Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Simple. The Omniverse.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is God
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
How?
Do you imply that our proven intelligence indicates assumption of intelligence having come up from insentient matter is correct?
Can you cite peer reviewed scientific papers that record the mechanism of generation of consciousness from insentient matter? Or is it a philosophy?
You said that brain commits mistakes and we have to be carful and correct the mistakes.
I am asking who corrects the mistakes of brain?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. I'm saying that discovering however it originated, will not affect the attained outcome. The outcome being our brains having the capacity / competence of rational reasoning.
And all the evidence happens to suggest our brains having natural origins, yes.
There's over 200.000 peer reviewed papers concerning evolutionary biology each dealing with various aspects of evolution.
And I answered your question with "humans".
What? Have you never noticed and subsequently corrected your own mistakes, or the mistakes of others, before?
I find that hard to believe.
That I am not questioning. In fact that is my argument.
That is the presumption. Which paper has indicated that life-intelligence definitely arose from non intelligent matter?
OTOH, I suggest that you at least consider the essay linked in the following thread.
Quantum Cosmology and the nature of Consciousness
My friend, when you will really ponder, you will find it hard to believe your present stance.
You said that brain is in the habit of making mistakes. If brain is source of our intelligence then who corrects it’s mistakes?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Could you stop using evidence? It doesn't work like you believe.
The problem at the core is what it reality is independently of the mind. So here it is in science: A Boltzmann Brain. Read up on it if you don't know: Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia Wikipedia will do, because all other articles from science sites show the same problem. Everybody giving a positive answer, that they know, don't know, because it is in the given brain of the individual giving answer. Natural science requires faith: Faith that the universe is fair and natural. But that is without evidence, so it requires faith.
Here is how I deal with strong Theists. You don't know, nor do I. We have faith both, yet you are the one judging other humans in the name of God. I don't, I don't judge other humans, I just tell them I believe different and thus accept the everyday world differently than they want me to. They, the strong Theists are betting on that God accepts that they judge other humans in the name of God, but that is up to God. I am betting on that God accepts, that I use what God has given me, my brain and my part in the everyday world.
So here it is for evidence in the everyday world. It is observable that there are humans, who base their behavior on claims without evidence. That it is observable, thus makes it a fact and thus that is the everyday limit of your world view. That you then judge them, is without evidence also, because science doesn't do moral judgments. There is even in the everyday world a limit to evidence.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Ps I am humanist and there is a reason, why it is called the declaration of human rights and not the scientific law/theory of human rights. That is because of the limit to evidence.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Neutral Name
Active Member
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I like that you didn't use reasoning, logic or anything. You in effect answered that it is irrelevant to you, yet you can use evidence on others, but if evidence has a limit, it doesn't apply to you.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Do you honestly believe that in my 60+ years of life I have not tried to find a god?
I was baptised and I was confirmed into the Christian faith. Then I started to go to senior school and learnt physics and biology; religion started to get smaller and smaller and less relevant.
Now it is irrelevant and just an irritation to me.
I've use reasoning, logic and everything to come to this place and I am very content.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, that is psychology. I That is also so for me, I just do it differently. Because I as a skeptic, don't use reason, logic and everything like you, I do it differently.
Premise 1: God is without positive evidence.
Conclusion: Therefore it is wrong to believe in God.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise and it is in practice not possible with empirical observational evidence alone to go from a fact to an ought. If it has no empirical observational evidence(fact), you ought no believe in, is for the second part not a fact and it can't be derived from a fact, because it is a fact, that we all in effect do oughts, which can't derived from reason, logic and evidence alone. That is Hume.
You see, I accept you as human, We are equal as humans and different as individual. I accept that what you do work for you as you. I am just point out the fact, that we do differently and that you can't judge me as another individual based on your individuality. I don't judge you, I point out that we do it differently and that you can do it without a god, is irrelevant to me, because I can do it with God and I accept it in reverse.
In other words you can't use reason, logic and evidence on a skeptic, because I know as practice the limitations.
If all knowledge is conditional, then that is also conditional. So what are the condition that all knowledge is conditional. That we are humans and have limited reason, logic and evidence.
I have tried myself to do non-conditional knowledge and I have found that I end up believing in that the rest of reality is fair and I can trust my senses and reasoning in general. But that is no physicalism, materialism or what not. That is psychology and faith.
Naturalism as knowledge rests on the faith that reality as such is natural and fair. I just admit that. I can do it both in the natural and supernatural sense and they both have this in common. We as humans in general believe that objective reality is fair(not going to Hell or no Boltzmann Brains) and even can trust our senses and reasoning. We just fight over, who has the correct psychology.
That is what you did in effect. You stated how you yourself make sense of reality. But that doesn't apply to me one to one, nor so in reverse.
syo
Well-Known Member
I agree. No mortal can compare to God, God is the greatest.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
God is the relationship between a person and the rest of the Universe.
white_lotus
White lotus grows in muddy waters
Let's say my mom asks me to do some task. And I sacrifice my time and do it for her. Does the credit for my relationship with my mother go to me or to God? I think it could go to both in different ways.
It goes to me because I'm the one who did that task.
And it goes to god perhaps because he hasn't killed either of us, and he's allowed the growth of various foods by maintaining this planet (I don't believe that we are the ones responsible for the birth of our planet because there is no evidence of work done by us, humans for the birth of the planet). So god's work is the existence of the planet, the part about people being alive, having a tongue, having a functional body and mind.
How does this sound? Can anyone contradict anything in this post so far?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, there is more. It is that whether the rest of reality is, it is fair regardless of being natural or supernatural. You can trust the rest of the universe to that in general the universe is as it appears to you.
That trust is general in most humans, but in practice it plays out differently as e.g. gnostism versus agnosticm. Or if metaphysics is possible as truth or is a belief.