Consciousness with Josh from Theologyweb

[Atheist37]

OK, tell me something you know with certainty? Your assertion is that you know things about science, god and the universe as well.

Is this a science statement or a metaphysical statement? "The universe, all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be."

Tony,

The human mind has evolved in such a way that we are driven instinctually to find answers to our questions. Your Christian faith satisfies that instinctual urge the same way drinking water satisfies your thirst. This same human drive, this instinctual need to know, can be satisfied by any of the faith traditions in any of the cultures on this planet. They all come from the same evolved instinct that has allowed humans to survive and indeed to dominate other life. These profound lies that we tell each other, the stories of gods and the afterlife, do no harm. Human beings can hunt, and farm, and build great cities, all while believing the harmless lies of religion. Did the Maya civilization suffer because of the untrue beliefs of their culture? Actually, for a time, they thrived like no other meso-american culture.

Some of us, a small percent, have a rather weak answer-seeking instinct. It's analogous to the fear of heights. We all instinctually fear high places, but there is great variation. Some people jump off cliffs wearing a parachute just for the fun of it. So call me a theistic base-jumper, I enjoy the thrill of living the truth -- no gods to watch over me and no afterlife to save me from death. It's not for everybody, so I totally understand where you are coming from.

[spongebob]

OK, tell me something you know with certainty? Your assertion is that you know things about science, god and the universe as well.

That isn't a very reasonable response to my critique, but it's better than your usual rhetoric, so I'll entertain it.

Tony, I don't claim to know anything about "god", except that I truly believe it to be a myth. I also don't believe that you or anyone else knows anything definitive about "god". There are certainly countless opinions on it, but absolutely zero of those have been objectively verified, which is no surprise because in the way most god-beliefs are structured, they cannot be objectively verified.

On to what I do know with certainty. Well, as DU has been discussing on a different thread, we know virtually nothing with absolute certainty. We can only know things with a degree of probability. That probability can be very high at times. For example, the knowledge that the NY Giants beat the NE Patriots in the 2008 Superbowl. We can be very, very sure that this is a fact. But 100%? I'm not even sure about that. Everything we know is subservient to this concept. Data and evidence can be objectively tested and re-tested by different individuals, making it more or less probable. Another example is the age of the earth, 4.5 billion years. The probability of this information being true is very high. Understanding the science and methodologies the drive it is important if you want to have a high confidence that it is true or false. Rejecting this information as false without knowing, to a high degree, the science behind it, is delusional, just like it would be delusional to deny the existence of cancer while you succumb to lukemia.

Is this a science statement or a metaphysical statement? "The universe, all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be."

This is not really a statement, Tony. It's actually a sentence fragment. You are missing an action verb. In a way, you've provided the subject of a sentence, as in "The universe, all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be, was created by a god named Odin." Now that is a sentence and a statement. Is this statement true? That's another question altogether.

[Philosophickle]

OK, tell me something you know with certainty? Your assertion is that you know things about science, god and the universe as well.

Is this a science statement or a metaphysical statement? "The universe, all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be."

Tony,

The human mind has evolved in such a way that we are driven instinctually to find answers to our questions.

No, the human mind has evolved to aid in the survival of the gene-replicating system. This kind of evolutionary psychotherapy sounds very sketchy.

[Philosophickle]

You and Josh have been reifying consciousness, i.e., discussing it as if it were a "thing," something that has existence on its own, as if it has a supra-neurological quality. In discussing it in this way, you have simply worked yourselves into a language trap where you then must explain this "thing's" existence separate from our biology.

Nothing has been reified here. Consciousness exists (at least, I know I am conscious); we disagree on whether or not it can be reduced (or identified) to physical processes in the brain/CNS.

In contrast, I consider consciousness to be a process born entirely from our neurological functioning.

I would say that consciousness is born from neurological functioning as well.

As a process, it has no more objective reality than does "poetry," "love," or "starvation." In this manner, our sense of self is not the static thing you describe, but rather it is dynamic, flowing, and quite literally, electric. It is nonsense to say that our existence precedes our experience. Instead existence is experience; it happens along with and as a part of our experience. From this viewpoint, instead of trying to describe an objective consciousness, it would probably be more accurate to describe our brain/body's neurons as "consciousing." And as such, it is open to empirical study.

This is entirely too vague to pose a challenge to anyone's position.

[tonyenglish7]

OK, tell me something you know with certainty? Your assertion is that you know things about science, god and the universe as well.

Is this a science statement or a metaphysical statement? "The universe, all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be."

Tony,

The human mind has evolved in such a way that we are driven instinctually to find answers to our questions. Your Christian faith satisfies that instinctual urge the same way drinking water satisfies your thirst. This same human drive, this instinctual need to know, can be satisfied by any of the faith traditions in any of the cultures on this planet. They all come from the same evolved instinct that has allowed humans to survive and indeed to dominate other life. These profound lies that we tell each other, the stories of gods and the afterlife, do no harm. Human beings can hunt, and farm, and build great cities, all while believing the harmless lies of religion. Did the Maya civilization suffer because of the untrue beliefs of their culture? Actually, for a time, they thrived like no other meso-american culture.

Some of us, a small percent, have a rather weak answer-seeking instinct. It's analogous to the fear of heights. We all instinctually fear high places, but there is great variation. Some people jump off cliffs wearing a parachute just for the fun of it. So call me a theistic base-jumper, I enjoy the thrill of living the truth -- no gods to watch over me and no afterlife to save me from death. It's not for everybody, so I totally understand where you are coming from.

How can the complexity and information of the brain evolve? and why? Does it need to be so complex? What is the "purpose" of such high complexity? Second, how does that happen in such a short 500 Million years, (with a few major setback from astroids i.e 65 Million years ago and subsequently) third, how does the mind personhood jump into existence via that complexity? The logic, the science, the philosophy, the fossil record all do not support your parachute. Jump if you like, but it has not been packed properly. Ot maybe by chance it will work anyway? The Meso Americans were Pagans who sacraficed people to make sure the sun rose every morning... What does that have to do with the existence of God? It is just an example of a false world view, the subject, a false world view, is what we are both accusing each other of having and we are discussing it. I can give a whole list of false world views, that does nothing for my case.

Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? Any theoretical being..??? See, the modern creation myth of Macro Evolution is non-falsifiable and is therefore not the default position. It needs positive evidence to succeed and so far, it is failing. I have positive evidence for my position, yet your evidence is scant at best.

[tonyenglish7]

OK, tell me something you know with certainty? Your assertion is that you know things about science, god and the universe as well.

That isn't a very reasonable response to my critique, but it's better than your usual rhetoric, so I'll entertain it.

Tony, I don't claim to know anything about "god", except that I truly believe it to be a myth. I also don't believe that you or anyone else knows anything definitive about "god". There are certainly countless opinions on it, but absolutely zero of those have been objectively verified, which is no surprise because in the way most god-beliefs are structured, they cannot be objectively verified.

On to what I do know with certainty. Well, as DU has been discussing on a different thread, we know virtually nothing with absolute certainty. We can only know things with a degree of probability. That probability can be very high at times. For example, the knowledge that the NY Giants beat the NE Patriots in the 2008 Superbowl. We can be very, very sure that this is a fact. But 100%? I'm not even sure about that. Everything we know is subservient to this concept. Data and evidence can be objectively tested and re-tested by different individuals, making it more or less probable. Another example is the age of the earth, 4.5 billion years. The probability of this information being true is very high. Understanding the science and methodologies the drive it is important if you want to have a high confidence that it is true or false. Rejecting this information as false without knowing, to a high degree, the science behind it, is delusional, just like it would be delusional to deny the existence of cancer while you succumb to lukemia.

Is this a science statement or a metaphysical statement? "The universe, all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be."

This is not really a statement, Tony. It's actually a sentence fragment. You are missing an action verb. In a way, you've provided the subject of a sentence, as in "The universe, all there ever was, all there is and all there ever will be, was created by a god named Odin." Now that is a sentence and a statement. Is this statement true? That's another question altogether.

1) In the first sentence you actually claim to know everything about God, namely that he doesn't exist. That is a truth claim with the additional feature of certainty. But you do not stop with your truth claim there, you also claim that nobody else knows anything definate about God as well. Unless of course, they know what you know, namely that he doesn't exist. So, to be clear, you are saying everybody who knows what you know, that god doesn't exist, has knowledge about god and everybody who thinks he exists or may exist or is agnostic about his existence, these know nothing about god's existence? One question, how do you know that?

2) Regarding the quote from Carl Sagan. ""The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be" - Carl Sagan" . This is a metaphysical statement of faith from one of your prophets/teachers/world view founders, and I thought you would recognize it. I did hack it up a bit I admit. But above is the correct language that he used. But you made my case with your response, thank you... But you can add, was created out of nothing for no reason by pure change and randomness. Yet, this is science?

[spongebob]

Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? Any theoretical being..??? {/quote]

Are you asking for an example of a being that could exist, yet did not evolve? What exactly does that prove? What is the point? The question doesn't make any sense.

See, the modern creation myth of Macro Evolution is non-falsifiable and is therefore not the default position. It needs positive evidence to succeed and so far, it is failing. I have positive evidence for my position, yet your evidence is scant at best.

ON the contrary, evolution is very much falsifiable. All you have to do, Tony, is find fossils of modern humans in any layer of the earth below the known level of modern human existence. Here's another way to falsify it; demonstrate that any of the genetic markers in DNA could and do exist as a normal distribution. Functionally redundant proteins, for example. Show that they are not handed down by ancestry, but rather distributed in some random way throughout the diversity of life and you've blasted a huge hole in evolution. There are literally countless ways to "test" evolutionary theory. But you better get started soon because you're going to be very, very busy for the rest of your life because all of these are already supported by evidence. Just pronouncing things as you do does not make them real or correct. You are spouting creationist rhetoric, and rhetoric is worth absolute zero against hard evidence.

[spongebob]

1) In the first sentence you actually claim to know everything about God, namely that he doesn't exist. That is a truth claim with the additional feature of certainty. But you do not stop with your truth claim there, you also claim that nobody else knows anything definate about God as well. Unless of course, they know what you know, namely that he doesn't exist. So, to be clear, you are saying everybody who knows what you know, that god doesn't exist, has knowledge about god and everybody who thinks he exists or may exist or is agnostic about his existence, these know nothing about god's existence? One question, how do you know that?

Tony, you have badly misrepresented what I said.

Tony, I don't claim to know anything about "god", except that I truly believe it to be a myth. I also don't believe that you or anyone else knows anything definitive about "god". There are certainly countless opinions on it, but absolutely zero of those have been objectively verified, which is no surprise because in the way most god-beliefs are structured, they cannot be objectively verified.

OK, read this last paragraph slowly (the stuff in blue). Note the underlines. Note my use of the word "believe". Now, where did I state that I "know" anything about god, let alone "everything"? Where did I state that no one else knows anything about god? You are not only dumb, but you don't seem to be able to read, either.

As to why I do not believe that anyone knows anything definitive about "god"; for one thing no objective evidence of its existence exists. Lots of opinions exist, but they often contradict one another to the point of silliness, so there's absolutely no way to verify one from another.

2) Regarding the quote from Carl Sagan. ""The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be" - Carl Sagan" . This is a metaphysical statement of faith from one of your prophets/teachers/world view founders, and I thought you would recognize it. I did hack it up a bit I admit. But above is the correct language that he used. But you made my case with your response, thank you... But you can add, was created out of nothing for no reason by pure change and randomness. Yet, this is science?

No, this is not "science". This is one single statement plucked from a book. Yes, it is metaphysical. What's your point? Are you asserting that people are not allowed to make metaphysical conjectures? Why do you make them then? What's wrong with someone having a different opinion than yours? You aren't being closed-minded, are you? And I didn't make any "case" for you; I asked for clarification because you were so sloppy in your post. The only case I made was that you often don't make any sense. And you apparently don't allow others to have opinions, either. Typical fundie.

[tonyenglish7]

You said Yes, it is metaphysical. What's your point? Are you asserting that people are not allowed to make metaphysical conjectures?

No, my point is that we all have to make metaphysical conjectures, you are just not aware of your own and mock anything that has to do with the most logical one, God.

[darkumbra]

You said Yes, it is metaphysical. What's your point? Are you asserting that people are not allowed to make metaphysical conjectures?

No, my point is that we all have to make metaphysical conjectures, you are just not aware of your own and mock anything that has to do with the most logical one, God.

YEP... as longs as you remember that it is a 'conjecture' WHICH by definition means that is speculation and it is not fact.

Conjecture all you will... and then prove or at least provide evidence that your conjecture is a fact if you're going to insist on talking about it as if it were a fact.

[spongebob]

You said Yes, it is metaphysical. What's your point? Are you asserting that people are not allowed to make metaphysical conjectures?

No, my point is that we all have to make metaphysical conjectures, you are just not aware of your own and mock anything that has to do with the most logical one, God.

First of all, some message board Etiquette. Please put the words of other members in a quote box or at least quote marks, labeled with who stated them. If you are using a series of quotes from someone, labeling their first quote is sufficient, unless you use a statement by another member in the same post. If you don't do this it becomes difficult to understand what your are trying to say and what you are responding to. It's hard enough communicating on a message board. There's just no excuse for not using the simple tools provided to make things easier.

Next, I agree, most of us do make metaphysical conjectures about all kinds of things, including me. And yes, I am most aware of my own. That you presume to know what I am aware of is profoundly annoying. But, as DU pointed out, they are all conjectures, not proved and often not provable by scientific means. They are philosophical in nature, and while some of them are very compelling, they are still not solid enough to hang your hat on. What's more, they are often contradictory and all equally viable. I have some metaphysical conjectures that I like and appreciate. You have some you like. And yes, I do mock and even scorn some. What's funny is that you do, too, and at the same time you criticize me for doing so. That's hypocritical, dude. Neither of us can demonstrate the superiority of one over the other. This is kind of where open-mindedness comes in, and freedom of thought and religion become important. These are just some of the hallmarks of our exceptional society and nation, that we allow for such diversity of thought. Let's keep it that way, shall we.

My goal has never been to eradicate religion of any kind. I don't rail on people for being Christians or Muslims or Christian Scientists. Believe whatever you want; I don't really care. But I do and will continue to attack and eradicate fallacies, especially those that tie evil and unwarranted things to science. Don't make science out for anything it is not. Don't ascribe metaphysical or religious connotations to science. Science is what it is, a method for understanding the physical aspects of the universe, and nothing else. The more you attack science on religious grounds, the more foolish you look. And the more you argue that there is empirical evidence that supports the existence of god, the more foolish you look.

Have a nice day.

[Atheist37]

Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? Any theoretical being..??? See, the modern creation myth of Macro Evolution is non-falsifiable and is therefore not the default position. It needs positive evidence to succeed and so far, it is failing. I have positive evidence for my position, yet your evidence is scant at best.

This line of thought gets you nowhere, and proves nothing other than your inability to consider the most basic premise. Evolution requires each individual being to have a parent or parents. Any being that is not the result of a reproductive process cannot have evolved.

[darkumbra]

Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? Any theoretical being..??? See, the modern creation myth of Macro Evolution is non-falsifiable and is therefore not the default position. It needs positive evidence to succeed and so far, it is failing. I have positive evidence for my position, yet your evidence is scant at best.

This line of thought gets you nowhere, and proves nothing other than your inability to consider the most basic premise. Evolution requires each individual being to have a parent or parents. Any being that is not the result of a reproductive process cannot have evolved.

37? There are ways to answer his question. "Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved?"

There are an infinity of answers to his question. All you have to do is follow this pattern.

An animal to whom sunlight is poison could not have evolved in the desert without some means of protecting itself from the sun.

An animal which requires oxygen to survive, could not have evolved in the ocean without some means of extracting oxygen from the water.

An animal which exists at the bottom of the ocean must have some way of dealing with the water pressure.

In each case - the adult non-existent animal is the one that doesn't have the necessary adaptations.

It meets all the criteria of test as asked... AND if such a beastie was found (it'd be dead)... THEN that would be proof of ID. Will maybe not so 'intelligent' considering the fate of the beast - but it would be proof that ID can poof something into existence. (unless it fell from the sky... like a whale maybe... 42)

[tonyenglish7]

You said Yes, it is metaphysical. What's your point? Are you asserting that people are not allowed to make metaphysical conjectures?

No, my point is that we all have to make metaphysical conjectures, you are just not aware of your own and mock anything that has to do with the most logical one, God.

First of all, some message board Etiquette. Please put the words of other members in a quote box or at least quote marks, labeled with who stated them. If you are using a series of quotes from someone, labeling their first quote is sufficient, unless you use a statement by another member in the same post. If you don't do this it becomes difficult to understand what your are trying to say and what you are responding to. It's hard enough communicating on a message board. There's just no excuse for not using the simple tools provided to make things easier.

Next, I agree, most of us do make metaphysical conjectures about all kinds of things, including me. And yes, I am most aware of my own. That you presume to know what I am aware of is profoundly annoying. But, as DU pointed out, they are all conjectures, not proved and often not provable by scientific means. They are philosophical in nature, and while some of them are very compelling, they are still not solid enough to hang your hat on. What's more, they are often contradictory and all equally viable. I have some metaphysical conjectures that I like and appreciate. You have some you like. And yes, I do mock and even scorn some. What's funny is that you do, too, and at the same time you criticize me for doing so. That's hypocritical, dude. Neither of us can demonstrate the superiority of one over the other. This is kind of where open-mindedness comes in, and freedom of thought and religion become important. These are just some of the hallmarks of our exceptional society and nation, that we allow for such diversity of thought. Let's keep it that way, shall we.

My goal has never been to eradicate religion of any kind. I don't rail on people for being Christians or Muslims or Christian Scientists. Believe whatever you want; I don't really care. But I do and will continue to attack and eradicate fallacies, especially those that tie evil and unwarranted things to science. Don't make science out for anything it is not. Don't ascribe metaphysical or religious connotations to science. Science is what it is, a method for understanding the physical aspects of the universe, and nothing else. The more you attack science on religious grounds, the more foolish you look. And the more you argue that there is empirical evidence that supports the existence of god, the more foolish you look.

Have a nice day.

Yea, I thank you for the edicate lesson, I was trying to quickly respond without a long post. I think my point was made,that metaphysical positions are unavoidable, yet by definition, that means something more then the "Scientific Realm" exists. Otherwise there is no room for "metaphysical" discussion. I was not putting you down for mocking my position, I was only pointing out that you do so "because" you have your own "metaphysical" horse in the race, which you seem to admit.

Yet this in itself refutes naturalism, a world view that you have put your faith upon. Atheist seem to always treat the philosophical view of theism as some kind of silly notion equal to the eater bunny, and they respond with the same haughty interaction, yet they are oblivious to their own faith commitments that were learned, studied and embraced. "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God". It seems the only one that believes in the "easter bunny" is the one that holds to the illogical, and commits with blind faith to the absolutist, metaphysical position of atheism.

I have never attacked science, talk about a straw man! I attack naturalism. Science is a tool that we both have to make our case. It is a great tool but it is only one, there is philosophy, logic, language, morals, and ethics, all things that must obtain prior to doing science and to even have this discussion. Notice these things are not physical and do not fall under the realm of science. Just because I don't use a hammer to brush my teeth, doesn't mean I am against hammers. Science is a tool that reveals truth. So before calling me foolish, make sure you at least understand my position please.

Have a nice eternity!

[tonyenglish7]

Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? Any theoretical being..??? See, the modern creation myth of Macro Evolution is non-falsifiable and is therefore not the default position. It needs positive evidence to succeed and so far, it is failing. I have positive evidence for my position, yet your evidence is scant at best.

This line of thought gets you nowhere, and proves nothing other than your inability to consider the most basic premise. Evolution requires each individual being to have a parent or parents. Any being that is not the result of a reproductive process cannot have evolved.

37? There are ways to answer his question. "Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved?"

There are an infinity of answers to his question. All you have to do is follow this pattern.

An animal to whom sunlight is poison could not have evolved in the desert without some means of protecting itself from the sun.

An animal which requires oxygen to survive, could not have evolved in the ocean without some means of extracting oxygen from the water.

An animal which exists at the bottom of the ocean must have some way of dealing with the water pressure.

In each case - the adult non-existent animal is the one that doesn't have the necessary adaptations.

It meets all the criteria of test as asked... AND if such a beastie was found (it'd be dead)... THEN that would be proof of ID. Will maybe not so 'intelligent' considering the fate of the beast - but it would be proof that ID can poof something into existence. (unless it fell from the sky... like a whale maybe... 42)

You completely missed the point; all of these animals do exist and should not. The sun should have killed any living thing in the desert yet lizards have complicated mechanisms to survive, fish have gills and rock cod have hard shells, none of that means anything because it begs the question. You say over time these animals developed from amino acids into proteins into dna and rna programs full of billions and trillions of units of information that further provided schemes to survive in order to pass on to the next generation these survival skills.

First, to simply avoid the "elephant in the room" as to how these systems of complex information which depend on thousands of interconnected functions in harmony, developed and survived, we have to answer how life began from non-life. If you know, even if you even have a vaguely coherent theory, you will be a rich man because nobody knows! Nobody even has a theory that is of any significance. I know, I know, just because you don't know something doesn't mean... blah blah blah... But that is not the point, it is that no matter what animal exists, theoretical "evolution of the gaps" comes in and says it must have been based upon survivability. And, there is no other option available theoretically, period. Call me a "fundie"? There are no skeptics within the religion of naturalism? Just one person not willing to drink the coolaid?

We could have a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater and scientist would come up with some "myth" as to how this creature could have started in the proverbial soup of amino acids and ended up being purple, flying with a horn and eating people. In am just saying, non-falsifiablity is a problem for all’ all.