Relationship with god?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
G-d doesn't normally talk to people, and when he does it is a physical not mental noise, this means that if you were standing next to someone when G-d is talking to them you could hear it also.
@ Harry Truman
- "G-d doesn't normally talk to people, and when he does it is a physical not mental noise"
Interesting. May I ask how you know this?
According to the Bible, God has never spoken to mankind, because God is immaterial and incorporeal (Num. 23:19; 1 Tim. 6:16), God is mind (Jn. 1:1). What the Bible does teach is God made physical creatures and used them to be His voice piece (angels spoke to humans, and humans spoke to other humans) (Ps. 68:11). But God no longer works this way according to Hebrews 1:1-2. Rather, through the written word of the Apostles (Jn. 16:13, cf. Eph. 2:20), which were the words of Jesus, this is the only way God speaks to man today. This is why we have to study the Bible and understand it (2 Tim. 2:15). Thus, the conclusion is, anything else is nothing short of hallucinations and mental disorders.
NKJV, Deuteronomy 23:9-14:
"9 “When the army goes out against your enemies, then keep yourself from every wicked thing. 10 If there is any man among you who becomes unclean by some occurrence in the night, then he shall go outside the camp; he shall not come inside the camp. 11 But it shall be, when evening comes, that he shall wash with water; and when the sun sets, he may come into the camp.
12 “Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; 13 and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse. 14 For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you."
Could you explain what this means?
In Deuteronomy 23, God through the prophet Moses gives the nation of Israel sundry commands concerning the integrity of his camp, which symbolically, the nation of Israel was to represent God in all holiness (Deut. 4:6-8), meaning spiritual ("mental") cleanliness. Therefore, God used physical transactions of man to teach greater spiritual (mental) practices. The verses you are referring to, references nocturnal emissions (aka. wet dreams) and defecation. In both instances, God wanted his camp (his people) to be kept physically clean and reminded Israel of their duty to make sure that diseases didn't spread in the camp. Hence, they needed to be proactive by remaining clean and putting away bodily waste. The idea that God walked in the midst of their camp is figurative, meaning as God is being represented by them, they were to remain holy (pure); therefore, no unclean thing ("bodily uncleanness") among them was to be practiced.
I'm surprised that this thread has lasted this long! Lol.
Something I wanted to say: Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of thingsin unseen.
@ Hawk Flint
That definition of the word "Faith" is what is called a deepity.
John 6IX Breezy recently gave another deepity as a definition for faith:
- "Faith is trust in a truth already believed in."
"A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true." - Daniel Dennet
"Something that sounds profound but intellectually hollow. Usually has the following characteristics. 1. True but trivial 2. False but logically ill informed. 3. Usually a use-mention error" - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Deepity
This is what happens when people don't know the definition of words, especially as used in the Bible. The word "faith" comes from the Greek word pistis and is actually defined as to trust and obeying; confidence. A false definition of faith has been given by religious folks, using 2 Corinthians 5:7, in which they say that faith is believing in something with no evidence, like a taking leap in the dark. In 2 Corinthians 5:7, Paul wasn't referring to believing in something with no evidence, rather a Christian hopes in the promise of heaven by remaining faithful to God's commandments. Actually, the Bible teaches that we are only to believe (or have faith) when evidence is provided. This is what Hebrews 11:1 says, "Faith is EVIDENCE of things not seen." That word "evidence" is the Greek word elegchos and is defined as proof by which a thing is proved and tested, ergo, confidence and conviction in something. Hence, we have never been commanded to believe in something that no evidence has been given for. Even our belief in God should be based on evidence (Rom. 1:20).
Danial Dennet's word creation is against false religions and ideologies, not true religion and ideologies.
I said "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen" mostly because I didn't want to get accused of going off topic. The OP asked sumthin' about evidence, and sure it was a stupid answer, but whatever.
Religious faith is neither evidence nor substance. Rather, it is a balm to soothe those nagging doubts that arise when evidence fails to support cherished belief! Religious faith and wishful thinking both materialized only when evidence is lacking.
It took me a while to compose the following replies...
--- Answer to post: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/42475 ---
I fully admit to making a big mistake: Getting caught up in anger and frustration.
For this I apologize. There really is no need for it. I will therefore do my utmost to avoid any resentment and retaliation. I hold no grudge against you.
--- A starting note ---
When I refer to you "basic argument", I mean the following:
"We find properties in nature (i.e., order, synergy, fine-tuning, laws, etc).", "the properties of nature are consistent with processes of mind (intelligence)", "Therefore, an eternal mind is what is responsible for our universe and all things therein."
(I don't want to misrepresent your argument so if this was somehow incorrect, please let me know.)
- "you brush over monumental and important things and focus on trivial matters."
They may be important to you, but we have different views on the subject. I'm focused on your main argument, as I will explain below.
- "if you get cosmology wrong, then it leads to bad morality"
This will only lead to a debate about morality, and it is a distraction for the core issue.
- "The reason why you didn't address anything I wrote about these subjects is because you know that my arguments were sound and on point."
Sorry to disappoint, but your assumption about what I think is wrong.
- "But as you like to do, you bring up irrelevant things and say - "That is a Red Herring fallacy in the form Appeal to Fear and Wishful Thinking, " which translated means blah, blah, blah, blah!"
Actually, I attempted to talk "your language". Since you started talking about "Ad Hominem", I suspected you would actually care about logical fallacies. So I tried showing the flaws with that terminology.
- "Open up your mind and expand your thought process. Respond to me by showing where my arguments go off the beaten path of logic and reason."
As a human being it's hard to let go of bias for what one wants to be true. I have made the mistake of letting pride and emotions thwart my self scrutiny many times, and occasionally I have managed to overcome that and accept how wrong I was and re-evaluate my beliefs and opinions. I'm quite proud to have done so in my life, on a number of occasions.
When I have realized that I have made a mistake, I have forced myself to admit it even though pride really makes that hard. And if it was called for, I have apologized for my mistake. (A few of those occasions was in this forum).
I consider myself open minded as far as a normal and rational human can be. But I understand that I don't seem open minded to you, since I don't agree with your position.
- "What I have proposed? That an eternal mind is responsible for our universe and everything therein. How did I reach this conclusion? Look carefully and listen Pragmatic! By examining the properties of nature which exhibit order, synergy, complexity, and fine-tuning skills, these properties (according to reality, experience, and logic; hence, pragmatism), are the result of mind (intelligence)."
This is exactly the argument I'm asking questions about. To me, it seems very illogical and greatly lacking, and I'm asking questions about it.
Insinuation that I'm uneducated, biased, stupid or something similar, won't show anyone that you are correct. And if, as you say, your reasoning correct, there shouldn't be a problem answering questions about it.
- "If not, then show me from reality, experience, and logic, what could be responsible for these properties."
I'm sorry, but you wont be getting that debate from me. I have failed in explaining my point clearly, so I will try to be more clear with an example:
--- Example start
In a court case, I'm trying to defend a suspected murderer. The prosecution is trying to show that the defendant is guilty. The prosecution has presented it's case and because of a lack of physical evidence, it is argumentation for why the defendant is guilty.
As the defense lawyer, my job is to try to see problems with the prosecutions argumentation and show that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. As such I ask questions about how the conclusion has been reached.
If the prosecution has a valid argument, they should not have a problem answering my questions.
And if the argument that the prosecution presented does not hold up to scrutiny, the accused has to be declared innocent.
However, the prosecution wants the crime solved and demands that the defense produce valid argumentation or evidence for an alternate murderer, in order for them to accept that the accused is innocent.
But the accused can been found innocent, regardless if the crime has been solved or not.
--- Example end
I'm merely asking questions about your basic argument. I'm not trying to prove what you consider to be the opposing argumentation. I'm sorry, if you find that frustrating, but that's all I'm offering here: Questions.
- "As I mentioned before, with great ferocity you want to quickly discount my argument, but you give nothing in return. That's foolishness."
It's not foolishness to question an argument without giving a replacement alternative. An argument can be false, without any need for a counter argument.
- "...some type of energy that "miraculously" (a word used by physicist Sean Carrol)"
Yes, he uses the word, but not in the sense of supernatural miracle.
- "The Higgs Boson discovery (2013) revealed that everything is made of fields (Higgs field), not particles. And according to Sean Carrol, the fields are not anything physical, but vibrations of some type of energy that "miraculously" (a word used by physicist Sean Carrol) gives rise to particles. What is this energy? This can be debated, but this still doesn't negate my premise which is grounded in classical physics which says that we live an orderly and lawful world. You better wake up and smell the coffee!"
I can't see that this has anything to do with your argument or the questions I have asked about it. If particles are basically fields in quantum mechanics, only gives room for more speculation. And speculation is not proof. If Sean Carrel used the word "miraculously", I highly doubt he meant it in a supernatural or religious way. And even if he would have done that, it has nothing to do with this discussion. All this is only distracting into completely separate discussions.
I will leave it at that.
- "if someone tells me reincarnation is the way of life, I would first ask what is it and why they believe this to be true. After they give their explanation of it, I must mediate upon the information to make sure it makes sense."
This is exactly what I'm trying to do.
Your basic argument does not make sense to me, so I ask questions about it. Simply restating that it "is logical" when I don't find it logical, doesn't even attempt to explain it.
- "Other gods in other religions don't meet the criteria of logic, reason, and common sense."
I believe that you really believe that. But there are many other, from other religions who make the exact same claims. As I think I mentioned, I debated a Muslim (Valiya) earlier in this forum, who grew up as a Hindu but after thoroughly examining the different religions had concluded that Islam was by far the only logic and rational religion. He gave many examples and made similar arguments about an eternal creator, and he was utterly convinced.
Try to understand, that from the perspective of a non-believer, you and others like Valiya are making the exact same claims.
- "People's "deluded" reality and experience is what is responsible for these fallacious claims."\
I find it truly interesting that you so easily discard others superstitious beliefs as delusions, but doesn't seem to question your own conclusions.
- "Pragmatic, I don't know what you want from me."
To be as clear as possible, I want answers about your basic argument.
- "I've been as clear and lucid as I could possibly be."
You have re-iterated your assumptions over and over, but I still lack explanations.
- "...from the KNOWN WORLD to the UNKNOWN beginning. We're working backwards like a detective trying to figure out a crime scene. I get that atheists believe in the BIG BANG and EVOLUTION, but by point has been - show how those assumptions are LOGICALLY accurate."
As my example above intends to highlight, whether or not your argument is valid or not is not affected by alternative explanations.
If I could convince you that evolution is true, would you abandon your argument about an eternal mind, even though evolution hasn't disproved your argument? No, I don't think so.
From that perspective, discussing alternate explanations is completely irrelevant and a waste of time.
--- 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.
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."
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?
This is a post that shows how you do in fact argue for a single eternal mind:
- "I say that it is more logical and rational to say that a POWERFUL and GREAT MIND gave rise to all that we have, as the Bible states."
- "This Being is the FIRST CAUSE of all things"
- "I posited a conclusion of an Eternal Creator, who is mind/thought, immaterial, incorporeal, and invisible"
- "I've already said that the Creator of the Bible reveals Himself as the First and the Last, meaning He is Eternal, no one made Him."
- "things that happen and they've happened because of the mind and intelligence of an Almighty God."
- "It is up to us to discover in detail how things function and work through the laws and rules instilled by an intelligent God."
- "And once again, the Bible describes the ONLY ONE AND TRUE GOD as MIND - invisible, incorporeal, and immaterial. This Being is responsible for all that we see, feel, taste, touch, and smell. I work from the known to the unknown, and the known, it's governed by intelligence, precision, and order takes me logically and rationally to the conclusion that a Supreme Being exists."
- "The universe suggests a Creator. Who? Based on its values of intelligence, order, fine-tuning, and decay (laws of thermodynamics), suggests (to me) an intelligent, eternal, invisible, immutable, and incorporeal Being, which has been identified in the Bible as the Great Mind."
- "my conclusion of an Eternal Creator, who is mind"
- "the Creator did leave behind additional information to identify Him."
- "I see the evidence of intelligence, order, and fine-tuning that only an INTELLIGENT MIND could make happen."
- "...we come to the conclusion of a Creator"
- "...no one has offered why an Eternal Mind, invisible, immaterial, and incorporeal can't be responsible for our world"
- "...order, intelligence, design, and fine-tuning implies a MIND to have created it..."
- "...I deduce a MIND..."
- "There is no one before or after this mind."
You talk about a mind, a creator in singular over and over again. So I don't understand why you now claim that you don't argue that.
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.
Thank you for the pleasant reply.
One problem I have with your replies is that it just gets bigger and bigger, more and more text. More factors to include, more history, more motives for the search. I'm trying to narrow it down to the main problem, the basic argument: The argument for a creator from the properties found in nature.
While it can be entertaining to speculate about many surrounding factors, it distracts from the core issue and it takes a lot of time (that I'm in short supply of). Unfortunately, it's hard to just ignore 95% of your post, so here are a few points.
- "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."
When it comes to your argumentation for the Bible and the interpretation of it, there simply is no way to go from the strictly generic argument of a creator of the Universe, to a specific religion without massive cherry picking and special interpretation of the religious text of that religion.
I have heard the exact same type of argumentation for Islam: How the Quran must be interpreted with a specific set of rules and this shows it is the one true religion. And frankly, they had way better arguments than anything I've ever heard of for the Bible, and still they are no where near good enough to be even remotely believable.
I will avoid going into details about your conclusions and arguments about other religions, but in a broad sense:
For other religions and other holy texts, you say "I rationally rejected this".
In the very same manner you rejected all the other religions and holy texts, most atheists have rejected only one more religion than you have. Understand that from the view of an atheist, it is clear as day that you are simultaneously saying that "my bias allows me to not reject the one religion that I do accept"?
- "I began to question my upbringing and beliefs so that I could know that I was indeed ascribing to an ideology consistent with reality."
If you have managed to find a way to interpret the Bible and Christianity such that it is consistent with reality, it only shows that this special interpretation is not obviously false. It does not show that it it true.
To continue using a court case analogy:
Even if the prosecution has shown that it is fully possible for one defendant to have committed the murder, it only shows that it's possible for the defendant to have committed the murder. It does nothing to show that he actually did commit the murder.
It wouldn't matter if there are 3 defendants in that exact same situation. There would still be no proof that any one of them is the guilty person.
- "I believe your obstacle is, automatically rejecting my premise, clumping me with every “bad” religion".
I understand that it would seem this way from your perspective, but that is not why I reject your basic argument. It only took for me to look at your basic argument where you deduce a creator, an eternal mind, from the properties found in nature.
For this argument other religions are irrelevant, the Bible is irrelevant, morality is irrelevant, our feelings are irrelevant.
- "When one looks at and studies nature what they find are rules, laws, order, complexity, synergy, and fine-tuning..."
"Fine-tuning" is another loaded word, just as "creation", in that it implies someone who did the fine-tuning. If certain properties happen to be at certain specific values, does not automatically mean that someone was there to set them.
- "...all which logically point to an invisible mind (intelligence)."
I'm sorry, but no.
Simply stating that "it logically points to", when there is nothing there to give such a conclusion, does not make it so. This is the core of the problem, the basic argument. This is what my questions are about.
- "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)."
So let me reverse your own motivational argument for looking into your version of Christianity, into the atheist version:
'Is it possible that a completely secular answer could teach how this could be, that is consistent with logic, reason, common sense and reality? But we don't know until one takes the time to learn and invest effort to learn.'
Instead of reading ancient books, try reading:
"The Selfish Gene", "The Extended Phenotype", "The Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable", "Unweaving the Rainbow", "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution." and "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True" - By Richard Dawkins.
"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life" - By Daniel Dennett.
"A Universe from Nothing" - By Lawrence M. Krauss.
"The Moral Landscape" - By Sam Harris
My questions, in a revised version...
For the sake of argument, lets assume that your statement is correct:
- "the properties of nature are consistent with with processes of mind".
You say they are "consistent" with the processes of mind.
1a: What do you mean by "consistent"? In what way?
1b: How would that show that it is more than just a similarity between the properties of nature and mind, a coincidence like many others in nature?
- "Mind is the only known entity that gives us order, synergy, complexity and fine-tuning."
But that just presupposes that a Mind was first. I can just as easily claim that "The only know thing that gives rise to intelligence is the properties we see in nature". By doing this I have reversed your claim, I can claim it is logical and consistent with nature, it doesn't really explain anything and you can't disprove it.
So my question remains: How does the properties of nature being consistent with the processes of mind, show that a mind actually created those properties?
I claim that what a mind creates, is different than the mind itself. If a mind creates something, would that creation automatically be 'consistent with with processes of mind'?
How does it lead to the conclusion of just 'one mind' and not 2 or 7 or a million minds?
- "God is presented as THREE MIND...", "...God is revealed within His word as being three separate entities"
First, that is not part of the basic argument, it is a separate point from Biblical argument. And it's quite easy to see that making the answer from the basic argument to 1 mind or 3 minds, is the only way to make the answer fit to Christianity, which is the only reason one of these answers would be deduced from the statement "the properties of nature are consistent with with processes of mind".
Second, it would still not explain why there would have to be either 1 or 3 minds. Why not 7 or millions? Is there anything that shows it would be a specific number at all?
How does it lead to the conclusion that this 'one mind' was not itself created?
- "What reality and experience teaches us is, there is always a FIRST in a series."
- "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. Why must the buck have to stop somewhere? Why not an endless loop or transformations between different state?
How does it lead to the conclusion that this 'one mind' is eternal?
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?
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.
- "You want me to believe that matter just popped into existence, ordered herself in such a way that gave us the possibility of life..."
Nope, I never said that. I'm not making claims, I'm asking questions.
Well, I think it's time to call it quits. We have re-iterated the same questions enough times now.
I say, that you can't even begin your argument without first explaining it. Since that isn't happening, and you instead demand that everyone else have to produce the counter argument/evidence instead, there's no point in me trying any more.
While you haven't overtly said it, you've said it tacitly. You did say that you believe in Big Bang cosmology and Evolution, which promote that view. You even cited the FOUR HORSEMEN, which also believe in this view. So your statement "Nope, I never said that. I'm not making claims, I'm asking questions" is erroneous. Also, you've been arguing with me about my premise and conclusion, stating that is not proven, both physically and logically, to which I responded, that MIND can't be proven with physical evidence, but through its fruits (i.e., circumstantial evidence) one can logically prove its existence.
The reason why I make the same arguments is, because my position doesn't and can't change. I'm consistent, while you and your sympathizers change meanings, concepts, and words to fit your model. I'm not forcing anything into my paradigm, I'm just allowing the evidence to lead me where it follows; to a logical conclusion.
Since you are so earnest in dispelling my premise and conclusion, I've asked you plenty of times to give me an alternative to help me think further on this issue, but none has been given. And I wonder why? Because all the evidence that science uncovers reveals order, rules, laws, synergy, complexity, and fine-tuning, which you and others want me to believe, that it happened by chance. There is no rhyme or reason to it, it just is. So the properties of nature just came about on its own volition. This is the only conclusion you are left with if a MIND wasn't responsible for it.
It is you, who has been ducking and dodging questions, the problem is, and down deep inside you know, my position is super logical and yours is grounded in make believe and fairy tales.
And I see you dealt with nothing I brought up in my last post, but just one statement. That is how I know you're not wanting to understand and know, rather you would rather go back into other posts and talk about things that have no meaning and sense.
Here is my last questions to you, if you choose to re-engage:
1. Physicists tell us that dark energy exists, but can't prove it. Do you accept their conclusion? If so, why?
2. If dark energy is immaterial as physicists say and you accept it, then why can't you accept a MIND that is immaterial and invisible?
3. What makes dark energy believable and accepted? Because physicists say there are FRUITS of its existence, the expansion of the universe. Therefore, if you can accept that, then why can't you accept the FRUITS of the MIND'S existence with regard to the properties of nature?
My, my, how we give up so easy. When the going gets tough, the tough get going is the mantra I live by. I never give up!
Thank you for telling me it's your last question to me. I'm quite happy with that since this is going nowhere. You even tell us that this is the case: "my position doesn't and can't change". So you have neatly summed it up:
There is no point in having any form of discussion with you.
You claim to use logic, but it's evident to everyone else that this is not the case, but since you don't even care that others don't find it valid logic...
There is no point in having any form of discussion with you.
To reply to your critique...
- "While you haven't overtly said it, you've said it tacitly. You did say that you believe in Big Bang cosmology and Evolution, which promote that view."
I merely stated what I believe in and why, because you demanded it. I didn't tell you that my beliefs is what you must believe.
"You even cited the FOUR HORSEMEN, which also believe in this view. So your statement "Nope, I never said that. I'm not making claims, I'm asking questions" is erroneous."
Of course it's erroneous, you are misrepresenting me.
- "You want me to believe that ..."
To which I replied:
- "Nope, I never said that."
Meaning that I'm not telling you what to believe. I wanted to ask questions about your claims.
I mentioned the "Four Horsemen" when I turned your own phrase against yourself. This phrase was the most compelling thing I've heard from you so far, but it can be used just as well in reverse. So that is what I did.
I even explained that this is what I was doing.
Your phrase that I'm referring to:
- "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. "
- "So let me reverse your own motivational argument for looking into your version of Christianity, into the atheist version:
'Is it possible that a completely secular answer could teach how this could be, that is consistent with logic, reason, common sense and reality? But we don't know until one takes the time to learn and invest effort to learn.'"
I continued that by mentioning the tips on books to read. And the phrase "we don't know until one takes the time to learn and invest effort to learn", is not telling you what to believe, it just saying that you should investigate.
But I guess your own phrasing wasn't effective on you yourself either.
- "down deep inside you know, my position is super logical and yours is grounded in make believe and fairy tales."
Thank you for telling me what I believe deep down, it's evident that you would know this. And thank you for giving me the most ironic statement I ever heard. "super logical"?? LoL
- "My, my, how we give up so easy. When the going gets tough, the tough get going is the mantra I live by. I never give up!"
Your real attitude shines through your false politeness. I've never even started to try give you counter arguments. You won't explain your own starting argument, so again...
There is no point in having any form of discussion with you.
Gabriel: "2. If dark energy is immaterial as physicists say and you accept it, then why can't you accept a MIND that is immaterial and invisible?"
Which scientist said dark matter was immaterial?
He was referring to "dark energy" not "dark matter". I almost mixed up the two myself.
There's no point in discussing with him anyway, not even asking simple questions. He stated that quite clearly himself:
- "my position doesn't and can't change."
- "my position is super logical"
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.
Why do focus on the little things and avoid the big issues I have brought up. Time after time, I have answered your questions and then when I give you questions to answer, you avoid them like the bubonic plague. Why don't you answer questions I have given you? I know why, because you'll eventually be forced to accept the logic and reason by which I speak. You argue, not to be convinced by logical and rational arguments, you argue because of your deep seated bias against "false religions". True religion is logical and rational, and there is nothing that I have stated which is illogical and irrational. Yet, it's funny how that some of your co-horts have stated that people who claim that God spoke to them or healed them are more rational than I.
My position is "super logical" and this is why you can only give a LOL, because you have nothing to say against it. You haven't showed how my position is illogical. My position has been consistent with reality and logic and all you've been trying to do is re-write how we look at things, which make no sense.
So what makes sense?
Everything in our reality functions beautifully together. It knows what to do, where to go, and how to do it flawlessly, assuring that life continues successfully. Our food contains vitamins that help the body function optimally. Inside our bodies, a mechanism is set in place that helps us to fight off diseases (immune system). Trees give out oxygen which we need to survive and take in carbon dioxide which we breathe out. The sun gives plants photosynthesis to increase and rain is given to help it grow. This is just a tiny bit of the great order and synergy we experience in the world. Now there is where you interject and say that this is all coincidence and chance. It just so happened that everything that functions in perfect harmony as a result of billions of years of trial and error, and then somehow particles just figured all the intricacies of life, even to the infinitesimal particle, and wallah! it magically came together. Now that is very logical!
But what I have demonstrated logically is, this doesn't happen unless there is an intelligence, a mind, behind it all. What rational person would say that all this happened by chance and luck? That the order and synergy of our world is happenstance? As I have mentioned, it is you who sound illogical and unreasonable. And the reason why you and your co-horts would even defend such an inane and untenable position is because of your bias against FALSE religions. You are trying so hard to discredit any and all religion that you have become myopic to what is logical and rational.
My point with dark energy was, physicists know it exists but they cannot prove it. They see its fruits (the expansion of the universe), but they can't give you a test tube with this substance. Just like Sean Carroll who said that everything is made up of fields (Higgs field, which is energy). Read everywhere, Sean and others will tell you that these fields or energies are immaterial. So my point was, which is yet to be addressed, if you can believe these physicists who tell you that dark energy exists, but they can't prove it, why can't you believe in a mind, which also cannot be seen or proven, but through its fruits you know it exists. You have to be consistent all the way around.
As I mentioned before, if you were to put my position against Big Bang Cosmology and parts of Evolution and evaluate them with logic and reason, my argument always comes out on top, not because I say so, but because my position fits with the workings of reality and experience. My position doesn't change because in order to change it I have to change the way things truly are.
You have already declared that your mind is completely closed, so I have no interest in discussing with you at all: "my position doesn't and can't change."
So, there is no point in having any further discussion with you.
- "Why don't you answer questions I have given you?"
I have already explained this to you, but I'll try again:
I don't have any interest in putting hours and hours into having that discussion, not even with someone else. Even more so with you, who per your own words have a completely closed mind.
So I see no point in having any further discussion with you.
It is obvious to me, that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance and claiming over and over to be "logical and rational" without even being able to answer questions about your position. You are simply dishonest (to yourself or to others), so there is no point in having any further discussion with you.
When you try to avoid explaining yourself and say you are just being "logical and rational", is no more than a leap of faith, but you don't want to discuss it, you don't want to explain it and your mind is, as you explained, completely closed.
So, there is no point in having any further discussion with you.
Once again, you spin things the way you want them to and avoid the real issues. 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. To which you say, no! I then ask for another alternative and you give me none to consider, but tacitly affirm Big Bang cosmology and tenets of evolution, to which I have replied extensively to its absurdity. So don't try to assume that I will not change my thought, because I have said in the past that I am open to other suggestions that are logical. So where are they? (crickets, crickets)......
You don't want to have any further discussion with me, because you know you have lost this argument. Anyone who has truth based on logic and reason would never give up so easily, as you have done. I asked you to explain how organic matter has the wherewithal to organize itself with great precision in order for life to occur, and then you want to change the subject real quick and say, I haven't claimed anything, you have, so the onus is on you to explain. That's a cop out of an answer if I ever heard one. I've explained my position loud and clear, but it is you who keeps ducking and dodging my questions.
My position is not a leap of faith, but a following where the evidence(properties of nature) leads me. Ironically, your position is the leap of faith, tacitly suggesting that organic matter has the wherewithal to organize itself. Now that is make believe and mythical.
I'll await for your suggestions and explanations about organic matter innately possessing properties of mind and see whether your argument is logical enough to usurp my mind argument.
- "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]
For there to be a winner and loser in an argument is demonstrated by the logical proofs given; therefore, you can say that I'm using "childish and silly methods" to somehow goad you, but the reality is, I'm the only one that has given something for consideration, you haven't. Keep diverting the real issue to hide your inability to reason and argue cogently.
You don't know the point because in your explanation of it, you're confused. I have reached a conclusion warranted by logic and rationality that is unchangeable UNLESS someone can come up with a logical position that negates mine. That's what I've been saying all this time. Once again, give me an alternative suggestion as to what gave rise to the properties of nature that sounds credible, factual, and logical. And you won't. Why? Because you have none. Show how organic matter innately possesses the wherewithal to organize itself in a precise manner in order that life may exist. Give your arguments. Your so busy in trying to tell me that my argument is whack and illogical, that you have given nothing in return.
I've answered all your questions about my premise. The point is you don't like the answers, even though none of them have been disproven logically. You ask, I want proof? To which I reply, you can't give physical proof to something that is nonmaterial, invisible, and incorporeal, you can only see its fruit and know that it exists, like a person's mind, dark energy, etc. Does consciousness exist? if so, show me proof? Does dark energy exist? If so, give me proof. Once you give physical proof of these things, then I'll give you proof of the mind I refer to.
Also, my contention had never been to actually show physical proof of anything, rather I mentioned that this is a logical venture, meaning we must provide rational arguments from the known to the unknown, and quit giving absurd conclusions like organic matter innately has the wherewithal to compose itself in a prefect manner in order for life to occur. And you still haven't dealt with my mathematic argument. What about mathematics and Big Bang Cosmology? How in the world did organic matter create the complexity of mathematical problems that humans have discovered in studying the universe? And then how did organic matter create the phenomena of language - words, syntax, grammar, etc.?
These are the things you need to start giving answers for? Not, I don't know? And, the data is still out. But then you retort, I KNOW FOR A FACT that NO MIND was responsible for it!!! Plain foolishness and hypocritical!
- "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.