U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2012, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 10,998,930 times
Reputation: 3717

Advertisements

I, on the other hand, do not see life as some wondrously complex event or accomplishment. It's all explicable nowadays, any and all of the biochemistry that we inevitably uncover as time ticks on by.

No, we can't yet point-form outline all of it, only because we haven't got down to that level just yet. But as you well know, M, when we do, we ALWAYS figure it out! No particular problems. You unite Molecule Set A with MS "B", and so on, and bingo, it self-ignited and then went to work replicating, and if it harbors a bochemical memory system (such as RNA or DNA; there are others, both seen and speculated...), why darned if it doesn't just work all on it's own!

So what's to stop it from having happened on it's own, in an initially very simple format, way back when?

Again, the pre-big Bang universe (or whatever it was...) is the ONLY area in which you nor I will never be able to explain, but that doesn't then mean there's God to me, though it apparently does to you..).

The difference? I do not feel a NEED for such explanations. Also, I have not had the metaphysical experience you claim to have inarguably had with your God, though it could, obviously, have had other no etherial genesis options.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2012, 07:25 PM
 
33,526 posts, read 8,488,769 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But you keep Leaving out the existence of life and consciousness as part of what you want to call the naturalistic materialist reality . . . unfortunately they cannot be accounted for by the premise of the initial state in naturalism. Much as you refuse to acknowledge it . . . we just can't get from that initial state to here, period.
If I understand you correctly, this is just the same Gap for God argument. We have some ideas about consciousness but, as you repeatedly point out, there is a lot that we don't know and can't explain -I have never denied that. I have argued that human and animal 'consciousness in your theory has to be the same thing, And that would fit evolution through natural selection perfectly well. There is no reason to postulate anything else. Argument from 'What we can't explain must be taken as God' - or in some way supporting your hypothesis is an 'argument from ignorance'. That is a false argument by the rules of logic.

The 'existence of life' (if you mean Abiogenesis) is even less helpful to you. The unknowns and unexplained are even less than in the Hard question of consciousness. There are feasible and even plausible mechanisms and even some evidence and lab work that supports it. God - or Universal field -dunnit has nothing.

Don't tell me that I 'leave it out' . I have argued it several times. You are the one who consistently keeps saying that they are some kind of objection to materialistic naturalism. They wouldn't be even if we had no theories or evidence -which we do. Materialistic Naturalism would still be the better evidence - supported logical and evidential default.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2012, 12:16 PM
 
37,103 posts, read 24,947,107 times
Reputation: 5825
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
If I understand you correctly, this is just the same Gap for God argument.
No Arequipa . . . it is a Gap for the Premises argument. Your premise is flawed and can NOT be assumed as the default in the face of the very existence of life and consciousness, period. THAT is what we have been disagreeing about.
Quote:
We have some ideas about consciousness but, as you repeatedly point out, there is a lot that we don't know and can't explain -I have never denied that. I have argued that human and animal 'consciousness in your theory has to be the same thing, And that would fit evolution through natural selection perfectly well. There is no reason to postulate anything else. Argument from 'What we can't explain must be taken as God' - or in some way supporting your hypothesis is an 'argument from ignorance'. That is a false argument by the rules of logic.
No you are misusing our ignorance. The existence of life and consciousness is the reason you cannot assume they are NOT inherent attributes of our reality . . . as your naturalism does. You are not just ignoring our ignorance about consciousness . . . you are DENYING it as evidence that it is an attribute of our reality that we KNOW exists . . . and misusing our ignorance (Gap for God) about it as the excuse for your unsupportable default.
Quote:
The 'existence of life' (if you mean Abiogenesis) is even less helpful to you. The unknowns and unexplained are even less than in the Hard question of consciousness. There are feasible and even plausible mechanisms and even some evidence and lab work that supports it.
I have said elsewhere that using the limited chemical definition of life in vogue . . . gives some traction to the search for the mechanics of abiogenesis. Pragmatically speaking . . . since God created life using chemical processes . . . it should be possible to discern what they are. That said . . . the characteristics of survival/competition/cooperation deal with a different set of issues that chemistry is unlikely to account for as they border on intent and motivation . . . in the penumbra of consciousness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 03:52 AM
 
3,276 posts, read 2,461,909 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There is no burden to shift
Ignoring it does not make it go away either. You can rant that the default is not to your liking but the fact is we have observed evolution and have a Theory for it and there is no "mind" behind it in that theory. If you want to claim there is one then the burden of proof lies with you alone.

You can try and declare there is a mind behind it - that that is the default - and that we have to prove there is not one. But no one is going to fall for that. No matter how often you type "known" in capital letters. None of the attributes currently known about the universe suggest a consciousness created it or runs it. Let alone that said consciousness tinkers in the Evolutionary process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 06:11 AM
 
33,526 posts, read 8,488,769 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No Arequipa . . . it is a Gap for the Premises argument. Your premise is flawed and can NOT be assumed as the default in the face of the very existence of life and consciousness, period. THAT is what we have been disagreeing about. No you are misusing our ignorance. The existence of life and consciousness is the reason you cannot assume they are NOT inherent attributes of our reality . . . as your naturalism does. You are not just ignoring our ignorance about consciousness . . . you are DENYING it as evidence that it is an attribute of our reality that we KNOW exists . . . and misusing our ignorance (Gap for God) about it as the excuse for your unsupportable default. I have said elsewhere that using the limited chemical definition of life in vogue . . . gives some traction to the search for the mechanics of abiogenesis. Pragmatically speaking . . . since God created life using chemical processes . . . it should be possible to discern what they are. That said . . . the characteristics of survival/competition/cooperation deal with a different set of issues that chemistry is unlikely to account for as they border on intent and motivation . . . in the penumbra of consciousness.
Mystic we come round yet again to where the burden of proof lies. Your premise is that something we can call 'God' exists. I could argue that I don't have a premise, but I can see that it could be argued that I have a premise that it is materialistic nature without anything we could call a god.

We have said this often enough - materialistic nature is what we have all around us. Common sense may lead us to believe that there has to be an Intelligence behind it (which is why you are effectively arguing ID, whether you like it or not) but science shows that this is a false idea and there is NO valid evidential or logical reason to postulate an intelligence.mind/god behind it.

Until you can validate the god- idea your premise that a 'god' exist is a false one and my position - the materialistic /naturalistic one, whether a premise or not, is the scientifically and logically correct one.

You are yet again making a strawman of our position. "The existence of life and consciousness is the reason you cannot assume they are NOT inherent attributes of our reality . . . as your naturalism does."

Of course we 'assume' (how could we possibly deny it? ) that life and consciousness are inherent attributes of our reality. What we do not and cannot assume is that this in any way adds up to the cosmic intelligence which is your God, whether you attempt to conceal that or not.

Your effort to pass that off as 'God' by finding the most reduced common factor (it exists or is 'reality' as I recall) is a rhetorical trick. I could equally claim that a church is a brothel as they are basically buildings where people go. It is getting to what makes your 'reality' 'God' that diverges it from existent physical life, nature and consciousness, and it is that characteristic that makes it 'God' that you have to prove. If you cannot, then you premise is a false one, your claim that reality is God is a false one, your argument that consciousness is God is a false one and your whole darn hypothesis is no more than an unproven claim, and a faith -based one at that.

I shall pass over the string of fibs about what you claim we or I ignore and just try to identify what really is the basis of our disagreement -to what one can legitimately attach the label 'God'? I say you are wrong to attach it to Life, the universe and everything, but you won't agree because you somehow see the processes of existence and indeed the mere existence of it as 'God'. For me that is just not good enough. There has to be this evidence that there is a thinking mind planning ahead and executing that plan or I cannot call it 'God'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:09 AM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top