Materialist Manifesto. It is a fact that there is no soul.

[c-sharp minor]

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/Philosophy-of-Religion

 

[biteme]

You've got soul bro. You've got soul.

I like a man who's man enough to admit when he's wrong. You're okay in my book Mr. Mastardo.

 

[Mastardo]

The two are not mutually exclusive (ie: the presence of one does not negate the other) So for example someone could argue in retort that this is the manner in which the Creator endowed us with these abillities.

The reason theism and science would be mutually exclusive is that both of them together are redundant, and are only consistent when religious ideas are changed to fit new scientific ideas. Generally, when one finds a better and more complete and consistent explanation, the old explanation is deemed incorrect; otherwise he would entertain the non-causative for no apparent reason.

I will admit that it is a smart policy for a religious insitution to claim that science does not necessarily contradict its faith; but the motives are transparent and to believe it probably requires faith. I don't dispute faith.

 

[BrothaBill]

We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior

 

[Mastardo]

We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior

There are several different versions of supposed quantum behavior of the brain. Some of them seem like imagined links between the brain and some non-physical mind/self, yet don't add much explanation for how intelligent behavior results from the chaotic combination of random contributions. Others seem a bit more interesting though. I might read one of Penrose's books on this to get a better understanding of these ideas.

 

[BrothaBill]

There are several different versions of supposed quantum behavior of the brain. Some of them seem like imagined links between the brain and some non-physical mind/self, yet don't add much explanation for how intelligent behavior results from the chaotic combination of random contributions. Others seem a bit more interesting though. I might read one of Penrose's books on this to get a better understanding of these ideas.

Yeah Samoth was discussing the Road to Reality on body mind forum. I am thinking about checking it out. I havent read it

 

[jerseyart]

Thanks honey.

You seem to view science as a competing religious institution. My claim was not that science would ever have all of the answers. Instead, my claim was that science has already explained the self, and that the scientific explanation of the universe was entirely more explanatory than the monotheistic ones.

This is not a claim of certainty. You can look at my definition of knowledge and see that knowledge is a maleable concept, but generally includes the causative properties stated therein. According to this definition of knowledge, and because of scientific explanations alluded to, it is a fact that there is no god or soul. If you include faith in the concept of knowledge, then many things can be fact. I don't dispute faith.

Actually, you are the one demanding certainty while my claim does not provide it. I do, however, provide a very binary yes/no answer that may seem arrogant. I am simply using the concept of knowledge without anthropic bias.

Because religion is such a touchy subject, people generally treat religious ideas in a unique fashion. This makes sense in many ways, but is also an example of anthropic bias. Treated with the same objectivity as a study on... corn stalks... the answer would seem more obvious.

Kid, either address what is actually written, or the discussion is done. I have little time or patience to continously point out that "I neevr made that claim" simply because you read some quote somewhere else that you think "would sound so cool as a rebuttal."

I never suggested the two were competing instituions. In fact I suggested the exact opposite by inference. The presence of a biological solution for emotion or reason does negate the presence of a divine author to have put it there.

Rather it was you who through the use of some bizarre and largely irrelevant claims suggested that you had proven God does not exist exactly by claiming that science had killed Him. You cant even recall which argument you're making from posts to post, why then should I bother with them?

Science exists to find natural answers to lifes mysteries. By definition a scientist cannot stop searching for a "natural" answer even if one does not exist. So theoretically if a non natural answer were to exists for any phenomena, science could spend untold billions of years searching for a reason that did not exist. Your faith is simply that a natural answer does exist for every mustery of existence. Thats fine, tithe at your Church as you choose. But its still only just a matter of faith.

In short the example you provided was useless to proving your suggestion that God does nbot exist. Frankly son at risk of beginning a new larger discussion your previous statements dont even demonstrate a passing knowledge of what constitutes the theological idea of a soul, yet you set out to disprove it anyway

LOL

Kids

 

[jerseyart]

The reason theism and science would be mutually exclusive is that both of them together are redundant, and are only consistent when religious ideas are changed to fit new scientific ideas. Generally, when one finds a better and more complete and consistent explanation, the old explanation is deemed incorrect; otherwise he would entertain the non-causative for no apparent reason.

I will admit that it is a smart policy for a religious insitution to claim that science does not necessarily contradict its faith; but the motives are transparent and to believe it probably requires faith. I don't dispute faith.

Last time I will parrot my response. And again ytou set up straw men and use insinuation to make a non point.

Ten men in different parts of the world are about to commit the same type of horrific crime against a child. In each circumstance the assailant is struck down and killed by lightning prior to completeing the horrendous act.

Scientists are called out to examine the phenomena. An explanation is given for what causes lightning. It is pointed out that in half the cases the requisite conditions for lightning , according to scientific models, did not exists in those locations. In one case the ligtning struck the assailant inside a building thats should have been proof against any such occurence. The scientists rightly determine that they cant offer an acceptable explanation, but that given time, they will.

Some high school kid then reads an artiucle on lightning and comes on elite and attempts to disprove the existence of God by pointing out that lightning has a natural cause, thus annoying anyone more familiar with what occured.

By our current understanding of physics the material universe should not exist. By our current understanding the possibility of a single living cell forming anywhere in the universe is so statistically impossible that it should not exist. By our current understanding of science the complexity of the eye is such that there is no reasonable explanation as to how it can work given in any evolutionary scheme.

Your imagining that science has in any way negated the idea of a Creator is so off base as to eb laughable. It only seems that way cause frankly you dont know enough to understand the questions, never mind the lack of an answer, at least by how youve presented yourself thus far.

 

[Mastardo]

First of all, you are half full of shit. Half of what you say is passable argument. The other half is just shit. Let's just clear up some issues right now. I have composed several research papers that have appeared in computer science journals in the US. I speak two languages fluently and I'm working on a third - and I don't mean only Western European languages which would be quite a lot easier. I have lived in 4 countries in my life so far. I travel a lot and I read a lot.

People in different corners of the world have relatively drastically differing views regarding sex and religion. But you act like anyone whom is not friendly towards western classical feminism and Christian ethical pride is a "kid". You are a very typical American. Your mind is not open and I doubt its worth debating with you. But since I started this thread I'll respond to your post.

Last time I will parrot my response. And again ytou set up straw men and use insinuation to make a non point.

Ten men in different parts of the world are about to commit the same type of horrific crime against a child. In each circumstance the assailant is struck down and killed by lightning prior to completeing the horrendous act.

Scientists are called out to examine the phenomena. An explanation is given for what causes lightning. It is pointed out that in half the cases the requisite conditions for lightning , according to scientific models, did not exists in those locations. In one case the ligtning struck the assailant inside a building thats should have been proof against any such occurence. The scientists rightly determine that they cant offer an acceptable explanation, but that given time, they will.

Some high school kid then reads an artiucle on lightning and comes on elite and attempts to disprove the existence of God by pointing out that lightning has a natural cause, thus annoying anyone more familiar with what occured.

I have nothing to say regarding this diatribe.

By our current understanding of physics the material universe should not exist.

What about our current understanding of physics demonstrates that our material universe should not exist? Secondly, our current understanding of physics has more explanatory power and is vastly more thoroughly supported than our theological "understanding", regarding our physical universe.

By our current understanding the possibility of a single living cell forming anywhere in the universe is so statistically impossible that it should not exist.

There is no mathematical definition that would allow us to compute such a probability.

By our current understanding of science the complexity of the eye is such that there is no reasonable explanation as to how it can work given in any evolutionary scheme.

This is similar to expecting scientists to be able to document every single step in the evolution of species to the time of man. There are simply too many steps. Of course it can't be explained intricately enough to satisfy those who demand absolute proof (it doesn't exist) or would assume that instead "god" came down and created eyes. Some evolutionary biologists have made statements regarding the lack of clarity of neo darwinian theory, yet these biologists (Steven Jay Gould) still think that evolution happened, via natural selection, variation and mutation.

However, even if there are major flaws in evolutionary theory, the entire neo darwinian theoretical framework need not be taken down. Science, in theory, should be corrected whenever possible and the correctness of its components are not usually interdependent. There are many more logically possible explanations.

Your imagining that science has in any way negated the idea of a Creator is so off base as to eb laughable. It only seems that way cause frankly you dont know enough to understand the questions, never mind the lack of an answer, at least by how youve presented yourself thus far.

Firstly, you need to open your mind. Secondly, you need to realize that I never stated that science negated the idea of a creator. I said that: Relatively recent developments in philosophy, using relatively recent scientific ideas, provide a generally more complete and consistent explanation of our universe and of the self than monotheistic religion. Treated as any other academic subject, we would deem the religious explanation/story to be false. Treated as any other non-academic subject, we would even more quickly deem the religious explanation/story to be false. This is knowledge without anthropic bias.

Anthropic bias permeates atheism-theism debates and "intelligent design" ID theory. In atheism-theism debates it amounts to the very strange treatment of religious subjects: the perpetual doubt that knowledge regarding the correctness of religious explanations of the universe is possible, the requirement of absolute proof when evaluating arguments for atheism. ID is the idea that humans were very unlikely to result from naturalistic explanations of the universe, that because of this naturalism is likely to be false, and (in some accounts) that since naturalism is false that theism must be true. For the last point, there are usually other ideas presented: that intelligent things usually have intelligent creators, etc. I honestly don't have time to deal with this argument much further. The probability alone is flawed. The idea that every intelligent thing has an intelligent creator is full of holes and counter examples. Anthropology is obvious counter example. If you want to argue for Intelligent Design... fire away.

 

[BrothaBill]

God doesnt exist, lightning proves it.