That can be the case, but is not always the case. A random variation which gives any advantage over the existing population will be preserved by natural selection, and this can happen even if no changes in the environment occurred. — Jeremiah

Yet we have environments that haven't changed and species that haven't evolved for millions of years because they are already the pinnacle of evolution for their environment. Sharks are a great example of this. So God created the universe for sharks, then?

Yes, those species no longer well suited to the current environment are removed, to be replaced by other better adapted species. And god, should there be one, doesn't have to lift a finger because the system is automated. Intelligent. — Jake

Not. The fact that species are no longer suited is because the environment changes, and continues to change. Environments come and go, the same environments coming about again - warm age to ice age and back again, so why not re-evolve those same animals, or why cause some species to go extinct when you end up bringing that environment back millions of years later? It would be considered inconsistent behavior if performed by an intelligent hand with a purpose. It is what is expected, however, if there is no intelligent hand guiding things.

What use does a god have for an automated system? Automated systems are for limited beings, like us, who aren't all powerful and need automated systems to do our work, because we are limited. An all-powerful being wouldn't need automated systems.

I'm sorry, but evolution proves no such thing. As example, if there is some highly intelligent agent operating over our heads, evolution would be a highly intelligent way to manage life. — Jake

Manage life? Most of the species ever to exist are now extinct. If what you claim is the case, then humans are just fodder for other species. It seems like God likes cockroaches more than humans being that they have survived longer than most other species, and maybe cockroaches are the reason why "god" created the universe. What reason would "God" have to do this? Is "God" a scientist doing experiments? If so, then it really isn't a "God" is it?

This is why the nature of "god" is so important.

So, from the POV of God, there's no reason to not compare us to animals. — BlueBanana

We used to think that we were separate from nature, and not animals. It is only when we took a more objective look at ourselves and nature did we realize that we are animals too. So from the POV of god (the most objective POV there is), we are animals.

Sure it does. It shows that there is no intelligent design. We are not intelligently designed. We are a hacked attempt at surviving in our environment.

I think what you're really saying is that nobody has provided a "why" which you personally find to be credible. I have no argument with that. — Jake

Evolution by natural selection is one theory, and one I believe is accurate.

The problem with the god idea is that
1) there is no evidence like there is evidence of evolution by natural selection.
2) there are so many other ideas that would be just as likely as the god idea
3) most of those ideas could contradict the existence of god, so which one do you believe and for what reason since they all have the same amount of evidence - none?

There is the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as there is for the existence of gods. Why do you believe in the existence of gods, but not unicorns?

If you really want to go down the road of questioning our ability to understand, then it is more likely that no one has ever had the right idea about why we exist, which means that gods are probably not the right idea.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove there is a God. I'm trying to prove that it's absurd that any of us could answer such a question. Yes, theists too. — Jake

It used to be absurd to think that humans could land on the moon. It seems to me that we are simply talking about how we see the glass as half-empty or half-full.

So, from the POV of God, there's no reason to not compare us to animals. — BlueBanana

That is very strange being that we are made of the same stuff and share many features, and even share parts of our genes. Humans ARE animals.

Right/Wrong and good/evil have to do with our goals and how they are either promoted are inhibited by others' actions.

Since we are members of the same species and also members of a shared culture, we can often share our goals, but there are times when our goals come into conflict. When someone inhibits our goals, that action is seen as bad, or wrong. When our goals are promoted, then we see that action as good, or right.

This is why we have moral dilemmas for which there are no solutions. It comes down to whose goals get to be promoted at the expense of others' goals being inhibited.

We don't understand why that is for reasons that we don't understand, but can infer are the same reasons for which squirrels don't understand those things. — BlueBanana

Sure we do. Squirrels and cancer weren't created. They evolved from prior, extinct species.

Most species that have existed are extinct and all of this empty space in the universe that is hostile to life is evidence that there is no reason for our existence. We just exist. There is no "why".

Well he did create squirrels. — BlueBanana

...and cancer, AIDS, etc.

Apologies, but comparing ourselves to animals is a very common logical error, in regards to God questions. — Jake

But you were the first to compare us to animals - namely squirrels. So, I'm not suppose to take you seriously now?

The God idea is a proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere. And...

We don't know what "everything everywhere" refers to in even the most basic manner such as size and shape etc.

When it comes to ideas the scale of gods, we're like the squirrel who can see the computer monitor and the blinking lights on the screen, but simply doesn't have the ability to grasp the level of abstraction involved in the Internet. — Jake

The God idea is ONE proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere. There are others that don't require the existence of a God and work just fine without it.

Hoof-prints in the sand could be caused by unicorns, but there are other better explanations for the cause of the hoof-prints. The same goes for the God idea. The existence of the universe is not necessarily evidence of the existence of God, nor is the God idea the only possible explanation.

What does it even mean to say that the "scale of gods" is beyond our understanding? What is the scale of the gods, and how do the gods know that there aren't "scales" beyond their understanding? How many gods are there? How do you know? What powers does one have that makes one a god?

Please prove that something as small as human reason would be able to meaningfully analyze something of such enormous scale as gods, should such a thing exist.

As example, please prove that squirrels are capable of understanding the Internet in even the most basic manner. — Jake

I would argue that human reasoning isn't "small". So far, humans have the greatest capacity to reason than any other animal.

Also, our ability to reason says nothing about whether or not gods exist. Those are two separate issues.

Why would a god create beings incapable of understanding it and not being able to prove its existence like we prove the existence of so many other things? If that is actually how things are, I couldn't care less what this god wants as it has limited my freedom and capacity to think for myself.

https://vimeo.com/72072873

I have used The Man Without Words as evidence that people are conscious without language many times on these forums and it is ignored. People just want to believe what they want and ignore all evidence to the contrary. It is nice to see that at least someone else has seen the same thing and understand what that means for the relationship between consciousness and language.

I would define faith as an individual basis used to believe something is true — Rank Amateur

What if the individual basis for believing something is based on how it makes them feel, as opposed to consistent observations and experimentation? How does the concept of god NOT conflict with fact or reason?

Having knowledge itself isn't proof of anything. Knowledge can be wrong - just like faith. To say that "I know" is to say that "For the moment, this is what I believe". And I'm sure you've had situations where your faith in someone had failed you.

How does "faith" differ from "hope" or "delusion"?

Isn't "faith" simply accepting certain knowledge with no reason to other than it is consoling?

This is correct. Self-awareness is a linguistic habit that evolves culturally. We are socially constructed as individual beings. Check out Vygotskian psychology or symbolic interactionism for the arguments.

So this is something that is not widely believed or appreciated. Yet within social psychology, it just pretty obvious. — apokrisis

If self-awareness is a linguistic habit, people that speak the same language would have the same sense of self, but that isn't the case. People that learn other languages don't have a different sense of self than they used to have - other than that they can speak more than one language.

If self-awareness is a linguistic habit, then at what point in our learning a language do we become self-aware? What words or grammar rules trigger this self-awareness? Does one's degree of knowledge in their native language dictate their level of self-awareness? Learning a language takes years. At what point (which words or grammatical rules are learned) does self-awareness emerge?

It seems to me that we use language to point to what is already there. "Consciousness" and "awareness" are just scribbles that refer to these things that exist prior to our labeling them for communicating. Babies are discovering their bodies and how to control them after just a couple of months - well before any linguistic abilities arise.

It also seems to me that in order to learn a language, one must already be self-aware, for what use is a language (what use is communicating) if you don't already understand that you are an individual with different thoughts and needs than others and that those others don't know what your thoughts and needs are unless you communicate them?

Dogs don't run from their own bark, or jump at feeling themselves bite their itch. They can distinguish between their own bodies and actions and others. Self-awareness is an instinctive understanding that all animals have. In order to survive, the brain must make those distinctions at the subconscious level. There are just different levels, or degrees, of self-awareness that result from differences in brain structure, not from differences in language.

The Difference of Being a Process and Observing a Process — schopenhauer1

Is there a difference? Are we not being the process of observing? We must be our own processes or else how can we talk about the differences in what we observe from each of our own unique points in space-time?

When we think about the mind (when we are self-aware), are we not turning the mind into an object of observation? At that point we are being the process we are observing - a process loop.

Process philosophy itself has been pretty much hijacked as a term by theist philosophers. So that shifts you into a different kind of distinction. You wouldn't be seeking a better description of physical nature but talking about what it is like to be participating in the divine cosmic mind. :grin: — apokrisis

That would be a category mistake to say that minds are sub-processes of another mind.

Minds are just one type of process among (an infinite) number of other types. Minds are a sub-process of the universe, and the universe a sub-process of the multi-verse. We could keep going on forever zooming out or zooming in, but it is interesting to note that once we zoom down to a certain point (sub-atomic) that we begin to have problems with interpreting the process of our observations (QM).

I couldn't agree more with you, prothero.

People have come to treat their political party/ideology like a religion - with their side being "righteous" and the other side being "demons".

The two-party system is antiquated. No parties would be better - where we vote for people, not a party. Too many people just look for a "D", or an "R" next to a name on the ballot and vote for it - with no more information about that person than their political party.

Politicians seem more interested is getting serially reelected than they do in addressing the nations problems. The two party system practically renders members of the senate as puppets to the leadership, told how to vote and warned of the consequences should they fail to follow party leaderships directions (no funding, no committee appointments, support for primary opposition opponents). — prothero

Yes, and of course they don't want us looking in their direction as the source of the problem. They would much rather have us pointing our fingers at each other than at them.

"Know" isn't a term I used. Knowledge can be wrong, so "knowing" either way wouldn't be rock-solid. We can still be skeptical of what we "know". You need to explain the nature of "knowing". What does it mean to "know" anything?

Do we really "know" that there is an external world, or is it just instinctive? It seems instinctive to me. Are instincts a kind of knowledge?

I currently accept the fact of an extrrnal world because that is exactly how it seems.

When someone provides a good explanation as to why it seems that way when it isn't then I would be willing to change my mind.

If there is no external world then why does it seem like there is? It would seem to me that, if there is no external world, there is a discrepancy between the way things are and the way things seem to be. Thats a problem for solipsism.

If there was an external, what would it be like to experience it? This is what it feels like, or else why come to the natural, instinctive inclination that there is? If there wasn't what would that be like? Surely there must be some difference that we can point to.

How do we know that we all perceive the same reality?

If a person points out something to another person and that other person does the correct thing in the situation to interact with whatever then it would seem that we all perceive alike. But, on the mental or psychological level how do we know that their perception of the world isn't more like a person with a sensory disorder? And what's to say that the person with the disorder isn't the one who actually sees things as they are? If one person sees the world as it is it does not guarantee that other people do, obviously. — MountainDwarf

None of these questions have anything to do with solipsism. Solipsism is the absence of any other minds, not the existence of other minds that might experience the world differently. If anything that would be a form of realism.

A very good reason to believe that other people do experience the world similarly is because we are all members of the same species. Do two dogs experience the world similarly? Sure, but not similar to humans. The reason is because we have different types of senses. We don't have to look at our behavior as evidence of experiencing things alike. We can look at our sensory organs and find differences there that lead to differences of experiences.

It also seems to me that solipsism can never be the case. If there exists a distinction between the way things are and the way things are perceived, then that is realism, not solipsism. It seems to me that for solipsism to be true, the solipsist would know, with any doubt, that they are the solipsist and that there are no other minds.

But then how would the solipsist know this? How would God (if it existed) know that it is the solipsist? It seems to me that even God would have to be a skeptic of his own experiences. Claiming that it is omniscient just begs the question. What does it mean to be omniscient? What would it be like?

I know that I have a mind. I don't need anyone else to confirm that for me. It is self-affirming. The problem is that I don't know for sure that there are others that have minds. This itself is an affirmation of realism, not solipsism, because I would know whether or not other minds actually do exist. I don't, therefore there is a distinction between the way things are, and the way things are perceived, hence realism must be the case - logically.

QM undermines classical causality. QM puts forward its own causal story. Experiment determines which story we are inclined to believe. It's really simple. — apokrisis

No, it's not.

How can an experiment using "classical" causation provide evidence of a different kind of causation?

If you perform a experiment in the "classical" causal manner and come up with an "answer" that says that "classical" causation is flawed, then what does that say about your experiment in the first place?

To boil things down- atheism gives a person a pass to do whatever they want. — Ram

No it doesn't. It seems like the other way around to me. Believing in a merciful God allows you to do whatever you want because you will just be forgiven, as long as you believe.

I am a human being - a highly intelligent social animal - that depends on maintaining healthy relationships with others of my kind. I will engage in behaviors that ensure that I maintain those relationships. This is what morality boils down to.

I would question your morality if you approve of someone else torturing others for eternity for simply thinking differently than you do.

Materialism's gaping hole is its brute-fact, and Materialists inability to define the "objective reality", "objective existence" and "actuality" that they attribute to this material universe, to argue for Materialism over Idealism.

Some Materialists declare that the world of their Materialism is absurd (They're called "absurdists"). Of course they're right about that. ...but it doesn't seem to make them question their Materialism.

I'm dismayed by the way this thread is going. Yes, Ram's post spoke of some negative things, but so, uniformly, do the shorter posts of our aggressive Atheists.

When I reply to aggressive Atheists here, I reply to at least some of the points that they make in their posts and which I disagree with. That's what a reply is. I don't use one-line dismissals of what they say. — Michael Ossipoff

Atheists are not necessarily materialists or physicalists.

Materialism (whatever that means) isn't the only kind of objective reality that can exist.

I think that materialism and idealism are both nonsense. As a matter of fact, there really isn't any real, meaningful distinction between them.

If QM can undermine causality, then how can physicists actually say that they did an experiment (the cause) that made them think differently about causation? How do scientific experiments work if not by causation? How is it that QM allows scientists to make predictions if there is no causal order? It seems that their claims undermine their own experiments.

I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads. — Michael Ossipoff

Sorry, I'm not searching the forums for your incoherent nonsense. If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.

If you have the time to type these long posts that don't have any substance, then I don't see why you wouldnt post your position as it would probably just be more of the same.

"Creator", "ruler of the universe", and "unlimited" are terms that imply complexity, not simplicity. You keep contradicting yourself, but that isn't surprising.

The standard theist claim is that God is ultimately simple -- not that He is complex — Dfpolis

Then why is it so difficult and contradictory to define?

Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”? — Michael Ossipoff

No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.

Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.

By not being able to define what you believe implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.

Weak. That sums up your participation in this thread.

1. If God who designed the universe needs a designer, then either the designing of intelligent beings is an infinite set of successive events, or there is an Ultimate Designer who is not designed.
2. The designing of intelligent beings is not an infinite set of successive events.
3. It is not the case that there is an Ultimate Designer.
4. Therefore, it is not the case that God who designed the universe needs a designer. — CYU-5

The whole point to why theists claim that a Designer is necessary is because of the beautiful and complex "design" of the universe. So it would be a contradiction to then say that God is beautiful and complex but it doesn't need a designer.

What it comes down to is that the universe wasn't designed at all. That is why it doesn't need a designer.

I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith. — Michael Ossipoff

How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? You have a big problem of putting your words in other people's mouths.

Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so. — Michael Ossipoff

It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief and put words in my mouth that I never said.

Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with. — Michael Ossipoff

But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation? Again, you go and put words in my mouth because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical. That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine? If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?

Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.

It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I. I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense. You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists. I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable of possible truths? You are.

Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist. If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it. What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe? If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".

I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God. — Michael Ossipoff

No, I'm only talking about Humpalumps. Do you believe in their existence? You should. They created the universe. Humpalumps are also indesribable and undefinable.

It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting. — Michael Ossipoff

Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist. According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps, not me, in order to reject their existence. Good luck with that. Don't embarrass yourself in trying to define humpalumps and rejecting their existence because you'd only be rejecting YOUR definition, not mine.

There's a logical basis for the idea that vast numbers of humans have imagined spirits because something like spirits really do exist. — Jake

You mean like how there was a logical basis for the idea that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe because the Earth really is flat and the center of the universe? Oh, wait it isnt. You're simply appealing to the majority, which can be wrong. And there is such a thing as a mass delusion.

A more likely explanation is that humans have imaginations and adopt the norm of the society they find themselves in.

I will explain this to you. Everything here needs to be based on "Reason". And "Reason" is that which operates from atheistic premises. That which goes against atheism is against "Reason".

And so if you go against "Reason" (which is code for atheism)- then you need to be censored. — Ram

Strange that these theists have no problem using reason to reject the existence of all other gods -
except their own.

If the existence of the Norse gods can be rejected with reason, what makes your god different?

You're an atheist too. You don't believe in the existence of any of the gods ever proposed by humans except for one. The only difference is that I believe in one less god than you do.

"Supernatural" could just be advanced technology. Advanced technology can appear to contradict the laws of physics as we understand them. What would the essence of a supernatural thing be that distinguishes it from natural things?

We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. — Rank Amateur

But it isn't reasonable to believe that. It isn't reasonable to believe that because believing that requires you to believe in another being that created the other in order to be consistent. It also adds a lot more complexity that isn't necessary to explain existence of the universe. Where does this being exist in relation to us?

But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith. — Rank Amateur

You seem to be conflating religious faith with inductive reasoning. If you don't know the difference, I can't really engage in a reasonable conversation with you.

The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth. — Rank Amateur

Exactly. When we are wrong, we admit it. Has any religion ever admitted that they were wrong, or have people simply come to reject that for which there is no evidence (like the Norse and Greek gods)?

This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.

It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical. — Rank Amateur

I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again.

It is a reminder that we need evidence and experimentation to prove anything. No one has provided either for the existence of God, so how can you blame science for that?