The Great Contradiction

[remez]

Ruby first of all I did try to respond to your prior post 51, but some server error kept preventing me from doing so. But I found a way to respond to you once again so let me address post 60 first for I think it addresses the main confusion you have with what I’m reasoning. Followed by my response to post 51 that I couldn’t respond to earlier.

But first in your last two posts I see a sincere attempt on your part to try to understand my reasoning here. Thank you. Thus I’m not trying at this point to get you to agree with me, but to accurately understand what it is that I’m reasoning. I expect you’ll still disagree with me in the end.
Post 60

In any case, the thing YOU seem to be taking about, that there can’t be free will in a materialistic universe, but there is, is not a contradiction, ….

You almost have it. If that was what I was asserting then you are correct.
But
I wasn’t asserting that exactly.
I’m not asserting there can’t there can’t be free will in a materialistic universe, bc as you correctly stated there is.
I’m questioning the EXPLANATION of the existence of free will, thinking, reasoning in the material universe.
so...
I’m asserting you cannot account for free will materialistically. Meaning the explanation for the existence of free will cannot be the material only explanation….. that our thinking, reasoning, free will is simply the function of matter and physics. The blind senseless collision of atoms. Because that would mean all is determined and that would eliminate reasoning altogether.

That is precisely what Haldane stated. It is a contradiction to freely reason that our reasoning is materially deterministic.


Now Post 51 ….more specifically why my reasoning fits here in the thread

Here is the weird part…I have tried several ways to respond to post 51. Apparently the quote function keeps producing some kind of error. So I had to delete out the =ruby sparks; 749664 part to get it on the board. But these following quotes are yours from 51.

Well that didn't work. So next I'll try simply to quote you in color....Ruby of course

Oh I get it now. It’s a detour away from the OP.

And not a very good one as far as I can see. I’ve been scratching my head after reading every single post you’ve made. What are you even actually on about? More to the point what’s it got to do with the OP, other than that you don’t like the implied criticisms in the OP and would rather change the subject?

Then no you don’t get it.
Because…
The OP is speculating about a material only (materialistic) solution for the brains ability to reason badly and be blind to it. (speficically theistic reasoning…,what he calls the great contradiction).

My post challenged the foundation of his assumption …..that the brains ability to reason can be explained materialistically (by matter and physics only) to begin with. It undercuts his assumption and thus his further reasoning of the OP based upon that assumption.

Because If the brains ability to reason can’t be explained materialistically to begin with then his call for a further materialistic explanation as the why the brain reasons badly and is blind to it is itself a contradiction. And that is what Haldane’s quote precisely points out.

…..even if everything, the universe, all thinking, were deterministic (temporarily assuming that to be the case even though I’m not sure it is) why would that make reasoning unreliable?

If all were determined then you did not have any other choice to write what you did. I had no other choice to respond to you the way I did. Neither of us is wrong or right. All that just happened was a movement of atoms. Your perceived conversation about reason with me here is an illusion. Just like bibly’s computer analogy earlier…post 33. There is no room for free thinking agents in a matter only (materialism) paradigm. If you can reconcile the contradiction then please do so.

To put it another way, if (if) the universe were clockwork, why would it not run like clockwork? Reasoning would then just be a feature of that, and could be very reliable indeed.

Think about the implications of your term “clockwork.”
Clockwork doesn’t reason. Clockwork is a product of reason.
Thus your “another way” is chronologically challenged.
Clocks are agency reasoned instruments that measure time.
Reasoning doesn’t come from the clockwork, clockwork comes from the reasoning.
So again how do you account for reasoning from the material only?

I agree with the observation that the quote from Haldane contains a non sequitur.

But then that contradicts your purported not understanding. If it is a non sequitur…..then it is incumbent upon you to point out why. Until such effort is presented your allegation is as baseless as bilby’s.

 

[Bomb#20]

Incidentally, Haldane was an idiot. He was a communist, which makes him an idiot all by itself; but more than that, he was a communist who kept defending Lysenko after the rest of Western geneticists had recognized him as a crackpot, and he was a communist who kept defending Stalin after the rest of Western communists had recognized him as a monster. Haldane is deservedly famous because he came up with a spectacularly good one-liner about God and beetles. But he was still an idiot.

Ad hominem.

What's your point?

 

[Bomb#20]

We all get to think for ourselves.

How?

With our electrochemical brains, of course. We get one each. No two are alike, so thoughts form in one brain that do not form in another. I can figure out facts Haldane couldn't. He could figure out facts I couldn't.

Freewill is assumed and yet argued against in atheistic reasoning. (welcome to freethought but it doesn't exist atheistically)

Well, in the first place, free will is an irrelevance to the issue at hand. If people have no choice about what to think then some brains will have to think correctly and others will have to make errors because of how the brains' pieces fit together, but that hardly changes the fact that the ones that think right, think right, and know it.

And in the second place, there's no reason to think material causes are incompatible with free will. The classic argument that causality conflicts with freedom is a reasoning error that Hume refuted back in the 1700s. The opinion persists because of cultural inertia. The intuitive basis for its plausibility is Western culture's previous general acceptance of Cartesian Dualism -- the notion that we have a physical brain and a separate immaterial mind. So if an action is caused by atoms in your brain then that means it isn't caused by your mind, so your mind is a helpless passenger rather than the driver of the vehicle. But Cartesian dualism is wrong. You ***are*** the atoms in your brain. So when the atoms in your brain cause your finger to move, that's ***you*** causing your finger to move. You are the driver. Where you go is your choice. You aren't a helpless passenger.

The point is, no, free will is not argued against in atheistic reasoning. Free will is argued against in semi-atheistic reasoning -- reasoning that adopts some atheistic premises and some theistic premises and tries to draw reasonable conclusions from the hopeless chimera formed by mixing the two. That's what you've been doing all along in this thread -- trying to figure out what atheism implies by adding atheistic premises to your premise set, but without deleting all of the conflicting theistic premises you live and breathe and take for granted. So of course you deduce contradictions. I'm not blaming you for this -- deleting the premises one takes for granted is ***hard***. But it's something you have to discipline yourself to do if you want to draw correct conclusions.

Which was precisely the point of my challenge......the contradiction.

There is no contradiction once you delete your own premises. Well, you may find contradictions between one atheist's premises and some completely different atheist's premises; but what of that? Nobody claimed atheists are infallible.

What bibly offered seemed to be a non sequitur that then went on to actually support my contention to begin with.

Not at all. Bilby simply pointed out that Haldane had not made a logical argument. Haldane's conclusion does not follow from his stated premises. Haldane most likely reasoned from unstated premises he absorbed by osmosis from the Christian culture he grew up in.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ruby first of all I did try to respond to your prior post 51, but some server error kept preventing me from doing so. But I found a way to respond to you once again so let me address post 60 first for I think it addresses the main confusion you have with what I’m reasoning. Followed by my response to post 51 that I couldn’t respond to earlier.

But first in your last two posts I see a sincere attempt on your part to try to understand my reasoning here. Thank you. Thus I’m not trying at this point to get you to agree with me, but to accurately understand what it is that I’m reasoning. I expect you’ll still disagree with me in the end.
Post 60

In any case, the thing YOU seem to be taking about, that there can’t be free will in a materialistic universe, but there is, is not a contradiction, ….

You almost have it. If that was what I was asserting then you are correct.
But
I wasn’t asserting that exactly.
I’m not asserting there can’t there can’t be free will in a materialistic universe, bc as you correctly stated there is.
I’m questioning the EXPLANATION of the existence of free will, thinking, reasoning in the material universe.
so...
I’m asserting you cannot account for free will materialistically. Meaning the explanation for the existence of free will cannot be the material only explanation….. that our thinking, reasoning, free will is simply the function of matter and physics. The blind senseless collision of atoms. Because that would mean all is determined and that would eliminate reasoning altogether.

That is precisely what Haldane stated. It is a contradiction to freely reason that our reasoning is materially deterministic.


Now Post 51 ….more specifically why my reasoning fits here in the thread

Here is the weird part…I have tried several ways to respond to post 51. Apparently the quote function keeps producing some kind of error. So I had to delete out the =ruby sparks; 749664 part to get it on the board. But these following quotes are yours from 51.

Well that didn't work. So next I'll try simply to quote you in color....Ruby of course

Oh I get it now. It’s a detour away from the OP.

And not a very good one as far as I can see. I’ve been scratching my head after reading every single post you’ve made. What are you even actually on about? More to the point what’s it got to do with the OP, other than that you don’t like the implied criticisms in the OP and would rather change the subject?

Then no you don’t get it.
Because…
The OP is speculating about a material only (materialistic) solution for the brains ability to reason badly and be blind to it. (speficically theistic reasoning…,what he calls the great contradiction).

My post challenged the foundation of his assumption …..that the brains ability to reason can be explained materialistically (by matter and physics only) to begin with. It undercuts his assumption and thus his further reasoning of the OP based upon that assumption.

Because If the brains ability to reason can’t be explained materialistically to begin with then his call for a further materialistic explanation as the why the brain reasons badly and is blind to it is itself a contradiction. And that is what Haldane’s quote precisely points out.

…..even if everything, the universe, all thinking, were deterministic (temporarily assuming that to be the case even though I’m not sure it is) why would that make reasoning unreliable?

If all were determined then you did not have any other choice to write what you did. I had no other choice to respond to you the way I did. Neither of us is wrong or right. All that just happened was a movement of atoms. Your perceived conversation about reason with me here is an illusion. Just like bibly’s computer analogy earlier…post 33. There is no room for free thinking agents in a matter only (materialism) paradigm. If you can reconcile the contradiction then please do so.

To put it another way, if (if) the universe were clockwork, why would it not run like clockwork? Reasoning would then just be a feature of that, and could be very reliable indeed.

Think about the implications of your term “clockwork.”
Clockwork doesn’t reason. Clockwork is a product of reason.
Thus your “another way” is chronologically challenged.
Clocks are agency reasoned instruments that measure time.
Reasoning doesn’t come from the clockwork, clockwork comes from the reasoning.
So again how do you account for reasoning from the material only?

I agree with the observation that the quote from Haldane contains a non sequitur.

But then that contradicts your purported not understanding. If it is a non sequitur…..then it is incumbent upon you to point out why. Until such effort is presented your allegation is as baseless as bilby’s.

Ok sorry that’s just far too garbled from start to finish, and as such, virtually impossible to respond to.

Just for starters and as before, you again seem to be assuming there is free will, and in addition you weirdly seem to think I agree with you on that, despite my previously comparing a belief in it to a belief in angels and ghosts.

Bye.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Universe contains dark matter and dark energy, things we were completely unaware of until very, very recently. We know these things exist because the universe is behaving in a certain way and could not behave the way it is without these components. We measure it and in short these components explain how the universe is working based on our observations.

We've speculated as to what could be comprising these things and right now the field is wide open. I'm unaware of any religious speculation that these new objects are angels, heavenly realms, holy spirits, souls of the earthly departed, gods, hells, or evidence of gods in any manner. Maybe someone with a religious bent would like to take a stab at how these latest discoveries demonstrate a creator or some religious claims.

Is there something immaterial about dark energy and dark matter? Are scientists and observers running off to churches and crying aloud that they've found evidence of mysterious, spooky, inexplicable, religious powers? Are scientists falling to their knees across astronomical circles and saying they've found proof of the incorporeal and unembodied? Are they weeping for joy and crying Hallelujah that they've been saved from having to embrace materialistic explanations relating to the cosmos?

My point is no, they have not, and fortunately no one is going to tie them up and burn them alive for their discoveries. Nor are persons who might hold that such observations show us their creator going to be burned either.

If claims of immaterialism are proof for a creator then materialism must be proof against a creator seems to me. Claims of immaterialism in science are exactly like claims of a garden of eden in human history. Supposedly a garden of eden existed where everything was perfect and happy and loving before we humans cocked it all up and got tossed out. But doesn't it seem downright strange that outside this alleged paradise the creator made an entirely imperfect universe with death and disease and all manner of human unpleasantness? Seems kinda dopey. And to me it "proves" that garden of eden claims, be they actual gardens or claims of spooky religious perfectionism are just more religious hooey.

I don't think our brains contain immaterial components that allow us to make decisions relative to a magic sky master anymore than I think we used to live in a garden of eden that put us into blissful contact with same.

 

[Learner]

The Universe contains dark matter and dark energy, things we were completely unaware of until very, very recently. We know these things exist because the universe is behaving in a certain way and could not behave the way it is without these components. We measure it and in short these components explain how the universe is working based on our observations.

You know about....even though you can't see it, indeed.

I remember the big fuss and having interest with the concept of Dark Matter over a decade ago, but then apparently, a better explanation of how the universe behaved got my attention and this was to do with "electrical" current, plasma throughout the cosmos i.e. Electric universe Theory. Which was the only field that could replicate the same behaviour (miniature plasma galaxy) in the lab. It got accepted only a few years ago, the theory was about for some time before that.

We've speculated as to what could be comprising these things and right now the field is wide open. I'm unaware of any religious speculation that these new objects are angels, heavenly realms, holy spirits, souls of the earthly departed, gods, hells, or evidence of gods in any manner. Maybe someone with a religious bent would like to take a stab at how these latest discoveries demonstrate a creator or some religious claims.

Its all very well trying to get theists to explain that particular area of science, which would be beyond explanation, especially trying to debate who or what is behind the "new object" notion, which as you say is "known" (but never seen)!

Is there something immaterial about dark energy and dark matter? Are scientists and observers running off to churches and crying aloud that they've found evidence of mysterious, spooky, inexplicable, religious powers? Are scientists falling to their knees across astronomical circles and saying they've found proof of the incorporeal and unembodied? Are they weeping for joy and crying Hallelujah that they've been saved from having to embrace materialistic explanations relating to the cosmos?

My point is no, they have not, and fortunately no one is going to tie them up and burn them alive for their discoveries. Nor are persons who might hold that such observations show us their creator going to be burned either.

If claims of immaterialism are proof for a creator then materialism must be proof against a creator seems to me. Claims of immaterialism in science are exactly like claims of a garden of eden in human history. Supposedly a garden of eden existed where everything was perfect and happy and loving before we humans cocked it all up and got tossed out. But doesn't it seem downright strange that outside this alleged paradise the creator made an entirely imperfect universe with death and disease and all manner of human unpleasantness? Seems kinda dopey. And to me it "proves" that garden of eden claims, be they actual gardens or claims of spooky religious perfectionism are just more religious hooey.

It seems you don't need churches to believe in something unseen, in a sci-fi sort of way.

I don't think our brains contain immaterial components that allow us to make decisions relative to a magic sky master anymore than I think we used to live in a garden of eden that put us into blissful contact with same.

There's a scientic, interpetive explanation for everything once it's found and understood, which could conclude the possibilty... or not.

 

[remez]

Incidentally, Haldane was an idiot. He was a communist, which makes him an idiot all by itself; but more than that, he was a communist who kept defending Lysenko after the rest of Western geneticists had recognized him as a crackpot, and he was a communist who kept defending Stalin after the rest of Western communists had recognized him as a monster. Haldane is deservedly famous because he came up with a spectacularly good one-liner about God and beetles. But he was still an idiot.

Ad hominem.

What's your point?

My point is your reasoning for rejecting Haldane’s assertion is fallacious. It is called an ad hominem attack. You attacked his political and personal beliefs rather than his unrelated assertion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
And
Just to get another one out of the way….

Haldane most likely reasoned from unstated premises he absorbed by osmosis from the Christian culture he grew up in.

That is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Freewill is assumed and yet argued against in atheistic reasoning. (welcome to freethought but it doesn't exist atheistically)

Well, in the first place, free will is an irrelevance to the issue at hand. If people have no choice about what to think then some brains will have to think correctly and others will have to make errors because of how the brains' pieces fit together, but that hardly changes the fact that the ones that think right, think right, and know it.

You’re missing the reasoning here. Free will is the RELAVENCE here. No free will….no choice. All is determined by moving atoms. Reasoning is just an illusion.
To be specific here….
By free will I’m mean that our thinking, reasoning are influenced but not caused by the material world. To believe our thinking is caused by the material world is not free will. It is determinism.

If determinism is the way of the universe then you don’t have the free will to think or reason at all. Choice does not exist. Think about it. If you just freely chose to think about it then you just proved to yourself that free will exits. Your thought was not caused solely by the movement of atoms.

Do you see the dilemma yet? Hence Haldane’s assertion.

Please understand I’m not trying to convert you to theistic view on this. I’m just trying to help you understand the theistic reasoning here. So when and if you freely choose to confront it, you’ll be able to confront it with understanding. What you have presented thus far does not reflect such understanding. Also, my tone will often reflect yours. So if you felt something a bit harsh go back and reread your quote that I’m responding to. I find it Hume-rous to throw it back at you where appropriate. All in good fun though.

We all get to think for ourselves.

How?

With our electrochemical brains, of course. We get one each. No two are alike, so thoughts form in one brain that do not form in another. I can figure out facts Haldane couldn't. He could figure out facts I couldn't.

As you state latter our brains are atomic movement. Atomic movement does not have free will or capacity to think. We don’t get to think if free will does not exist. By your reasoning there…..What you just said, you had no choice to say, you had to say it because the movement of atoms caused you to say it. The rational outcome of that reasoning infers that your thoughts… that your response…. was reasoned…. was just an illusion.

And in the second place, there's no reason to think material causes are incompatible with free will.

I freely choose not to reason that at all. I have the free will to correctly acknowledge that material causes are all around us. Hence they are completely compatible. What I’m protesting is that my thoughts on that were determined by a material cause.

And in the second place, there's no reason to think material causes are incompatible with free will. The classic argument that causality conflicts with freedom is a reasoning error that Hume refuted back in the 1700s.

I’m unaware of any classical argument stated that way. So please provide a link to that….should be easy if it is a classic. It seems like you are mixing up the “determines” of Hume’s Theory of Causality with our dilemma of free will vs. determinism. I really don’t see how the two relate. But I’m open to hear your thoughts on it.
Because…….
When you say “causality conflicts with freedom” you can mean one of two thoughts here. (as I read it.) And neither is reasonable at all.

You are inferring the material causality and thought are incompatible. Which is what I just redressed above. They are not in conflict unless you are asserting the free will has a material cause.
Or….
You are saying that the free will has a material cause. Which is a flat out contradiction. And not “Hume-rous” at all.

The opinion persists because of cultural inertia. The intuitive basis for its plausibility is Western culture's previous general acceptance of Cartesian Dualism -- the notion that we have a physical brain and a separate immaterial mind.

AKA substance dualism. OK.
And you assert that it is wrong. OK.
But….
Here is the issue I have with that.

But to what end?
Is your view one of physicalism or property dualism?
Or some other alternative I haven’t heard of yet?

And this……..as I understand it this here is…………

So if an action is caused by atoms in your brain then that means it isn't caused by your mind, so your mind is a helpless passenger rather than the driver of the vehicle. But Cartesian dualism is wrong. You ***are*** the atoms in your brain. So when the atoms in your brain cause your finger to move, that's ***you*** causing your finger to move. You are the driver. Where you go is your choice. You aren't a helpless passenger.

…….your attempt to show the substance dualism is wrong.

So….let examine your attempt.
I am the atoms of my brain. The atoms move my fingers presumably to control the vehicle. Thus I am the driver and not a helpless passenger.
But that means………
Since I am the atoms of my brain and I am the driver, then the atoms are the driver.
So where in there is free will?
Because
Atoms do not choose nor reason. Their movements are determined by material causation.
Gravity does not choose to act. Nor can it act differently.
Atoms do not choose to stop the car or go, turn left or right, go to the movies or the beach.

How am I not a helpless passenger if there is no free will?

Somewhere in there you deceived yourself. Do you see where?
Well…
You smuggled in free will with your nebulous “YOU”. You assumed “YOU” has a choice to reason. “YOU” can’t choose if “YOU” is just atomic movement.

The point is, no, free will is not argued against in atheistic reasoning.

You have not made that point at all. You actually made the case that it does.

Free will is argued against in semi-atheistic reasoning -- reasoning that adopts some atheistic premises and some theistic premises and tries to draw reasonable conclusions from the hopeless chimera formed by mixing the two.

Explain this semi-atheistic reasoning to me. You simply make an assertion there without reason of what the premises are and why the reasoning fails. Meaning your assertion at this point is baseless until you make a case for your assertion.

The whole thing sounds made up to me. Some mislabeling and misinterpretation of your pseudo-understanding of this topic. But please make your case.

That's what you've been doing all along in this thread -- trying to figure out what atheism implies by adding atheistic premises to your premise set, but without deleting all of the conflicting theistic premises you live and breathe and take for granted.

That’s your interpretation.
But
My conclusions have been reach by examining the alternatives of this issue. Substance dualism to me is the only reasonable choice. At least I can name them and not get them all mixed up.
To evidence my conclusion of your mixed up understanding….. List for me the “atheistic premises” I have assumed into my reasoning here and why I did so. And what theistic premises I need to delete and why. Then we will actually have something to address other than your empty assertion.

So of course you deduce contradictions. I'm not blaming you for this -- deleting the premises one takes for granted is ***hard***. But it's something you have to discipline yourself to do if you want to draw correct conclusions.

I concur with your thoughts on epistemic duty.
But…..
I disagree with your baseless assertion that my deductions are based on unexamined assumptions.

You have attempted to make your case that my belief in substance dualism is assumed. Yet I’ve addressed all of the concerns you presented so far. Thus I have reasonably demonstrated to you my position is not assumed. Your baseless allegations there are quite insulting.

Which was precisely the point of my challenge......the contradiction.

There is no contradiction once you delete your own premises.

You have provided no reason as to why I should delete my premises. We have free will or we do not. If we do not have free will then we have determinism. You have been miserably trying to make the case that determinism provides free will. I examined your case, provided reasons as to why it is not reasonable. To believe that determinism provides free will IS a contradiction. Perhaps that is a premise you should delete? I don’t blame you if you don’t. It’s hard for the undisciplined. (your words!)

What bibly offered seemed to be a non sequitur that then went on to actually support my contention to begin with.

Not at all. Bilby simply pointed out that Haldane had not made a logical argument. Haldane's conclusion does not follow from his stated premises.

And I countered his charge of it being a massive non sequitur. Which you have failed the reason into your assertion there. Simply repeating bibly’s error does not make it correct.
So……
Prove to me that you’ve reasoned that correctly. Give me the Haldane’s premises, conclusion and the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion and then point out where any of it is wrong. Before you reply, you may want to first go back and read my reply to bibly on that.

 

[remez]

Ok sorry that’s just far too garbled from start to finish, and as such, virtually impossible to respond to.

Ok.
But realize the impossibility to respond doesn’t infer I did not sincerely present a rational position on the matter. This is a common debate among philosophers, theologians and scientists. My position of substance dualism is completely in the mainstream of the debate. I could even argue your determinism (physicalism or property dualism) for you. But then again you don’t even have the foggiest idea about the topic at all. To which you belittle my efforts to sincerely explain them to you.
So next time if you don’t have any idea about the debate at hand keep quite with your useless spidery criticisms or ask for helpful clarifications to further your understanding.
Also….

Just for starters and as before, you again seem to be assuming there is free will, …….

I’m not assuming at all. Do you understand your charge there?

How can you charge me with assuming my position while at the same time be bemoaning that all my reasoning and support for the existence of free will is useless garble?
Be fair now……
Your confessed lack of knowledge here cannot logically render my position as assumed in the face of what I have offered in defense, support and clarification.

My prior post offered a great deal of both pro and con for you to begin a quest to understand this topic. I encourage you to take the journey of enlightenment with this. Come back with your challenges when you’re ready.
Or
Sincerely ask me for clarifications to help you on your quest.
But…
Please stop asserting that my position is assumed in the face of evidence and reasoning to the contrary. And stop inferring your lack of understanding as my fault.
Again….Please….
Be Fair
Bye.

 

[remez]

The Universe contains dark matter and dark energy, things we were completely unaware of until very, very recently. We know these things exist because the universe is behaving in a certain way and could not behave the way it is without these components. We measure it and in short these components explain how the universe is working based on our observations.

Amen.

We've speculated as to what could be comprising these things and right now the field is wide open. I'm unaware of any religious speculation that these new objects are angels, heavenly realms, holy spirits, souls of the earthly departed, gods, hells, ……..

Me neither.

But ….your “or” bifurcates the reasoning there from your straw man of religious misidentification to one of supporting evidence…..

….or evidence of gods in any manner.

……to which I could argue that any new scientific evidence the supports the present overwhelming paradigm of an expanding universe would therefore also support the existence of a theist God. Enough said.

Maybe someone with a religious bent would like to take a stab at how these latest discoveries demonstrate a creator or some religious claims.

That would be altering your own thread and create great confusion. You and I have battled over cosmology before. Not taking the bait. You and many others well know my propensity to battle in that arena. We have already agreed to disagree.

Is there something immaterial about dark energy and dark matter?

I don’t think so.
But as you said the field is wide open.

Are scientists and observers running off to churches and crying aloud that they've found evidence of mysterious, spooky, inexplicable, religious powers? Are scientists falling to their knees across astronomical circles and saying they've found proof of the incorporeal and unembodied? Are they weeping for joy and crying Hallelujah that they've been saved from having to embrace materialistic explanations relating to the cosmos?

Some are and history is full of scientists that did.
However…..
You are conflating two different issues here reasoning and worship.

Theistically speaking science cannot prove that God exists. It can support premises in an argument/reasoning that concludes his existence but it can’t prove God exists. Science is philosophically limited to natural explanations. God theistically transcends nature. So again science can support God’s existence but it cannot prove it.

Worship is and act that depends upon reasoning. Some people can’t reason beyond the philosophical limits of science. For those of us who can, the universe declares the glory of God. But that still comes down to how you reason it.

My point is no, they have not, and fortunately no one is going to tie them up and burn them alive for their discoveries. Nor are persons who might hold that such observations show us their creator going to be burned either.

Trite emotional appeal.
Plus ….your point is no……well……
That disregards the existence of the scientists that are and those that did. Can you reasonably deny their existence?

If claims of immaterialism are proof for a creator then materialism must be proof against a creator seems to me.

Then your version of theism is a straw man. I can assure you that both the material and immaterial are well reasoned within theism. I’m not purporting that all theists are apt enough to present it, but theism reasonably accounts for each.

Claims of immaterialism in science are exactly like claims of a garden of eden in human history.

Another straw man. Immaterialism is a direct inference from what we observe around us. The Garden of Eden is mytho-history. Hardly the same thing.

Supposedly a garden of eden existed where everything was perfect and happy and loving before we humans cocked it all up and got tossed out. But doesn't it seem downright strange that outside this alleged paradise the creator made an entirely imperfect universe with death and disease and all manner of human unpleasantness? Seems kinda dopey. And to me it "proves" that garden of eden claims, be they actual gardens or claims of spooky religious perfectionism are just more religious hooey.

That’s one way to reason it. Certainly not very worshipful.

I don't think our brains contain immaterial components that allow us to make decisions relative to a magic sky master anymore than I think we used to live in a garden of eden that put us into blissful contact with same.

Neither do I.
I don’t reason that our brains contain immaterial material either.

See we can agree.
Happy New Year.

 

[aupmanyav]

The blind senseless collision of atoms. Because that would mean all is determined and that would eliminate reasoning altogether. .. All that just happened was a movement of atoms. .. There is no room for free thinking agents in a matter only (materialism) paradigm.

Do atoms collide or move? No, only energy is passed on.

 

[abaddon]

I agree with Haldane. I am not convinced of scientific materialism. It doesn't necessitate introducing something from beyond nature though. My own inclination is the idea of panpsychism might be a glance towards the right direction. The "hard problem of consciousness" isn't remotely close to solved so it's an open question. But using gaps in knowledge to squeeze in an ancient myth-based belief is the wrong track.

My only point being, this topic does nothing to put a dent in either atheism or naturalism. Theists persistently conflate the "ism" words - atheism, scientific materialism, naturalism. They're not interchangeable terms.

 

[abaddon]

... only energy is passed on.

Hey aupmanyav! You're not here enough!

 

[remez]

The blind senseless collision of atoms. Because that would mean all is determined and that would eliminate reasoning altogether. .. All that just happened was a movement of atoms. .. There is no room for free thinking agents in a matter only (materialism) paradigm.

Do atoms collide or move? No, only energy is passed on.

How does your semantical clarification of phenomenological description alter the notion?

Are atoms blind?

 

[Lion IRC]

...The "hard problem of consciousness" isn't remotely close to solved so it's an open question.

When you say "solved" I assume you mean it's only a hard problem for materialists.

remez isn't laying awake all night trying to solve the troublesome problem of "the soul".
I'm not constantly bombarded by atheists and their gotcha questions about free will.
#checkmate Lion IRC
Learner certainly isn't worried about the 'hard problems' you atheists face.
He sent me a link to this short and astonishing YouTube that scientifically demolishes materialism.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI
Michael Egnor, MD, - Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University.

...and this one which gives a clinical, secular assessment of just how (depressingly) far away we are from understanding - let alone artificially synthesising- the building blocks of biological life.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y
James Tour - Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas.
See how quickly he factually demonstrates that time + random chance doesn't work because time is the enemy. And random chance - materialism - is statistically more likely to 'forget' what it was working on. Like the forgetful Dory in Finding Nemo, there's no 'memory' of what works to synthesise life and what doesn't. You have to go back to square one every time and start over.

So the hard problems are all on the atheist side of the debate. They are your problems.

1. (Atheistic) Materialism - atoms don't decide to evolve. You need a God particle.
2. A non-theistic explanation of consciousness - the more science you throw at the problem, the harder it gets to solve.
3. Abiogenesis - blind chance or panspermia. Those are your two Hail Mary pass theories?
4. Artificial Intelligence - that Holy Grail of atheism is and always will be a dream as long as the Being who observes the AI they created knows that it's still artificial.
5. Intelligent Design - your alternative explanation is to conjure up an infinite number of possible universes.
6. Free will (consciousness) - your only response is that dualism must be just an illusion.
7. The afterlife - why don't atheists just admit that this is NOT an AvT dichotomy. You don't have to be a theist to think there's life after death.
8. (Non-theistic) moral epistemology. Without God, you still can't get any further than https://bittersweetaspects.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/im-right-youre-wrong.jpg

It's an intellectually honest admission of ignorance when atheists say "we don't know".
But all I can hear is...materialism works in mysterious ways.

 

[skepticalbip]

..., snip ...

So the hard problems are all on the atheist side of the debate. They are your problems.

Of course they are. For the theist, anything that isn't obvious is attributed to god or can be found in the holy book... No further attempt at understanding is necessary or maybe even sinful.

 

[abaddon]

Lion, whatever problems there are for science or philosophers or anyone in your list, there remains this problem for theists: God isn't an explanation.

 

[ruby sparks]

I agree with Haldane. I am not convinced of scientific materialism. It doesn't necessitate introducing something from beyond nature though. My own inclination is the idea of panpsychism might be a glance towards the right direction. The "hard problem of consciousness" isn't remotely close to solved so it's an open question. But using gaps in knowledge to squeeze in an ancient myth-based belief is the wrong track.

My only point being, this topic does nothing to put a dent in either atheism or naturalism. Theists persistently conflate the "ism" words - atheism, scientific materialism, naturalism. They're not interchangeable terms.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

One interesting question might be to ask what you agree with Haldane about, because.....well I personally am not sure what opinion he is expressing, or whether that quote is sometimes hijacked out of context and/or into a different, possibly inappropriate one, sometimes perhaps by theists, as here.

Also, I am no expert on Haldane’s views, but I have read the short essay that quote is from (entitled ‘When I’m Dead’, published I believe in 1927 when he was 35) but as I understand it he at other times said things which were quite at odds with it.

At the time of writing it, he appears to have been leaning in the direction of pantheism, but I am not sure how much he would have gone along with that suggestion himself. All I can say is that if he did at some point lean that way, I myself would think him probably mistaken to have done so.

As to the so-called hard problem of consciousness, I am one of those who thinks it a much exaggerated issue. So we don’t know exactly how it arises from brain activity. Big deal. I think we can be pretty sure it arises from brain activity somehow. In some ways, to me, it’s been made into a ‘special’ problem because of our human fascination with the possibilities of the supernatural and the fact that consciousness ‘feels funny’. In many ways there are equally ‘hard problems’ that we don’t obsess about so much (eg the hard problem of gravity).

 

[remez]

Lion I hope this helps.

Let me first begin this response with an acknowledgement that I’m sure we both agree wtith…. that god of the gaps philosophy (gotg) does exist and is wrong. When you DON”T HAVE REASON for some gap of understanding you simply ASSUME god did it. It happens and has happened throughout history. But all should be aware that it is just as wrong and prevalent to assume a nature of the gaps (notg) philosophy.
But
It is also true that many skeptics have FALSELY accused theists of that errant reasoning. For if the skeptic ignores the inferences/reasons being provided by the theist and instead arbitrarily opts to mislabel or ignore the provided theistic reasoning as purely assumption then the error lies with the skeptic.

This is important. For many false narratives by the skeptic toward the theist spin off this pseudo philosophy. Ex: You shut down science/understanding when you assume god into the gaps. God is not an understanding just an assumption. Skeptic epistemology is more virtuous because we can admit that we don’t know. Etc. I’m pretty sure several more examples are about to present themselves following this post.

With that on the table let me begin…………

….It's an intellectually honest admission of ignorance when atheists say "we don't know".

Is it?
Or
Is it?

Careful....Lion………Think about it.

There are two levels of inference going on there that skeptics are lazily conflating.

Level 1. Obviously it is honest at the level of not being certain, to assert we don’t know.
Theists are not denying that.
But ……
To arbitrarily extend that honest level 1 admission
To a level 2 pseudo philosophy …….that it then remains honest to arbitrarily deny/ignore all positive reasonable inference about what we don’t know…..is in no way honest. To charge gotg here in this thread, in the face of all the reasoning that has been provided, is pure ignorance and/or DISHONESTY.


It is lazy. It is close minded. If skeptics arbitrarily don’t like the direction your reasoning is going they philosophically shut it down your reasoning and ignorantly allege gotg. They do so by hiding behind the honestly of level 1. Years ago (here) I coined it IDKism. It cloths them in virtue as they create disparaging names…like sky daddy etc. It’s a security blanket, that full of holes and with that false blanket of security they reason that they shut down the conversation and falsely believe they have prevailed. And remember, skeptics like to proclaim that theists are the ones stunting reasoning.

Observe these quick three references all from the same page……..

The "hard problem of consciousness" isn't remotely close to solved so it's an open question. But using gaps in knowledge to squeeze in an ancient myth-based belief is the wrong track.

And……………..

Lion, whatever problems there are for science or philosophers or anyone in your list, there remains this problem for theists: God isn't an explanation.

And…………….

..., snip ...

So the hard problems are all on the atheist side of the debate. They are your problems.

Of course they are. For the theist, anything that isn't obvious is attributed to god or can be found in the holy book... No further attempt at understanding is necessary or maybe even sinful.

….overtly demonstrate their IDKism.

They arbitrarily ignore our reasoned inferences. Then ignorantly default our position to assumption. And then falsely charge us with gotg. And being as virtuous as they are, they conclude your REASONING trumped.

This thread is replete with our purported reasoning. They have forgotten that they have even engaged in attempting to defeat it. But in the end they lazily and arbitrarily ignore our reasoning and mislabel it to be assumption in order to end the conversation by lobbing their harmless spit ball of gotg.

That is what we are up against.
Again
I hope that helps.
and............
Happy New Year.

 

[remez]

I agree with Haldane. I am not convinced of scientific materialism. It doesn't necessitate introducing something from beyond nature though. My own inclination is the idea of panpsychism might be a glance towards the right direction. The "hard problem of consciousness" isn't remotely close to solved so it's an open question. But using gaps in knowledge to squeeze in an ancient myth-based belief is the wrong track.

My only point being, this topic does nothing to put a dent in either atheism or naturalism. Theists persistently conflate the "ism" words - atheism, scientific materialism, naturalism. They're not interchangeable terms.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

One interesting question might be to ask what you agree with Haldane about, because.....well I personally am not sure what opinion he is expressing......

AND THAT was my big point to you in my last post. Nice question.

So please abaddon, give it a shot.

 

[Treedbear]

...

Free will is argued against in semi-atheistic reasoning -- reasoning that adopts some atheistic premises and some theistic premises and tries to draw reasonable conclusions from the hopeless chimera formed by mixing the two.

Explain this semi-atheistic reasoning to me. You simply make an assertion there without reason of what the premises are and why the reasoning fails. Meaning your assertion at this point is baseless until you make a case for your assertion.
...

Earlier in the thread:

...

And yet you still do not define explicitly what you mean by the phrase, "free will".

...
Free will means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused.
...

Which seems a likely point to mix atheist and theist reasoning and produce a contradiction. I'd be interested to hear where you draw the distinction between influences and causes. It seems to me that for any event, such as the act of making a decision, there are many influences, or causes, or reasons, all having various weights. How do you distinguish where this uncaused component fits in? And for the life of me I can't imagine making a decision for no reason. Or even for making the decision to choose randomly, as in "flipping a coin". To me free will can only mean being free to be what I am. No more and no less. And even though I might want to change, that in itself is a characterization of what I am at the moment. Why would I want to be other than what I am? It would be a discontinuity within my existence! The ultimate non sequitar! I find no agency in that. There's no there there. If I should make a decision and think that I had no reason for making it I know there's more to it than just "because free will". And if it's an important decision it's probably a good idea to find out what it is. The spooky free will that theists (and even athiests at times) talk of is just the reason they give instead of "I don't know why I did it." It's determinism all the way down.