@ Gabriel

--- Answer to post: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/42482 ---

- "Let's see who has the greater "leap of faith.""

This is unnecessary antagonizing. I agree that science has not got the complete answers. There is no conclusive proof for how life arose (as far as I'm aware). And I don't think we will ever know how the Universe came to be. But I only place my belief in the corresponding amount of evidence.
Since we have a complete lack of evidence for how the Universe began (at least to my knowledge), I can't say I hold any belief for what caused it to begin or what was before. It can be entertaining to speculate about it, but it won't matter much.

I'm ready to completely re-evaluate my beliefs about how life began or how the Universe formed, if there is new supporting evidence that changes the currently most accurate hypothesis/theory.

- "Atheism: Organic matter, intuitively and randomly, gave us the recipe for life - order, synergy, complexity, and fine-tuning."

As a stickler for terms used in these kind of debates, I feel the need to point out that Atheism has nothing to do with the above statement.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and has no requirements on belief in science. There are many Atheists who have supernatural beliefs and/or promote pseudo sciences like 'ancient alien astronauts'. That said, most atheists do seem to believe in science, but not because they are atheists. At least for me, it's because I reject metaphysical claims.

- "Ya, who sounds like the rational and sane one? Who has the "gigantic hole"?"

If by gigantic hole, you mean that I lack belief, then yes it is me.
But as I mentioned above, I proportion my belief to the available supporting evidence. There is no evidence that the Greek Gods existed, and there is no evidence for your eternal mind, so I lack belief in both completely.

- "...your assertion that "I don't think you can even come to proving your assertion that properties of nature are consistent with processes of mind" is countered by what? You are negating this, so the onus is on you to show why this can't be."

Sorry, but that's just not how it works. The one making a positive claim, is the one who has to show why it is true to begin with.

Example:
Me : The Smurfs exists, their village is just hidden by the Papa Smurf's magic cloaking shield.
You: I don't believe that, you can't prove that.
Me : You are negating this, so the onus is on you to show why this can't be.

In this example, I am the one making a positive claim, so it is up to me to show something to support my claim.

Your claim, that "the properties of nature are consistent with processes of mind", is the positive claim. You claim that it is "consistent with", and my question about this claim is, how have you made this specific determination?
Your previous answers have been very broad, sweeping statement that it is somehow logical or obvious to you, because of some pattern or order.
But can you explain what you mean? Can you give examples? How have you determined this?

You have also said "evolution doesn't make sense to me. Why? Because (to me) it is illogical to think that we've slowly evolved from one species to another; from simplicity to complexity."
And "it had to emanate from Someone else; this seems logical."
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/39903

So because it is illogical to you it is not valid logic? By what standards?
Then, when others say that your logic is not sound, they are automatically wrong. How are you determining what is logical and what is not?

- "Throw some scrap metal together and give it "billions of years" and it will form a helicopter. You want me to believe that? That's foolishness!"

No, absolutely not. And I would not make such a claim, but if you feel that it would be believable or not is irrelevant to your basic argument.

On to the questions:

---

* How does that show that it is more than just a similarity?
- "1. Similarity to what? You have to provide something else that could give us these properties for a comparison to be made. We are rational beings and as such, you must provide an alternative rational suggestion."

What I meant was, a similarity between the properties of nature and mind, you say it is "consistent". Perhaps you need to elaborate what you mean by that it is "consistent"

---

* How does it show that a mind actually created those properties?
- "2. Mind (intelligence) is the only known entity (pragmatism) that gives us order, synergy, complexity, and fine-tuning. If not, what else?"

Stating that Mind is the only know entity to do so, does not explain anything. It does nothing but show your interpretation of "order, synergy, complexity, and fine-tuning"
I can just as easily state that "The only know thing that gives rise to intelligence is the properties we see in nature." That statement is the reverse of yours, explains nothing and is just as elusive.

In order for you to show that mind is the only thing that brings order, you would first have to assume that a mind is behind the rules of physics. So the entire statement rests on the assumption that everything begins with that mind.

If we were to not make the assumption that that physical constants and physical rules was not initially created by a mind, they themselves are a reason for order: Gravity in combination with mass of particles, electromagnetism and the charge of an electron, etc.
Chemical bond would create molecules, molecules would form larger molecules. The patterns would repeat without a mind controlling them.

---

* If a mind creates something, does it automatically become 'consistent with with processes of mind'?
- "3. A mind is always consistent with the processes of mind, that's what a mind does."

Yes, I agree. Otherwise it would not be a mind.
But the question was not if mind is consistent with mind, but instead:
"If a mind creates something, does it automatically become 'consistent with with processes of mind'?"

What a mind creates, is different what the mind itself, or am I completely misinterpreting you?

---

* How does it lead to the conclusion of just 'one mind' and not 2 or 7 or a million minds?
- "4. I've never advocated for "one" mind theory. I've only mentioned that mind (intelligence) is responsible for our universe."

Unfortunately, you make claims about what you yourself have said and not, that are demonstrable false.
See my next separate post, with about half of your own statements about a mind in singular: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/42627

---

* How does it lead to the conclusion that this 'one mind' was not itself created?
- "5. What reality and experience teaches us is, there is always a FIRST in a series. If not, then you would have to give a logical suggestion as to what could have always been here. If you're going to argue who created that being, then we can go on forever with that argument. The buck must stop somewhere!"

5a. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "series", perhaps you could clarify that?
5b. Can you give examples of how reality and experience shows that there is always a 'first'?
5c. There is no need to have an alternate explanation for your explanation to be wrong.
5d. Exactly right, arguing that the hypothetical creator of the universe was itself created could go on forever. That is the main problem with the argument of that creator.
5e. "The buck must stop somewhere!". Why does it have to?

---

* How does it lead to the conclusion that this 'one mind' is eternal?
- "6. If there is a FIRST in a series and matter reveals that it has been created, then logically we must conclude that Whoever or Whatever made matter must be eternal. If not, then we come back to answer 5 and we go infinity with no conclusion in sight. Either mind is eternal or matter is eternal. Which is it?"

6a. I see no reason for there to be a "first in a series", I don't see that matter "reveals that it has been created". Even if those two, unsubstantiated assumptions were true, is see no reason for your forced conclusion:
6a. Why could the "series" not have much earlier beginnings? Perhaps far beyond what is speculated here?
6b. Even if those two, unsubstantiated assumptions were true, how does that show that a first creator would HAVE to be eternal?
6c. "Either mind is eternal or matter is eternal. Which is it?"
Sorry to have to go back to logical fallacies, but this was so noticeable. This is a "False dilemma", where you are trying to force a choice between to unsubstantiated claims.

Btw, the word "created" is a loaded word, in that it automatically implies a "creator".

---

* How do you know that there wasn't a previous stage before the physical constants were in place, a set of physical laws and properties that led to the current stage? And another stage before that?
- "7. I don't know if there were something else before us, could possibly have been, but that is not what we are arguing over. Im arguing over Who or What made us. I could care less if there was something before us. I care about now (the present)."

- "I don't know if there were something else before us"
What I was referring to was the physical constants and laws of the Universe, not what was before "us". What What I was perhaps unclear about was "current state", where I meant that the physical constants and laws as they were set in the beginning of the Universe. Since they are constant they are by definition also the "current state".

To rephrase the question better:
How do you know that there wasn't a previous stage before the physical constants and laws of the Universe were in place, a set of physical constants and laws that led to the beginning of the Universe and the physical constants and laws that followed with it? And another stage before that? And so on?

Mr. Pragmatic,

Thank you for your response and transparency. I do appreciate your willingness to engage me in this important discussion. I, too, am sorry for getting upset at times, but what troubles me is when some atheists make drive-by, snide or caustic comments, with no intention to understand the position given. So, again, thank you for this civilized and thoughtful discussion.

If you haven't seen by now, my process of thought is quite different from your regular religious person. I don't believe, nor hold on to, anything that is illogical and irrational. If it doesn't make sense and correspond with reality, then it must be discarded. Now, I understand that me citing God and quoting the Bible, on many occasions, has been seen as counterintuitive, but my belief in God and the Bible BEGINS with what I perceive to be a logical conclusion in cosmology. This is why the study of beginnings is so important to me. For me, it has ramifications for our entire existence.

Our study in cosmology deals with the unknown past (I understand this, as do you). And because of this, there are tons of speculations and guesses given from investigating the properties of nature. And it is these speculations and guesses that have been promoted by people in religion, philosophy, and science. At one time there was an appreciation between thoughts of religion and science in the field of cosmology, but in my opinion, has turned confrontational because of “bad religion” as well as “bad science.” Allow me to explain what has happened in history and why we are at the point of heated contention (religion and science) concerning cosmology.

When one studies ancient human activity (i.e., anthropology), what we quickly learn is, “all people” (at one time) were very religious. What all people surmised from their five senses and nature was, that Someone or Something greater than themselves was responsible for nature. They came to this conclusion through their reasoning of the world around them, although they didn’t have much information concerning how things really worked in nature (i.e., classical determinism). Now instead investigating the ultimate “logical” cause for all things, people ignorantly worshipped everything as being its ultimate cause, from the cosmos, to the earth (pantheism), animals, insects, idols, and even human beings. These all were worship as god(s). This continued for a while until the 6th B.C. when Grecian philosophers began to question people’s view of tradition, superstitions, and myths. The Grecian philosophers, starting with Thales and Democritus, were the first materialists and began to explain things in a more sensible and logical way, explaining the mysteries of the world though investigation of nature (science). But as their understanding grew, a shift occurred, beginning with Anaxagoras, who concluded that matter wasn’t eternal, but a product of nous (mind). He came to this conclusion based on what he saw in life with regard to the properties of nature. It is here that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle supported this notion by further claiming that Mind was the First Cause and described as the Unmoved Mover; although they didn't know His or Its true Identity.

Now despite, what I believe to be logical claims from Anaxagoras to Aristotle, as people often do, they ignore logical and common sense teachings, and they continue to worship made up gods. And to further complicate matters, these made up gods came from made up religions, and their priests used these “false” religions to exploit people. How did they maintain their power? They used magic, sorcery, and trickery in the name of their god(s) to get what they wanted from the people. What people don’t know is our first alchemists were religious priests. They knew the art of manipulating nature to their advantage. Hence, parishioners of that religion people, who were kept ignorant and choose to be ignorant, were used for other people's purposes. This is where false ideologies arose concerning bad religious practices (i.e., human sacrificing, body mutilation, prostitution, slavery, etc.); all in the name of said religion. What all of this showed was, the problem was not with the religion (per se), the problem was with those leading said religion(s). The term religion simply means a reverence for a Higher Power, and since their higher power was man himself, gross atrocities occurred, thus giving religion a bad name.

As time went on and people began to really think about things, skeptics began to question the validity and claims of many religions (and rightly so), and what they found was tons of deception, fraud, violence, sexual impropriety, et.al. The Catholic and Islamic religions are prime examples of this. Catholics did some evil things to people, as did the Islamic religion, but these religions were governed by wicked and evil men. Now, when these religions were shown to be dubious, a knee jerk reaction happened, where “all religions” were discounted on the actions of their predecessors. This is the origin of atheism – a lack of belief in a God or gods. It was due to “bad” religion promoted in society. And then when the Science Revolution began, and actions religious people believed were caused by their god(s) was shown to be fraud through scientific data, it emboldened society, namely atheists and skeptics, to further discredit everything having to do with religion. But this is where the problem lies. Instead of looking at each religion based on their own merits and arguments, any religion that says anything is automatically rejected. Is it possible that a religion could teach and practice things consistent with logic, reason, and common sense? But we don't know until one take's the time to listen and invest effort to learn.

I believe your obstacle is, automatically rejecting my premise, clumping me with every “bad” religion, and coming to the conclusion that my belief in an “Eternal Mind” amounts to superstition and myth, because it can't be proved with evidence. To which I retorted, I came to this conclusion based on the properties of nature (i.e., order, complexity, synergy, and fine-tuning). While I did grow up being taught that God is Who created me and the world, as I grew into my own skin, I began to question my upbringing and beliefs so that I could know that I was indeed ascribing to an ideology consistent with reality. After looking at the evidence of science and nature, I “logically concluded” that this world was made by Someone greater than ourselves. But the “Who” was still left unanswered. This is when I began to search out “holy books” to make sure that I wasn’t being deceptively led into believing and practicing things inconsistent with reality. This is where I used a criteria to help me identify which holy book was the one. I asked these questions: (1) Does the book make sense? (2) Does the book confirm our reality? (3) Does the book confirm historical data unearth by archaeology? (4) Was the book written in an understandable language? (5) Does the book contain real-life figures? (6) Does the book fit the way humans communicate (e.g. prose, poetry, and figurative language)? (7) Does the book support innate moral and ethical truths? (8) Does the book clearly explain human life events? (9) Is the book brutally honest about life? (10) Does the book help to explain mysteries of life? The only “holy book” that satisfied my rational thought process in view of our Creator was the Bible, which presented God (our Creator) as a mind - immaterial, incorporeal, and eternal, who is not to be idolized in an form or fashion. Now what makes this teaching unique is, it is different from all other “holy books.”

• The Epic of Gilgamesh doesn’t present a view of cosmology and presents deity as human like figures and the story contains mythical creatures. I rationally rejected this.
• The Egyptian Book of the Dead presents deity as animal like figures. I rationally rejected this.
• The Vedas and Upanishads do speak of a Universal Creator, given the names Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva, but these are described as human like figures who possess wives. I rationally rejected this.
• The Tao Te Ching is more of a philosophical work of practical morality, and doesn’t address cosmology. Much of what this book contains does adhere to rational practical matters.
• The Bhagavad Gita is an extension of the Vedas and Upanishads and is about a moral story set within the framework of Hinduism. I rationally rejected this.
• The Sutras are a practical living manual for Buddhists and Hindus, and really doesn’t address cosmology. I agree with some of the rational practical maxims of living.
• The Koran presents the same God as the Torah, because its history is the same. The difference between the Koran and the Torah is, one written by one man, Muhammad, who claims to speak on God’s behalf and only gives history as mentioned in the Torah, and the other is written by 30 men, who claim to speak on God’s behalf, and write concerning the history of the Jews and the eventual coming of Jesus Christ. I rationally rejected the Koran because it is merely a copy of facts from the Torah, but with a different twist and spin on events.

So you see, I have done my homework and have concluded that the only book that fits with reality is the Bible, which explains things in a cogent and rational way.

Now, since the Bible has identified God as mind - invisible and immaterial; consistent with what the Grecian philosophers had postulated, I began to see interesting things pop up in the science world that strengthened my view. When physicists spoke on the dark energy concept. Physicists KNOW that dark energy exists but they can see it, nor prove it with physical evidence; all they can see are the fruits of its existence (i.e., the universe expanding). Also, in quantum mechanics, things have been discovered and theorized that fit my model of thought. Everything is made up of fields (energy), that is theorized as immaterial. Hence, all of this data has been galvanizing my position. As dark energy which can’t be seen, you can't see mind either, but we know it is there based on the fruits, or what I've been mentioning, the properties of nature. When one looks at and studies nature what they find are rules, laws, order, complexity, synergy, and fine-tuning; all which logically point to an invisible mind (intelligence). And when we pragmatically consider our world around us, the only item known to gives us these properties is mind (intelligence). I am not aware of anything in reality that would logically teach us that rules, laws, order, complexity, synergy, and fine-tuning is the result of chance (billion of years in the making). This is why this is an illogical point for me, and the reason I keep asking for an alternative paradigm or thought as to how “chance” gives rise to rules and complexities of life. Unfortunately, you are taking “materialist” scientists word as gospel and aren’t questioning some of their illogical conclusions. And incidentally, there are a number of Intelligent Design scientists out there that are making, what I believe, more rational and logical claims. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it begins with a bias, based on “bad” religion, which has led to our current impasse. This is why I noted, we must learn, first, the entirety of thoughts of someone’s beliefs before we catalogue them with everyone else.

And this is what the Bible teaches concerning God –

God is Mind (Jn. 4:24).
God is invisible (Rom. 1:20; 1 Tim. 6:16)
God is incorporeal (Num. 23:19)
God created with the power of mind matter (Gen. 1:1-2)
With matter, God is represented and His fruits are displayed (Rom. 1:19-20)
God isn’t supposed to be idolized by anything in nature (Ex. 20:1-4)
God is the Being that sets what is right and wrong in society (Deut. 5)

Interestingly, based on these arguments, one time atheist and debater for atheism, Anthony Flew, turned to a believer in Intelligent Design.
My description of God as being ONE is in view of the context of those passages given. God describes Himself as being only ONE in the midst of people worshipping false gods (idolatry). My argument with you has been that MIND is responsible for our world, but if you really want to know what the Bible teaches is, God is presented as THREE MIND. There is not a mistake in grammar, but God is revealed within His word as being three separate entities, which all possess the same attributes – omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, transcendent, and eternal. The aspect of three makes sense to me because everything that Bible speaks of is about societal success. God is presented as a social Being, and thus the reason society – morals and ethics – is what the Bible is concerned about. How we ought to live. But how we ought to live depends on two commands the Bible gives. The first is, loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and the second is, love your neighbor as yourself (Deut. 6:5-7).

I hope this helps as you seek to learn my thoughts in this matter.

Mr. Pragmatic,

What you are asking me to do is throw everything I know about logic, reason, and common sense out the window; to accept a new paradigm of belief, one bolstered by the FOUR HORSEMEN, who have changed words and concepts to fit their "interpretation" of scientific data. As I mentioned before, they have done this from a "knee jerk" reaction to bad religion and ideologies. This is why I gave you a history lesson as to why we are here in the first place.

I've considered many videos and written works of all you have mentioned (i.e., Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Aron Ra, Matt Dillahunty, etc.) and all that they have done is re-interpret the way we look at things. Hence, the burgeoning of the "anthropic principle" which states that this universe is observed to have laws and constants because that is what you would come to expect from conscious and sapient beings. In other words, this universe and human beings are a coincidence, and as such, as rational and sentient beings, it is normal for us to look at things with order, rule, law, synergy, and fine-tuning and conclude that Someone or Something is responsible for it. But much to our chagrin, our senses have fooled us because we are by chance, have no real purpose in life, and will return from the star dust from which we came. That is the position you want me to logically accept. But the problem is, that position is tenuous and far-fetched from reality.

Let's put it this way. You want me to believe that matter just popped into existence, ordered herself in such a way that gave us the possibility of life, which would include rules, laws, order, synergy, and fine-tuning principles capable of producing life, and from the rules, order, etc., conclude that these structures happened from mere coincidence. Hence, we are really nothing special, but products of fate and luck venturing in this life with no true goal or purpose. Is this your position? If so, explain further. If not, explain why not?

Just the very fact that you need things to work in sync with great precision shows that this could not have happened on its own. This is what I keep mentioning about our own existence/reality. For example, the development of computers is a great example that order, rules, and complexity, isn't just happenstance, rather it is a process by which someone with intelligence developed it. Therefore, I use this example of reality as my base when properties of nature show the same characteristics. Once again, when you look at the functions of a cell, what you see is a mini factory of parts doing their job in order for life to continue. You want me to believe that the workings of a cell happened on its own volition. That organic matter simply came together in an ordered way and got it right by chance and luck. Explain how this could ever happen.

But the greatest obstacle for your position is the field of mathematics. Mostly all scientific discoveries are and were made because of mathematics, which gives us formulas of computation to identify a fact or probability. If we are here by chance, then how in the world would "matter" even produce complex math problems to figure some of its mysteries? Are you suggesting that math is purely a chance endeavor?

You keep wanting answers to questions that are so obvious, but it is you who have the tougher questions to answer, and the reason why you don't answer and keep harping on my "eternal mind" argument, which if considered by an honest and open mind, is the more reasonable and logical.

And your example of the court case doesn't support your belief structure. While direct evidence is what prosecutors would like, it doesn't mean that without direct evidence that can't still win a conviction. A prosecutor can rely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion or fact - like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. Hence, my argument has been circumstantial. The fingerprints are the properties of nature, which point to Someone or Something capable of producing those fingerprints.

OK. E=mc2. Matter and energy are interchangeable. They are different forms of the same thing.

Dark energy may be a property of empty space.

The physics is beyond me but this does not seem comparable to interjecting the nebulous concept of a universal mind. Physicists were led to the concept of dark energy due to it's visible effects on the real universe. They were not led to the concept of a mind because there is no visible effect of a mind on the universe.

@ Gabriel

- "You don't want to have any further discussion with me, because you know you have lost this argument."

You can continue to use childish and silly methods of trying to trigger emotional responses, but it's not going to change that I haven't even pretended to be interested in continuing discussing anything else than my questioning about your initial argument.

- "My statement: "my position doesn't and can't change" was written in the context of explaining the order, synergy, complexity, and fine-tuning of life; meaning, the only item known to give us these properties is mind."

Exactly my point. You claim to have reached that conclusion by logic and rationality, yet it is somehow unchangeable. So logic, rationality and even evidence is irrelevant. In other words: Your mind is a closed mind.
I think you accidentally spoke a little to clearly about your mindset.

You posted your argument here and I asked questions about it. Why did you even bring up your main argument at all, if it wasn't up for discussion?

[Edited for clarification]

@ Gabriel

- "you can say that I'm using "childish and silly methods""

That perfectly right. I can and I am.
Your answer just demonstrated that mentality yet again:

- "For there to be a winner and loser in an argument..."

I'm not trying to "defeat" you or "win" an argument. I have simply asked you to explain your basic argument. Which you have been unable to do.

- "I've answered all your questions about my premise."

I have disproved your own statements with your own words several times now. Go back and read those questions and you will find you have not answered several of them, and several times your answer is only that it is "rational and logical", with no explanation for the logical steps to derive your conclusions.

Sorry, try again.

[EDITED TO ADD]

I missed this gem:

- "But then you retort, I KNOW FOR A FACT that NO MIND was responsible for it!!!"

Please, provide proof of where I have said this. I call bullshit on this, sir.