is your claim. Your evidence for that is that chemicals/electricity can't do math.
No, my claim that brains contain a mind is that I can think. Do you deny the existence of the mind? Without a mind we cannot think.
But chemicals/electricity *can* do math. (What programs the computer or the mind is irrelevant to the fact that chemicals/electricity can do math.)
Provide an example of chemicals and electricity doing math without programming.
El Cid said:
I think the evidence points to our mind having the potential of solving an infinite number of problems. Since the earth has a finite lifetime we will never reach that of course until the next world which will last forever.
What does this have to do with free will?
If we dont have free will and the ability to go "outside' the box of simple causes and effects, then we would not have that potential.
El Cid said:
My point is that numbers existed long before human minds did.
What does this have to do with free will?
You claimed that numbers have to be instantiated in a mind, my point is that they dont in order to exist. I am not sure why you brought it up and how it relates to free will. I guess my point was that like numbers minds are nonphysical but they still exist and therefore not bound by causes and affects. And since we are not bound by causes and effects then we have free will.
El Cid said:
Music is limited by the number of musical notes and what humans consider music. Ideas for novels theoretically have no such limits.
What does this have to do with free will?
Ideas for are not limited, so that means our minds are not limited, thereby providing free will.
El Cid said:
You have yet to prove that my claims are wrong. You also just intuitively claim that we cannot produce an infinite number of creative ideas.
What does this have to do with free will?
See above.
El Cid said:
From Oxford Dictionary: the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group:
You're only showing that it's true by definition (since the definition says culture is done by people, then no animal can do culture), which is trivial, and which is not how anyone rational would look at the issue of whether animals have some elements of culture.
They may have some minor pieces of puzzle but they do not have all the elements that make up a true culture and those elements require a free will.
El Cid said:
Because our bodies are basically identical to animals and therefore also controlled by genetics, we are the only beings able to override our genetic programming. There must be a reason for that, and that reason is that our minds are not totally controlled by the physical which is controlled by genetics.
That is evidence for free will. Animal minds are totally controlled by their physical brain so are bound to the laws of physics. Human minds are not.
You haven't considered the possibility that the thing that allows us to override our genetics is our genetics; that is, one part of our genetics, programmed in one place in our brains, overrides another part of our genetics in a different part of the brain. So, we might be genetically programmed to care about our close kin and provide them food, so when we ourselves are hungry, due to one part of our genetic programming, we can override that with another part of our genetic programming by giving scarce food to our close kin.
Genes are physical entities, therefore are controlled by cause and effect, minds are not, so our minds can override our genetics.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
No, my claim that brains contain a mind is that I can think.
This makes no sense. That you can think is evidence for the claim that brains contain a mind; is that what you're trying to say?

Do you deny the existence of the mind? Without a mind we cannot think.
Depends on how you define "mind."

Provide an example of chemicals and electricity doing math without programming.
There are two issues in your request that need to be separated. One is, what is the nature of the substrate that is performing the calculation? Can it be mere chemicals, or does it need to be a mind? Minds can do calculations, but so can chemicals, as in calculators and computers. Note that the need for humans to program the calculators doesn't alter the answer to the question, what is the nature of the substrate that is performing the calculation? Programming is irrelevant to that question.

If we dont have free will and the ability to go "outside' the box of simple causes and effects, then we would not have that potential.
Why reasons can you offer to show that the above is true?

You claimed that numbers have to be instantiated in a mind, my point is that they dont in order to exist. I am not sure why you brought it up and how it relates to free will. I guess my point was that like numbers minds are nonphysical but they still exist and therefore not bound by causes and affects. And since we are not bound by causes and effects then we have free will.
I don't see how your conclusion in your last sentence follows from the sentence beforehand.

Ideas for are not limited, so that means our minds are not limited, thereby providing free will.
How does a mind not being limited somehow create free will? A computer can generate a random number from the entire set of infinite numbers, which makes it not limited, yet you wouldn't call the computer free.

They may have some minor pieces of puzzle
On what objective criteria does you evaluate animal's pieces of culture to be minor?

but they do not have all the elements that make up a true culture
Agreed, but without the implications of the No True Culture fallacy.

and those elements require a free will.
How so? What is in the definition of culture that requires free will?

Genes are physical entities, therefore are controlled by cause and effect, minds are not, so our minds can override our genetics.
This does not engage with the specifics of the point to which it is responding, and merely re-asserts your claim (minds are not controlled by cause and effect).
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Then why have you (as well as I) been talking about free will? When two people both say things about a topic in a back and forth, that’s what’s called having a discussion about that topic.

We have been talking about free will. Other things, too. Like a normal conversation.
Yes sometimes people get a little off track.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
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?
Because we have a sense of justice. In order to have a sense of justice, you need free will. It is unlikely that natural selection would select a sense of justice if we did not have a free will.
El Cid said:
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.
But without a free will there is no such thing as morally bad things.
El Cid said:
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?
Since we know animals dont have free wills, then if we didnt have free wills we would not have those things either, so because we do have those abilities they are evidence we have free will.
El Cid said:
No, I am just saying that not all humans love their children.
I was asking you how you knew something.
I dont remember what you were asking how I knew.
El Cid said:
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.
See above about how we get a sense of justice.
El Cid said:
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?
Because we are not bound by cause and effect processes like the programmed behaviors above.
El Cid said:
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?
Because it is not a cause and effect process.
El Cid said:
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.
See above.
El Cid said:
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.
Correct but learning requires free will.
 
Top