You are on page 1of 20

Hell is an Unattended Stove on: August 20, 2010, 10:05:43 am Message ID: 223487 Hell is an Unattended Stove?

e? by Astreja You've probably heard various Christians make the following statement, or a variation on it: "God doesn't send us to Hell; we send ourselves there." Let's take a close look at the above assertion.

Quote

First of all, there's an implicit assumption that an individual will have an actual choice to go to either the Nice Place or the Not-So-Nice place, somehow overriding the Divine Will of the omnipotent and omniscient Biblegod. This flies in the face of at least one variant of Christianity, Calvinism, which asserts that Biblegod has already picked out the "saved" and discarded everyone else. Secondly, it is also assumed that Biblegod will not only know about this person's "choice" but knew about it in advance, and permits it to happen anyway. The usual excuse given for this is that Biblegod does not want to impose upon our free will. Does anyone else see the problem with this? I present the analogy of the Parent and the Unattended Stove. A small child toddles into the kitchen. In that kitchen is a stove with all the burners turned to 'High', and a ladder conveniently located right next to the stove. The child climbs the ladder, and falls off it onto the blazing stove. Oh, and did I mention that the Parent is standing just footsteps away, washing dishes in the sink? At this point, what Christian apologists would have us believe is that this is somehow all the fault of the child -Who is now on fire and screaming in agony. To you, ladies and gentlemen, I just have this to say: What kind of parent would go to the stove, turn all the burners on, put a ladder beside the stove, watch their own child climb that ladder, allow the child to fall onto the stove, and then just stand there for eternity and let the child scream? The "free will" argument is a red herring, and a convenient excuse for not confronting the immorality of Biblegod. Any parent worthy of the name would rescue the child at the first possible opportunity, without even considering the child's "free will." Better yet, a conscientious parent would childproof the kitchen to prevent such catastrophes from happening in the first place -- And again, "free will" has nothing to do with it. It's just good parenting. You do not do your god honour with this kind of argument, by the way. It makes your invisible friend look like a maniac, and it makes you look like a thoughtless dolt. Please give serious consideration to the above, and stop making excuses for the inexcusable.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #2 on: August 20, 2010, 12:18:19 pm Message ID: 223531

Quote

Modify

Remove

By Rich Deem Christianity claims that God knows everything. The theological term is "omniscience." There are some implications of this doctrine that non-believers find troubling or even unacceptable to the concept of a loving God. If God knows everything, then He knows that some people whom He creates will end up in hell. Why would God create people who are destined for hell? It turns out that there are many unstated assumptions in this question, which are not valid for Christianity. A related question, "Why wouldn't God just create everyone to enjoy the glory of heaven?" will also be answered. Destined for hell Predestined for hell The first, and most prevalent, incorrect assumption is that a person who is destined for hell has been predestined for hell by God. This is false. People choose to go to hell rather than submit their lives to God. You have absolute free will within the confines of your personal ability. You can prove this to yourself. Determine two possible courses of action. They don't have to be big decisions, just any two possible actions. Assign each action to either "heads" or "tails." Flip the coin and do what whatever course chance decided. You can do this as many times as needed to determine that you do, indeed, have free will. Occasionally, do the opposite of what the coins tell you. Has God prevented you from doing anything? No! God alone created you The second incorrect assumption is that God alone has created you. You are the product of choices made by your parents. Therefore, God has not predestined you to be born at all. How can you blame Him for creating you to send you to hell? This is not to say that God is not involved at all in the creation of life. The Bible says that once a new human life is made God creates a spirit within the fetus1 and knows us at that point, even calling some to serve Him from the womb.2 People destined for hell have no earthly purpose The third incorrect assumption is that a person destined for hell has no purpose in this life. This is also false. All people living have a purpose. Some people destined for hell will save other's lives, either intentionally or unintentionally. Others destined for hell will be helped, encouraged, and witnessed to by others who are destined for heaven. Those who follow God's plan are provided opportunities to help others in their spiritual path. If all people were on the same spiritual path, there would be nobody for God's people to help. God says that all are without excuse, so He provides witnesses of his plan to give them a chance to change their minds. Rewards and punishment Another possible assumption is that the only purpose of this life is to choose to follow God or reject Him. This is also false. This life is used as a measure of reward and punishment. All who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will go to heaven, but the amount of reward in heaven will be directly related to how closely each one followed God's will in his life. Likewise, all those who reject Jesus Christ will go to hell and will be punished to the degree of how much evil they committed in their life. This is why God allows people to make their own

choices. Why wouldn't God just create everyone to enjoy the glory of heaven? Skeptics might claim that God, in knowing all the choices a person would make, would not need to create all the people who would end up in hell. This question also has some underlying assumptions. The assumption is that since God knows all the answers, He would have no need of "running the experiment." Just put the good people directly into heaven? The assumption that God could just put the good people directly into heaven seems to be valid for God, but has some problems when applied to humans. For some reason, skeptics leave themselves out of the equation. They want God to run the thought experiment and put those souls who would make the right choice (believe in Jesus Christ) directly into heaven and not even create those who would reject Him. The problem is that God would then be liable to the accusation of rewarding some people more than others, since reward is proportional to good deeds done in life. Since there was no real life, how could God hand out rewards? Should He tell people what they would have done and let them be content with that? How would those souls know anything about life, goodness, and doing the right thing if they had never lived before? God could be considered to be unjust, since His actions would not be based upon choices made by real characters. Would God just put those fake memories into their heads? If He did so, God would be creating deceptions, which contradicts His perfect character. When people think deeply about their "perfect" plan about what God "should have done," they realize that there are logical problems. What most people would create, as god, would be robots, since they would have no choice at all. Ever try loving your computer? It is not a very satisfying relationship. So it would be with the robots that skeptics would send directly into heaven.

The "problems" about the loving God of Christianity posed by the skeptics rests on invalid assumptions. Based on an invalid understanding of God's foreknowledge, they seek to avoid the consequences of their free will choice by offering a "solution" that violates the perfect character of God. Therefore, the "solution" would not be a valid solution for the God of Christianity.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #4 on: August 20, 2010, 01:52:19 pm Message ID: 223556

Quote

Sherna, that article you posted is another one of the ones I read from your favorite site. You're free to post it, of course, but it makes me wonder if you really understand the argument against hell at all. Quote from: shernajwine on August 20, 2010, 12:18:19 pm The first, and most prevalent, incorrect assumption is that a person who is destined for hell has been predestined for hell by God. This is false. People choose to go to hell rather than submit their lives to God. Pre-destined in the sense that because god is all-knowing, we are living in a DETERMINISTIC universe without free will. There CANNOT be free will if god is omniscient -- it's logically impossible. So either god isn't omniscient, there is no god, or we're all just puppets.

Believers like to slime around this by saying, "Well, god knows the outcomes of each of the options, but YOU choose which option to take." That is not the definition of ALL-knowing, sorry!

Quote You are the product of choices made by your parents. Therefore, God has not predestined you to be born at all. How can you blame Him for creating you to send you to hell? I am VERY surprised the author chose to make this "point", because do you know what it means? A person's "soul" is not special -- it's just a random sperm out of millions fusing with your mom's Egg of the Month. Had your mom and dad chose not to have sex at the EXACT MOMENT that they did, "you" would not be here!! Are you sure you want to stand behind this one, Christians? Quote The third incorrect assumption is that a person destined for hell has no purpose in this life. Um, you just said no one was pre-destined for hell! Contradiction city! Quote Some people destined for hell will save other's lives, either intentionally or unintentionally. Who cares what a hell-bound person does in this life?? They're still going to burn in agony, for ever and ever! Quote This life is used as a measure of reward and punishment. Sounds like a very man-made concept. Life can be hard enough, why make it harder needlessly worrying about burning infinitely for finite crimes? Quote Since there was no real life, how could God hand out rewards? Should He tell people what they would have done and let them be content with that? How would those souls know anything about life, goodness, and doing the right thing if they had never lived before? It seems to work okay for the angels, yes? This point is called "making stuff up to explain the state of the world". Quote Would God just put those fake memories into their heads? Well, we're going to have some issues in heaven regardless when it comes to forgetting about the friends/family burning in hell, becoming bored, accidentally thinking something bad (we still have free will in heaven, right?), etc. Quote Ever try loving your computer? It is not a very satisfying relationship. Sure it is! I have news for you -- our brains are nothing but computers. And computers that we build will be smarter than us in a few years.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #5 on: August 20, 2010, 02:07:29 pm Message ID: 223565

Quote

Modify

Remove

Your entire reply shows that you don't understand. (sigh) But I mainly posted the information for other people who read your post, so they could get both sides. I'm not in it for the argument. But I do find it amusing that you think you can have a satisfying relationship with a computer. My brain is a computer, but my brain is not me. You can't open up my brain and know who I am. I have a mind, and it is separate from my brain. My computer does not appreciate beauty, it cannot get angry, it can't feel, it doesn't have a mind. But if you have a loving relationship with your computer, more power to you!

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #8 on: August 20, 2010, 04:04:51 pm Message ID: 223610 Quote from: shernajwine on August 20, 2010, 02:07:29 pm But I do find it amusing that you think you can have a satisfying relationship with a computer. The Internet is awesome! So is PC gaming. Computers are one of man's greatest accomplishments... Quote My brain is a computer, but my brain is not me.

Quote

Your brain is ENTIRELY you! That's why people who suffer from head trauma become completely different people. Quote You can't open up my brain and know who I am. On the contrary, doctors can tell MANY things about you from looking at your brain. Quote I have a mind, and it is separate from my brain. Uh...no it's not. The mind is a by-product of the chemical processes of the brain! It resides entirely within your brain, and is therefore completely physical. Quote My computer does not appreciate beauty, it cannot get angry, it can't feel, it doesn't have a mind. Given the exponential rate of the growth in technology, within a few years, there most certainly WILL be

computers that are indistinguishable from human brains. We will have robots that think they're alive and special and can feel; when that happens, how will they be any different from us?

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #9 on: August 20, 2010, 05:20:29 pm Message ID: 223638

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote Your brain is ENTIRELY you! That's why people who suffer from head trauma become completely different people. Computers have artificial intelligence not intelligence. And there's a huge difference. There's no 'what it's like to be a computer.' A computer has no 'insides,' no awareness, no first-person point of view, no insights into problems. A computer doesn't think, 'You know what? I now see what this multiplications problem is really like.' A computer can engage in behavior if it's wired properly, but you've got to remember that consciousness is not the same as behavior. Consciousness is being alive; it's what causes behavior in really conscious beings. But what causes behavior in a computer is electric circuitry. Case for a Creator A computer will NEVER have an individual thought process that provides an opinion based on feelings about what is beautiful, sad, ugly. A computer will never cry for no reason because of an overflow of emotion, a computer is programmed to act a certain way. It will never, no matter how technologically advanced it may be, ever be able to experience human emotions the way human's experience them. Your materialistic view is founded on a naturalistic philosophy, not scientific fact. Also, if you believe human consciousness is just something that happens as a natural byproduct of your brain's complexity....how do you explain it's evolution? Are you saying that prior to this level of complexity, matter contained the potential for "mind" to emerge? And if mind emerged from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence, why should you trust anything from your mind as being rational or true, especially in the area of theoretical thinking? An analogy would be...if you had a computer that was programmed by random forces or by non-rational laws without a mind being behind it. Would you trust a printout from that machine? I wouldn't.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #12 on: August 20, 2010, 06:45:28 pm Message ID: 223683

Quote

Quote from: shernajwine on August 20, 2010, 05:20:29 pm Also, if you believe human consciousness is just something that happens as a natural byproduct of your brain's complexity....how do you explain it's evolution? It was beneficial to the species. It's a natural consequence of simple things becoming more and more complex and bad replicators dying off.

Quote Are you saying that prior to this level of complexity, matter contained the potential for "mind" to emerge? Clearly it had the potential, because here we are. Just because our species is tops in intelligence is really not something to be surprised about. Should we fret over why the cheetah is the fastest, or why giraffes have the longest neck? We're smart because it was beneficial to our species to be smart. That is all. Quote And if mind emerged from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence, why should you trust anything from your mind as being rational or true, especially in the area of theoretical thinking? An analogy would be...if you had a computer that was programmed by random forces or by non-rational laws without a mind being behind it. Would you trust a printout from that machine? I wouldn't. And why does god's intelligence not require an explanation? It's the magical trump card. Natural selection isn't random...what isn't beneficial for the species dies out. ALL animals have some degree of consciousness. As for trusting our brains, we might be living in the freaking Matrix. But it's not very helpful to put all of our eggs in that basket; the senses for an average person are reliable enough to have a working picture of reality. We can confirm and observe things together.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #19 on: August 20, 2010, 07:46:04 pm Message ID: 223711

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote It was beneficial to the species. It's a natural consequence of simple things becoming more and more complex and bad replicators dying off. That doesn't answer the question. If I had asked, WHY did human consciousness come into being...well even then your answer is an over generalization that doesn't really explain anything at all. But my question was HOW. How does evolution theory explain the appearance of consciousness in human beings. I'm not even talking about animal consciousness although that is interesting in itself but I'm speaking of a human beings ability to reason, rationalize, and have an opinion about things based on their reasoning. If evolution is "change over time" How does natural selection bring consciousness into being....seeing as how natural selection has to have something to choose from? Consciousness has nothing to do with a mutating gene...so where did it come from? Matter you say...........Matter had the potential to create the "mind"..... Quote Clearly it had the potential, because here we are. Oh, I'm so glad you said that. You are now no longer treating matter as atheists and naturalists treat matter, you are attributing spooky, soulish, or mental potentials to matter. This is panpsychism--the view that matter is not just inert physical stuff, but that it also contains proto-mental states. You have abandoned a strict scientific view of matter and adopted a view closer to theism than to atheism. You are saying that the world began not just with matter, but with stuff that's mental and physical at the same time.

Now here's a problem for you......if a finite mind can emerge when matter reaches a certain level of complexity, why couldn't a far greater mind--God--emerge when millions of brain states reach a greater level of consciousness? You can't just stop the process at yourself. Now granted, this isn't the "god" of Christianity I am implying here, but it does present a problem with the atheistic view. Also, to point out another problem with your "I am my brain" philosophy. If your mind were just a function of the brain, there would be no unified self. Remember, brain function is spread through out the brain, so if you cut the brain in half, then some of that function is lost. Now you have half a person? Nobody believes that. There was a girl who lost 53% of her brain...was she 47% of a person? No, we know she's a unified self, because we know her consciousness and soul are separate entities from her brain. Further more if consciousness is just a function of the brain, then as you said, I am my brain, and my brain functions according to the laws of chemistry and physics. The mind is to the brain as smoke is to fire. Fire causes smoke, but smoke doesn't cause anything. It's just a byproduct. Now you are locked in determinism.....the idea that every prior action affects human actions and choices. This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. In its most ardent form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will. Well, if that's the case then I don't need to believe anything you say because it isn't necessarily the truth. You only believe what you believe because of the chemicals in your brain reacting in a certain way. :-/

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #36 on: August 21, 2010, 09:08:03 am Message ID: 223914 Quote from: shernajwine on August 20, 2010, 07:46:04 pm my question was HOW.

Quote

I thought my "generalization" answered the how, but you think it only answered the WHY? I don't think what I said very much answered the why at all, actually. This is because the universe cannot give the average person a "why" that will satisfy them. It is asking the wrong question to ask why. The universe has no goal or purpose; there is no "why" when we get down to the base-level of things. That's just how they are. You think this way about your god, so is what I'm explaining here really that much of a leap? Quote How does evolution theory explain the appearance of consciousness in human beings. "Consciousness can be viewed from the standpoints of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology approach as an adaptation because it is a trait that increases fitness... The proximate causes for consciousness, i.e. how consciousness evolved in animals, is a subject considered by Sir John C. Eccles in his paper 'Evolution of consciousness.' He argues that special anatomical and physical properties of the mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness. Budiansky, by contrast, limits

consciousness to humans, proposing that human consciousness may have evolved as an adaptation to anticipate and counter social strategems of other humans, predators, and prey. Alternatively, it has been argued that the recursive circuitry underwriting consciousness is much more primitive, having evolved initially in premammalian species because it improves the capacity for interaction with both social and natural environments by providing an energy-saving 'neutral' gear in an otherwise energy-expensive motor output machine." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Evolutionary_psychology Quote Matter you say...........Matter had the potential to create the "mind"..... Yes. Quote You are now no longer treating matter as atheists and naturalists treat matter, you are attributing spooky, soulish, or mental potentials to matter. What I meant was, when we think about things that seem improbable, it's kind of silly to get THAT hung up on how unlikely something may seem, if it is indeed the reality we are witnessing. You and I being alive (in our current states), for example. It's highly improbable that one particular sperm fused with one particular egg at one particular time under one particular set of circumstances. Quote You are saying that the world began not just with matter, but with stuff that's mental and physical at the same time. The mind IS physical. Quote There was a girl who lost 53% of her brain...was she 47% of a person? No, we know she's a unified self, because we know her consciousness and soul are separate entities from her brain. Consciousness most certainly isn't! How could a doctor ever put a person under, then, if consciousness is separate from the brain? They also do brain scans that show lighted areas as a person thinks different things. As for the half-brain girl, as long as she didn't lose the parts of her brain where memory and personality are stored, sure, she's a full "person" in the colloquial sense. You know the brain is divided into separate regions for different things, right? Quote Now you are locked in determinism.....the idea that every prior action affects human actions and choices. This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. In its most ardent form, determinism completely denies the existence of human free will. Wow, I'm surprised you would bring this one up (unless you just got it off your website). Most people have no clue what determinism is. For the record, my husband is a hard determinist - exactly what you state. And I can see how determinism might be true, given that everything is physical. I'm on the fence about this one, because there really seems like there is something "more" than our whole futures - down to our very thoughts - being already determined. This isn't proof for god, it's proof for either 1) I am just naive and don't want to accept determinism or 2) some

amount of choice exists within the confines of the physical (not TOTAL choice, of course, because I do believe genes/environment play a large role). Sr. Member

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #39 on: August 21, 2010, 01:15:44 pm Message ID: 224072

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote when we think about things that seem improbable, it's kind of silly to get THAT hung up on how unlikely something may seem, if it is indeed the reality we are witnessing. You and I being alive (in our current states), for example. You said before, God is improbable. Take this statement apply it to your own logic. Especially when evolutionary science can give no empirical fact for prebiological beginnings. Any theories thrown out there are speculation. Yet, you easily believe it because God is so improbable, only evolution makes sense. Quote They also do brain scans that show lighted areas as a person thinks different things. I want you to THINK about what you're saying. When researchers do tests on electrical patterns in the brain....and correlate that with what a person is thinking. They ASK the subject to think about a certain thing, or, they ASK what the subject is thinking. They then develop a foundation for the patterns shown. Without knowing what the person is thinking, they can make NO conclusions. Therefore the mind IS NOT physical. You can't, see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the mind. You cannot use ANY of your senses to observe the mind. That defies the definition of physical. Quote 1) I am just naive and don't want to accept determinism or 2) some amount of choice exists within the confines of the physical (not TOTAL choice, of course, because I do believe genes/environment play a large role). I mentioned determinism because it is relevant to dualism. If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup. You favorite atheist Dawkins brought this is up in The Selfish Gene. "We are survival machines....programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." He does try to amend what he is implying with such a statement by adding that we should rebel against our genes in situations that are immoral. But then how is this beneficial to the selfish gene....by natural selection anyone who is able to defy the selfish gene would be "killed off" by evolution because that would contradict the genes survival! Steven Pinker wrote in an article, basically implying that a woman who kills her baby on the day of its birth or in the first few days, is only a product of hard wiring from her ancestor who routinely did this sort of thing as a means of survival! He tried to say it's an immoral act to kill infants, but in what sense can any conduct be immoral if it is a product of a genetic imperative? Well, after he faced a great amount of harsh criticism, Pinker then wrote in his book, that moral reasoning requires that we assume the existence of things which science tells us are unreal "Ethical theory requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused, and its conclusions can be sound and useful even though the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events...A human being is simultaneously a machine and a sentient free agent, depending on the purpose of the discussion." This seems self-contradictory but it may be worse than that, Pinker may mean that morality is founded on a

"noble lie" that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people. Of course the priests themselves know the lie for what it is and do not recognize it as a limit on their own thinking or conduct, but they conceal their nihilism by pretending to believe in conventional morality. And if your opinion on this subject is due to your mind subjecting to the laws of physics, and your actions based on an evolutionary force to preserve your genes, then anything you say cannot be trusted. After all you are not a "free thinker" in that nothing about you is free when you are bound by determinism.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #42 on: August 21, 2010, 04:06:38 pm Message ID: 224141 First of all, I want to lighten the mood by saying thank you for challenging me, Sherna. I still like you and everything, don't forget that! Quote from: shernajwine on August 21, 2010, 01:15:44 pm You said before, God is improbable.

Quote

A personal, defined god is improbable, like the god of the Bible. There are many reasons for this. As for god(s) in general? That kind of god is more probable than a personal god, but there still hasn't been any good evidence that's demonstrated the reality we observe had anything more than natural causes. Quote They then develop a foundation for the patterns shown. Without knowing what the person is thinking, they can make NO conclusions. Therefore the mind IS NOT physical. You can't, see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the mind. You cannot use ANY of your senses to observe the mind. That defies the definition of physical. I can compare this to us wanting to look at a computer's processing without yet having a monitor invented. While it's true we do not yet have the technology to read people's minds, it's definitely coming, and will be very beneficial when it does (it will help solve crime and whatnot). Right now we can "read people's minds" in a rudimentary manner; just because we don't fully understand how it all works YET does not make it nonphysical. Think about where people thought sound came from before we knew about sound waves. Would it have been right to pass this phenomena off as magic simply because we didn't yet understand it? Of course not. Once again, the most clear evidence that the mind IS physical can be seen in the example of my grandmother, who has Alzheimer's. The parts that were "her" (personality, memories) were eaten away by her brain years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57w0YDRYgZU Quote If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup. Yep, this is possible. And if it IS the case, at least we can "enjoy the ride".

Quote we should rebel against our genes in situations that are immoral. But then how is this beneficial to the selfish gene....by natural selection anyone who is able to defy the selfish gene would be "killed off" by evolution because that would contradict the genes survival! No, we would NOT get killed off by acting in a civilized manner. Quite the opposite, actually. When we work together as a society, the GROUP'S rate of survival goes up, more so than if it was "every man for himself". It's quite easy to have kids in a harmonious society, which is the main way of passing on your genes... Quote He tried to say it's an immoral act to kill infants, but in what sense can any conduct be immoral if it is a product of a genetic imperative? Just because you may have been raised a certain way does not automatically guarantee you HAVE to make certain choices. And yes, killing the infant would still be wrong from a human's perspective, regardless if the mother "knew any better". If I were to create a computer program to perform a certain function and it malfunctions, I have the right to remove that program from my computer, even though the computer isn't doing something "wrong" in a universal sense, it's not conducive to what is desirable, so it needs to be taken care of. Quote Pinker may mean that morality is founded on a "noble lie" that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people. Yes, this may very well be the case. Quote After all you are not a "free thinker" in that nothing about you is free when you are bound by determinism. This cannot currently be proven; therefore, I go by what reality appears to be (some amount of choice for the average individual) before I conclude it is all an illusion.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #44 on: August 21, 2010, 05:11:37 pm Message ID: 224188

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote That kind of god is more probable than a personal god, but there still hasn't been any good evidence that's demonstrated the reality we observe had anything more than natural causes. There is no good evidence to suggest that God isn't the cause. The only thing evolutionists can go on is the observation of evolution on a micro level. They jump from empirical science to philosophy when they begin to suggest that finch beak variation and insect pesticide immunity explains how finches and insects came to exist in the first place. If indeed the reality we are witnessing is that we exist, with an extraordinary capability to reason, and introspect, and science has no GOOD explanation for it....(in your words) isn't it silly to get so hung up on how unlikely it may seem and accept that a Creator was the cause? Furthermore, go back to the universes beginnings....once again, science can only know the universes history at the point of the big bang. They now admit, the universe had a beginning, whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause? What is that cause? Science cannot answer that. The God that seems so improbable can.

Quote just because we don't fully understand how it all works YET does not make it non-physical. Coming to understand the mind doesn't change the definition of physical. However, if you can find a credible scientist that says human consciousness is a physicality, and not just the result of the physical brain, I will concede to being wrong. Quote ME If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup. Quote YOU Yep, this is possible. And if it IS the case, at least we can "enjoy the ride". I seem to recall you stating in another thread about "prejudice against fat people" that genetics plays only a small part if any in a persons weight. You basically said that they make a choice to be the way they are because they don't have to stay that way. And by what you're stating, that you ARE your brain....then there is no "this is possible". It would be, this is the reality. So which is it? Are you a robot with no free will or not? Quote No, we would NOT get killed off by acting in a civilized manner. Then the selfish gene doesn't exist and Dawkins is full of it. He claims we are robot machines programmed to preserve the selfish gene. The logic implies that it may be only natural for robot vehicles to murder, rob, rape or enslave other robots to satisfy their genetic masters. Darwin himself predicted in The Descent of Man that the most highly developed humans would soon exterminate the other races because that is how natural selection works. Dawkins tries to get around the moral implications (as I stated before) by saying "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to." This is both scientifically absurd and morally naive. How could natural selection favor the development of a capacity to thwart the interests of the ruling genes? And even more to the point.....the ability to thwart the ruling genes would imply free will, which determinism extinguishes! You either believe you have free will and therefore your mind is not controlled alone by the physical brain, or you believe that everything is subject to naturalistic explanations and subject completely to physical laws giving you NO FREE WILL. If you have NO FREE WILL, then any acts of societal immorality aren't your fault, and therefore permissible in a sense because you had NO CHOICE. Does this sound reasonable to you? Quote Just because you may have been raised a certain way does not automatically guarantee you HAVE to make certain choices. Then determinism is FALSE. Determinism says your choices are not really choices at all but determined on your genes! Remember, determinism is the idea that every prior action affects human actions and choices. This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. By extension, all moral behaviors and choices are subservient to chemical reactions of the functioning brain.

Quote I go by what reality appears to be (some amount of choice for the average individual) before I conclude it is all an illusion. Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me. I still like you too

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #48 on: August 21, 2010, 07:20:19 pm Message ID: 224273

Quote

Quote from: shernajwine on August 21, 2010, 05:11:37 pm They now admit, the universe had a beginning, whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause? What is that cause? Science cannot answer that. The God that seems so improbable can. Our current universe had a beginning and therefore had a cause, but the jury's still out on exactly what it was. I've seen a chart before that listed various things that emerged after the Big Bang (i.e. electromagnetism), and they all had "natural cause" tied to them. Like my "reading minds" technology, just because we don't have a way to understand the origin of the Big Bang today doesn't mean we'll never know! Give science some credit it's come a long way! As for god solving the origins dilemma...not really. You are just asserting that god always existed without tangible evidence. Non-theists can do the same thing with universes. Quote if you can find a credible scientist that says human consciousness is a physicality, and not just the result of the physical brain, I will concede to being wrong. I thought you said the mind doesn't reside within the brain? Quote I seem to recall you stating in another thread about "prejudice against fat people" that genetics plays only a small part if any in a persons weight. You basically said that they make a choice to be the way they are because they don't have to stay that way. And by what you're stating, that you ARE your brain....then there is no "this is possible". It would be, this is the reality. So which is it? Are you a robot with no free will or not? I don't know. It's a good point, I'll give you that. Like I said, I'm on the fence about whether determinism is true...my hubby's argument for it is that the cause-and-effect chain is so complex it's too difficult for any of us to understand; therefore, it really seems as if we have "free will" when we don't. The main point I argue is that determinism completely devalues the human experience; I think most people would find it a fate worse than no afterlife for their entire life to already be set in stone from the moment of the Big Bang!! This argument is primarily emotional, of course, which may make it not true. Quote This is both scientifically absurd and morally naive. How could natural selection favor the development of a capacity to thwart the interests of the ruling genes?

I've wondered that about birth control, lol! The argument is that once our brains get big enough, we can use it to our advantage and hijack some of our genes. Quote the ability to thwart the ruling genes would imply free will, which determinism extinguishes! Yep, I see your point. Although hubby would argue that hijacking said genes was ALSO determined. lol Quote If you have NO FREE WILL, then any acts of societal immorality aren't your fault, and therefore permissible in a sense because you had NO CHOICE. Does this sound reasonable to you? Nope, it doesn't sound reasonable from my limited perspective. It definitely would not be in our best interest to go spreading that message - even if it is ultimately true. Quote Then determinism is FALSE. Determinism says your choices are not really choices at all but determined on your genes! That's my other main argument against determinism. But I could be wrong. I've asked my hubby, "So I was determined to not be raised religiously, find Christianity, and then become an atheist again?" Him: "Yup." Me: "That makes no sense." Quote This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. By extension, all moral behaviors and choices are subservient to chemical reactions of the functioning brain. First video I ever watched on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LvI0-Sykkk Quote Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me. It very well might be. Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say? lol

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #52 on: August 21, 2010, 07:53:09 pm Message ID: 224286

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote I thought you said the mind doesn't reside within the brain? I did. That's my point. I don't imagine you will find a credible scientist...even a materialistic one that will assert any definitive statement that the mind is purely physical. Quote As for god solving the origins dilemma...not really. You are just asserting that god always existed without tangible evidence. Non-theists can do the same thing with universes. You are right, and they certainly try....but here is where you come to an illogical argument. Atheists refuse

belief in God, demanding irrefutable proof. They say God exists outside of the natural therefore he cannot exist. You say God exists outside of the natural because theism says God is eternal and created the laws of time and physics we are now subject to...He is defined as Supernatural. YET, once it was irrefutable that the universe had a beginning....NOW, to get around God once again, they develop this idea of a multi verse and some kind of mother universe which churns out other universes?? Where did the original universe come from? If something had a beginning and therefore had to have a cause....you are eventually going to get to SOMETHING that is eternal and therefore NOT NATURAL by definition. You are going into serious rank speculation here with the multi universe idea. This is NOT scientific fact and it contradicts the very idea that God's eternal nature is so unbelievable. And it's very convenient to make such a theory that is completely unprovable. My point is.......you said it was silly to get so hung up on the improbable and accept the reality of what we see....I accept that God's eternal and invisible nature goes beyond human understanding but His existence is evident in humanity and creation. Quote Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say? lol Yes, but maybe your genes made you say it so I would shut up!

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #67 on: August 22, 2010, 08:33:45 am Message ID: 224461 Quote from: shernajwine on August 21, 2010, 07:53:09 pm I don't imagine you will find a credible scientist...even a materialistic one that will assert any definitive statement that the mind is purely physical.

Quote

Where I stand is that it seems like we have some amount of free will, but I don't think the explanation for this is the god of the talking snake and cursed fruit. I don't see what physical law directly dictates a simple choice; also, even if we had a supercomputer that could predict our future behavior, having access to the results of the printout would give us some amount of power to change what happens (unless the supercomputer included that, too, which seems far-fetched). As for WHY physical beings can be conscious/aware and make some level of choices...I guess I assume there are some mechanics behind it that we don't yet understand that allow for that. I don't think it's fair to be on lockdown with a theory like determinism quite yet; how do we know some degree of free will can't exist without god? The universe is full of strange and wondrous things...just because there is a strict equation for gravity and the speed of light doesn't necessarily mean there is a strict equation for human thinking and behavior. That's just my two cents on it. Like Christians, I bring "personal life experience" into my argument for my beliefs (why I think we have some free will). The difference between my label of personal experience and a believer's, however, is mine is based on the observation of reality and lessons learned, whereas a god person's personal experience is usually based on spooky, superstitious coincidences. Whether this "personal life experience" is ultimately a delusion or not, though, has yet to be proven. Quote They say God exists outside of the natural therefore he cannot exist. And theists have to believe in some kind of dualism for god to be true. This being that the supernatural can co-

exist with the natural, a state which also seems like it would break the laws of physics - just like your free will vs. determinism argument. What do you think? Quote they develop this idea of a multi verse and some kind of mother universe which churns out other universes?? Where did the original universe come from? If something had a beginning and therefore had to have a cause....you are eventually going to get to SOMETHING that is eternal and therefore NOT NATURAL by definition. You are going into serious rank speculation here with the multi universe idea. This is NOT scientific fact and it contradicts the very idea that God's eternal nature is so unbelievable. And it's very convenient to make such a theory that is completely unprovable. I can be at peace with not having all of the answers for ultimate origins and whatnot. I think it's unrealistic to expect that these sort of discoveries won't take a great deal of time, if we ever find the final answer at all. Multi-universes are just speculation, not theory or fact. Speculation is all scientists can go off of right now preBig Bang. As for the universe being eternal or not eternal, whatever the ultimate reality is, it doesn't necessarily mean a god had anything to do with it. We have to look at where the evidence points and never just "settle" on this magical concept of an Ultimate Intelligence. God's intelligence would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe, and yet you're okay without having a solid explanation for that? Quote Yes, but maybe your genes made you say it so I would shut up! I agree, it seems ridiculous to just say, "My genes made me do it!" for everything. Got in a fight with your spouse? Sorry, it was pre-destined!

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #69 on: August 22, 2010, 10:56:43 am Message ID: 224501

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote And theists have to believe in some kind of dualism for god to be true. This being that the supernatural can coexist with the natural, a state which also seems like it would break the laws of physics - just like your free will vs. determinism argument. What do you think? Well, essentially it comes down to believing dualism or determinism. Either your conscious is separate from your brain, or it is merely a byproduct of your brain and therefore you are locked into determinism. I'm not sure how you can even claim atheism and effectively deny determinism, since atheism leaves only room for natural explanation, you are only left with determinism in explaining the mind/brain issue. Your denial of dualism puts you into a deterministic belief whether you like it or not. Quote As for the universe being eternal or not eternal, whatever the ultimate reality is, it doesn't necessarily mean a god had anything to do with it. We have to look at where the evidence points and never just "settle" on this magical concept of an Ultimate Intelligence. God's intelligence would have to be infinitely more complex than the universe, and yet you're okay without having a solid explanation for that? The multi universe theory supposes that there are many universes, and that one super universe created all the

other universes (this theory also serves the purpose to de-miracle-ize the extreme unlikely hood of life in our universe) but the theory still has to say that the super universe is eternal. Being eternal defies physical law and therefore by definition is a supernatural concept. You said you CAN'T believe in God....well let's put aside the Christian God and assume any sort of eternal creator here.....you CAN'T believe? Well, apparently you find it intellectually acceptable to believe in an eternal universe that has no proof and no hope of being proven. There are things that science cannot explain...(such as the "why"). Science has only the ability to explain the natural.....there are things in the past that, due to limitations, people attributed to the supernatural...and of course later science was able to give a natural explanation. That doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist, it just means it is outside the ability of scientific method to explain it (just like the "why"). However, materialists are willing to accept the concept of a super universe..super universe=supernatural universe. So it's not that one CAN'T believe in a god (based on his unexplainability) it's that one WON'T. I don't find it very difficult at all to accept that God is infinitely more complex than the universe, and I don't need a solid explanation (from science) I have a solid explanation about God's character and eternal and invisible nature from the bible. My personal experience with God, combined with sufficient evidence from science gives me unwavering faith in God. If God was completely within the realm of explanation, it wouldn't require ANY faith to believe in Him. One can have faith in God that is based on sound reasoning and logic from the natural things in this world. That is my belief. If you believe in an eternal universe, you are placing belief in something that is unprovable, unobservable, and untestable......just like God. That requires faith. Accepting that science can't explain everything, doesn't mean you are settling for magic. Science should never cease trying to explain our world and how it operates, but you can't say that whatever science can't explain by natural processes is "magic". After all the super universe is not and would never be explained by a natural process, since it would have to exist outside of the laws of the universes it produced...it would have to be infinitely more complex than the universes it produced. But maybe you could say, I believe in a "magical" God and you believe in a "magical" universe ( The universe is full of strange and wondrous things)? I guess if you like the term magic...then it's just a difference of opinion of where the magic comes from?? You are willing to accept an idea that is unexplainable and un-falsifiable, and revere the universe for its "strange and wonderful" characteristics. But to believe in an unexplainable strange and wonderful God...no that would be intellectual suicide!

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #73 on: August 22, 2010, 07:18:59 pm Message ID: 224692 Quote from: shernajwine on August 22, 2010, 10:56:43 am Your denial of dualism puts you into a deterministic belief whether you like it or not.

Quote

And that may be so. In any event, we all live our lives like determinism isn't true, which is interesting. Given the choice between determinism and some evil guy with a pitchfork running around wreaking havoc, determinism seems a lot more plausible.

Quote Being eternal defies physical law and therefore by definition is a supernatural concept. Says who? This isn't fact... Quote That doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist, it just means it is outside the ability of scientific method to explain it How convenient. How can you be sure that there is supernatural going on in your life, then? A scientist can't detect it, but you can? Quote super universe=supernatural universe. So it's not that one CAN'T believe in a god (based on his unexplainability) it's that one WON'T. Labeling an eternal universe "not natural" is a false assertion. Again, the god you are arguing for is one that's obviously made up...I can't and won't believe in fantasy just to satisfy any fears about life's "purpose". Quote If God was completely within the realm of explanation, it wouldn't require ANY faith to believe in Him. That's a pretty poor excuse, given that god created a world that appears to disprove him at every turn (invisibility, dinosaurs, evolution, the problem of evil, The Big Bang, logic). Just how much faith does he expect me to have?? Quote If you believe in an eternal universe, you are placing belief in something that is unprovable, unobservable, and untestable......just like God. That requires faith. Whoever said with 100% certainty that they're going to blow themselves up, circumcise their daughter, stone people to death, go on Crusades, or fly planes into buildings over the belief in a cyclic universe? NO ONE. Scientists don't know, but they're working on it. Religion, on the other hand, goes off the deep end in thinking IT HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. The Big Bang has positive evidence in its favor while a personal creator god has negative evidence for it. Neither scenario is a certainty.

Re: Hell is an Unattended Stove Reply #77 on: August 22, 2010, 08:38:52 pm Message ID: 224727

Quote

Modify

Remove

Quote Given the choice between determinism and some evil guy with a pitchfork running around wreaking havoc, determinism seems a lot more plausible. It's not a contest between determinism and the devil. It's conceding whether the mind is separate from the brain or just a byproduct. But I guess you're saying that it's either (my genes made me do it, or the devil made me do it?) In either case you are implying the absence of free will and then it's just a matter of what you are willing to accept as being in control. I don't believe in determinism and I don't think the devil can make me do anything I don't want to do. I am free to make my own choices.

Quote Says who? This isn't fact... So you're saying that something could exist within our natural physical laws and time and be eternal? Being eternal means being immortal, universe or God....is immortality a naturalistic concept? No it isn't. Quote How convenient. How can you be sure that there is supernatural going on in your life, then? A scientist can't detect it, but you can? Scientists could detect it, they just wouldn't be able to use natural processes to explain it. This is where the materialistic philosophy is infecting the field of science. When the metaphysicians of science concede that science has its limitations, they usually mean that reality and NOT science is what is limited. Because science has to be able to explain everything, reality has to be limited to those things that science can explain. Because science understands only material causes, whatever cannot be reduced to material causes has to be ignored, whether it be complex specified aperiodic genetic information, or irreducibly complex organs, or consciousness itself. Well, I'm sorry but I think it's pretty pathetic that when the evidence points towards a Creator materialists use the very science that gave the evidence, to say that unless it is falsifiable it can't be reality. WELL A SUPER UNIVERSE IS NOT FALSIFIABLE! AND IT GETS BETTER..... The design position IS falsifiable, since advocates of naturalism could discover a natural process capable of creating the necessary information if such a process exists. If Neo-Darwinism were true as a general theory of biological creation, it would falsify the claim that some additional informationcreating mechanism is necessary. (There is NO evidence that evolution can create information) The "design is religion, not science" position is not falsifiable because it decides the disputed question by the manipulation of words rather than by empirical investigation. Hence, by the standard of falsifiability the intelligent design hypothesis is scientific, and the refusal to consider it on its merits is unscientific. Quote Labeling an eternal universe "not natural" is a false assertion. Again, the god you are arguing for is one that's obviously made up...I can't and won't believe in fantasy just to satisfy any fears about life's "purpose". By what I have stated and probably it was already information you were aware of....the multi verse theory is null...because it is can't be proven. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. SO, what are you left with? A finite cosmos that HAD A BEGINNING. Now, remember whatever began to exist must have a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. As an atheist you are governed by two main principles: 1) all your beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, you state that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, you believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. So, refuse to believe in God, call Him a fantasy....but you are going around here trying to tell people how intellectually dishonest they are when they stoop to believing in a sky daddy. But you don't even know what you believe and science can't give you an answer. So you contradict yourself by saying you are on the fence about determinism but make statements about "I am my brain". You make assertive statements about the mind being physical but then say you don't know, when I ask if you are a robot with no free will. It sounds like you're confused. I'm not.

You might also like