Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What would be more childish would be to believe in things for which there is no evidence. That's fantasy thinking.

No, suspending the principle of sufficient reason for the specific intent of eliminating the notion of a creator since it threatens your own position of supreme being in your own universe.....that's wishful thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is a no reason 'God' "actually reasonable"?

A God satisfies the principle of sufficient reason in the argument from contingency.

This is why leading physicist and public atheist Sean Carroll is working on trying to overturn the principle of sufficient reason philosophically.

[Gordon]

No, suspending the principle of sufficient reason for the specific intent of eliminating the notion of a creator since it threatens your own position of supreme being in your own universe.....that's wishful thinking.

Seems to me, Vlad, your enthusiam for sufficient reason is just a handy way of dealing with an infinite regress, and also involves a touch of special pleading in favour of your preferred 'God': why can't sufficient reason equally apply to the universe, or is it reserved for 'God'?

If so, where was 'God' located before it created anything? I think you should tell us. 

[Maeght]

I don't see why such a big fuss is being made by some people about philosophical issues.

OK....I can understand arguments against beliefs such as the six day creation or Adam & Eve or other such ancient religious myths. I can also understand arguments against fanatical jihad type of beliefs or violent behavior or forced conversions.

But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!!  The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.   

I try to believe in things for which there is good evidence. I see no evidence for 'intelligence behind creation' or 'life beyond death'. People are free to believe in those things of course but if they post such things on a discussion board then obviously those who don't believe such things are going to reply/discuss.

[Outrider]

Any organism that avoids death has a survival instinct or a need to survive.

By this point in evolutionary history that's probably the case, because a survival instinct is something that would be strongly selected for, but it doesn't necessarily need to be true, there's no requirement in evolutionary theory for that to be the case.

Survival is meant for reproduction which is another need or instinct that is inherent in organisms.

I don't see that survival is 'meant' for anything - it certainly has the effect of increasing the likelihood of any given organism staying around long enough to reproduce, but that it exists doesn't necessarily mean that it was a deliberate act.

These needs do not arise out of evolution, they are the reason why evolution happens.

If, as you say, they don't arise from evolutionary mechanisms then what is your explanation, and why do you think that explanation has any validity?

Secondly, chemical reactions do not explain Life.

Yes they do, we just don't fully understand the explanation yet.

Chemical reactions happen around a core which is the Self or the Subject. It is the Subject that is the issue here and not the chemical reactions.

Where is this 'self'? Where is the interaction between this disembodied 'self' and chemical reactions? What is your basis for this claim?

O.

[Enki]

I don't see why such a big fuss is being made by some people about philosophical issues.

OK....I can understand arguments against beliefs such as the six day creation or Adam & Eve or other such ancient religious myths. I can also understand arguments against fanatical jihad type of beliefs or violent behavior or forced conversions.

But what exactly is the issue in believing that there is some form of Intelligence behind creation or that we live beyond death?!!  The arguments that we can't see or measure such things and therefore they cannot exist.....is childish.   

I don't see that that anyone is making much of a fuss, Sriram. People are just pointing out the problems associated with some of your conjectures and pointing to your lack of substantive evidence for holding such conjectures. It does seem that when your positions are challenged you find that difficult to handle and resort to charges of 'scientism'and 'childish' behaviour, hardly the best recipe in advancing any discussion.

For my own part, if I deal with the substance of your last paragraph for instance, the only problem with the idea of some form of intelligence behind creation for me is the total lack of evidence to support this idea and the absence of any need for this in evolutionary terms. Again, with the idea that there is life after death, although one cannot dismiss it in absolute terms, there is no substantive evidence to back this up, and consequentially it remains a matter of conjecture only.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems to me, Vlad, your enthusiam for sufficient reason is just a handy way of dealing with an infinite regress, and also involves a touch of special pleading in favour of your preferred 'God': why can't sufficient reason equally apply to the universe, or is it reserved for 'God'?

If so, where was 'God' located before it created anything? I think you should tell us.

I'm glad you clarified that infinite regress is insufficient reason since I wasn't totally sure.

Since the universe demonstrates contingency we could o nly say that there must be something about it which is not contingent if we were to argue that the universe were the sufficient reason. Be my guest.

[Maeght]

I don't see that that anyone is making much of a fuss, Sriram. People are just pointing out the problems associated with some of your conjectures and pointing to your lack of substantive evidence for holding such conjectures. It does seem that when your positions are challenged you find that difficult to handle and resort to charges of 'scientism'and 'childish' behaviour, hardly the best recipe in advancing any discussion.

For my own part, if I deal with the substance of your last paragraph for instance, the only problem with the idea of some form of intelligence behind creation for me is the total lack of evidence to support this idea and the absence of any need for this in evolutionary terms. Again, with the idea that there is life after death, although one cannot dismiss it in absolute terms, there is no substantive evidence to back this up, and consequentially it remains a matter of conjecture only.

Great post Enki.

[Nearly Sane]

No, suspending the principle of sufficient reason for the specific intent of eliminating the notion of a creator since it threatens your own position of supreme being in your own universe.....that's wishful thinking.

Except you do suspend the principle of sufficient reason for your 'god'. So the above means you are saying your 'god' is wishful thinking.

[Gordon]

I'm glad you clarified that infinite regress is insufficient reason since I wasn't totally sure.

Not really, and I didn't say that anyway - I was just observing that you seem inclined to stop any regress at you preferred 'God' without wondering if your preferred 'God' was contingent on, say, some other 'God' or, perhaps, the universe.

Since the universe demonstrates contingency we could o nly say that there must be something about it which is not contingent if we were to argue that the universe were the sufficient reason. Be my guest.

No thanks - I'm not even certain the universe does demonstrate contingency: for all I know the universe could be eternal, but then information is incomplete.

[Outrider]

I'm glad you clarified that infinite regress is insufficient reason since I wasn't totally sure.

To be clear, he said that's your intention for it, he didn't say that it worked.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, and I didn't say that anyway - I was just observing that you seem inclined to stop any regress at you preferred 'God' without wondering if your preferred 'God' was contingent on, say, some other 'God' or, perhaps, the universe.

No thanks - I'm not even certain the universe does demonstrate contingency: for all I know the universe could be eternal, but then information is incomplete.

Not only is an infinite regress insufficiently reasonable in the question of why something rather than nothing ignoring contingency just compounds your retreat from the principle of sufficient reason.

I don’t believe I mentioned God here but your mind went straight there and then you have proceeded to raise any obstacles in what looks like an intellectual panic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except you do suspend the principle of sufficient reason for your 'god'. So the above means you are saying your 'god' is wishful thinking.

No a creator or necessary aspect about the universe is derived from the argument from contingency and in that respect the principle of sufficient reason is satisfied.

[Nearly Sane]

No a creator or necessary aspect about the universe is derived from the argument from contingency and in that respect the principle of sufficient reason is satisfied.

Illogical drivel. If you agree everything has a cause - the principle of sufficient reason - then arguing something you believe in does not have a cause, you are being illogical.

[Gordon]

Not only is an infinite regress insufficiently reasonable in the question of why something rather than nothing ignoring contingency just compounds your retreat from the principle of sufficient reason.

Nope - I'm just questioning your arbitrary way of resolving your infinite regress: you accept an uncaused cause position and, conventiently, this turns out to be just the kind of uncaused cause that you find palatble, which is special pleading. I'm reserving judgement pending further information.

I don’t believe I mentioned God here but your mind went straight there and then you have proceeded to raise any obstacles in what looks like an intellectual panic.

I think, given your posting history, we can conclude that 'God' is what you propose, you being a theist and all.

[Alan Burns]

....  the only problem with the idea of some form of intelligence behind creation for me is the total lack of evidence to support this idea and the absence of any need for this in evolutionary terms. Again, with the idea that there is life after death, although one cannot dismiss it in absolute terms, there is no substantive evidence to back this up, and consequentially it remains a matter of conjecture only.

I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.

I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.

Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.

Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home.  The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name. 
from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints.  There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.

And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.

[Maeght]

I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.

I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.

Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.

Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home.  The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name. 
from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints.  There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.

And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.

Your personal incredulity isn't relevant.

The ToE by Natural Selection is the best explanation we currently have for the variety of species we see on the planet and which is supported by evidence. There is no evidence for intelligent design.

No evidence for souls, let alone that they intercede in the form of miracles.

No evidence for the resurrection - only that early Christians believed in it. What evidence were you thinking of?

[Alan Burns]

Your personal incredulity isn't relevant.

What you claim to be personal incredulity is based entirely on realistic probabilities - and improbabilities

The ToE by Natural Selection is the best explanation we currently have for the variety of species we see on the planet and which is supported by evidence. There is no evidence for intelligent design.

Intelligent design does exist in our universe - evidenced by the human capacity to use their gifts of intelligence and free will to interact with this material universe to bring about human creations in the form of buildings, machines, computers etc. by consciously manipulating the forces of nature.  I look upon this as a reflection of our own Creator's unimaginable intelligence which brought us into existence by similarly guiding the (otherwise destructive) forces of nature.

No evidence for souls, let alone that they intercede in the form of miracles.

How are you able to dismiss all such miracles?  Could it be personal incredulity?

No evidence for the resurrection - only that early Christians believed in it. What evidence were you thinking of?

Er - not just early Christians!
The Christian faith throughout this world is firmly rooted in the truth of the Risen Christ.

And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!

[Gordon]

And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!

How have you excluding the risks of lies and mistakes in these ancient anecdotes?

[Maeght]

What you claim to be personal incredulity is based entirely on realistic probabilities - and improbabilitiesIntelligent design does exist in our universe - evidenced by the human capacity to use their gifts of intelligence and free will to interact with this material universe to bring about human creations in the form of buildings, machines, computers etc. by consciously manipulating the forces of nature.  I look upon this as a reflection of our own Creator's unimaginable intelligence which brought us into existence by similarly guiding the (otherwise destructive) forces of nature.How are you able to dismiss all such miracles?  Could it be personal incredulity?Er - not just early Christians!
The Christian faith throughout this world is firmly rooted in the truth of the Risen Christ.

And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!

Nope, it's personal incredulity. You have no way of calculating the probabilities. You just can't believe it.

Of course we design things. That's not what you were talking about though was it. You can look upon that in any way you want but that doesn't make your conclusion true.

I dismiss reports of miracles due to the lack of supporting evidence. Nothing to do with personal incredulity - maybe look up what that means.

The reference to early Christians was in relation to the establishment of the belief - thought that was obvious taken the context. I don't need to Google it as I have done so in the past and read around the topic (and it didn't change my life) and am aware that there is no direct evidence of the resurrection only later reports of it by later writers and references to people believing in it. That isn't evidence for the truth of the resurrection, only evidence that early Christians believed in it (and that that belief has persisted - just in case you needed that point clarified). What do you consider evidence for the resurrection?

[Alan Burns]

What do you consider evidence for the resurrection?

It was a pivotal event which changed the world.

If it did not happen, Christianity would have died along with Jesus on the cross and our world would be a far different place.

[Maeght]

It was a pivotal event which changed the world.

If it did not happen, Christianity would have died along with Jesus and our world would be a far different place.

That is evidence for belief in the resurrection and the consequences of belief not evidence for it actually having happened.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except you do suspend the principle of sufficient reason for your 'god'. So the above means you are saying your 'god' is wishful thinking.

Shite. It has been explained to you how a necessary entity for observed contingency satisfies the principle.

[Nearly Sane]

Shite. It has been explained to you how a necessary entity for observed contingency satisfies the principle.

No, that just shows your utter inability to think logically.

[Enki]

I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.

I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.

Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.

Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home.  The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name. 
from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints.  There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.

And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.

Be amazed as much as you want, Alan. All I desire is hard evidence that such an intelligent entity exists, something, which in all your time on this forum, you have never been able to produce. Unlike you, I don't have such a thing as faith which, in your case, seems to be at the mercy of your own personal prejudices.

By simply making your usual absolute statements(E.g. 'this is not our true home',  there are 'divine revelations of scripture' or there is such a thing as a 'soul')  you do yourself no justice at all(except, of course, in your eyes, which is to be expected). Simply by saying such things does not make such things so, I'm afraid. That horrible word 'evidence' keeps getting in the way again. It was ever so.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk the historical evidence for the resurrection is greatly lacking, and even the gospel accounts are beset by glaring inconsistencies. Indeed their anecdotal nature is not exactly an acceptable standard for viable evidence.  Also, you cannot say how the resurrection happened at all, except that it was a 'miracle',  which has no explanatory value at all.