woodchuck

Ok Nog you gotta have more time on yer hands than any body I know ! That is not an insult, I’m impressed. You have invoked much thought and I am thankful for that, these typed conversations have been very fruitful in my studying and learning, and a challenge. I’ve never debated anything before so this is interesting and fun. I can’t say you’ve swayed me in any way towards your point of view, but you’ve forced me to face things and learn about things I never would have considered. I hope that in none of our discussion do you feel like I’m personally attacking you, I will speak personally because I feel that being personal is important, but I respect you very much Nog.


That said, time for me to continue on our discussion on the mind. Are you ready for more mad-cap fun and adventure?

Ok, you’re making a good point here that we’ve always had all this matter here and have never had new matter- you give nature the credit for causing it all to transform and stuff, but I still wonder why you think nature just does this. I’m sure you’ve heard the 2nd law of thermodynamics (I’m no scientist so I can’t go too in depth on the subject) which is part of “nature.” By this law there is roughly one chance in 10 to the 40,000th power that nonliving matter could turn into living matter. Raw energy alone cannot bring order or information to chaos anymore than a bomb could completely repair a collapsed building- it needs a blueprint (like DNA) to direct it, and it also needs an energy-converting mechanism, like the digestive system, to convert the energy to make it useful. Blueprints and energy converting mechanisms are only produced by life- so that can’t work. What you’ve told me is that there was a bunch of stuff that had no ability to transform into life and yet it did anyway. Hmmmm. I can’t buy that one G. [info from J.P. Moreland’s book Scaling the Secular City]

I know you’ve heard this answer but I’ll answer you anyway. To come into existence requires time, yet God created time- He is not in time, therefore without time He could not have come into existence.

In fact, how can The Creator be created? A cake does not bake cakes, a baker bakes every cake. God is a necessary being- he exists necessarily, but is not bound by His own ability to bring other things into existence. He is neither an event nor is he a contingent being, therefore he needs no cause. I know this will be one thing we’ll disagree on, but it makes sense to me.

The study of mathematics was invented by man, but not mathematics itself. A biologist doesn’t invent biological objects; he studies them, just as a mathematician studies mathematical objects. Man has always studied mathematics, never created it. If numbers don’t exist and you’re basing all of your evidence on them, what’s your argument against a man who says there’s a God but you say He doesn’t exist? If math gives us knowledge it must be based on something. Are you saying that there are no mathematical truths? 2+2 does not equal 4 all the time? A calcium ion has a positive charge of 2 just as much as a bird has wings. It has the 2; we do not give it the 2. 2 is an unphysical property of the calcium ion.

You say that you can’t count apples, but then you really say you can’t count identical apples for every apple is a little different. What’s your definition of an apple? It’s still two apples. Can we count numbers? By your definition we can’t because each number is a little different.

Numbers are a part of sequences. Sequences are real, they exist, and a real number of things happens in a sequence. Nature is chalk-full of sequences, and sequences are undeniably real. If numbers are a part of sequences then numbers must be more then our invention. Just because our perception of numbers is not as precise as nature itself does not mean that numbers do not exist. Even if I count one apple- one is a number and it is completely and accurately true that there is one apple. It is also true that there are a countable number of atoms in the apple and a countable number of seeds. Numbers exist even if we don’t count them. There is one apple even if I don’t know how to count to one.

This is very interesting Mr. Anderson… You say that man invented logic. This implies that at one time man had no logic. I wish I could step into a time machine and go back to the day when man was 100% illogical. The thing that gets me is that it seems it would take logic to invent something, yet if you have no logic how can you invent logic. Even worse, if one man had logic, how could the others without logic grasp what he was saying?

The other thing is that animals seem to have a certain amount of logic, but it seems you think that only men have it because you say men invented it. I’ve never experienced an animal embracing man’s inventions. Man invented languages yet animals still don’t talk.

You seem to make the term “greater” incredibly flimsy and bendable to prove your point. You seem to be saying that something isn’t truly greater in reality; it’s only greater because we agree to believe it is. It looks as if you’re trying really hard to take something that is a truth outside of man and stick it inside his brain to prove your point, but I don’t buy it. An elephant is of greater size then a walnut even if no man is there to perceive it.

You say that logic is structured and verifiable, yet you say that it’s only based on things we hold as true, not things that are the one truth. You continually avoid calling things absolutely true (except when you make claims against the bible) which leaves them inconsistent and unreliable. It has always been agreed that math is true, yet you seem to want to kick it down a notch to not really true, but good enough. Same here with the concept of greater. You are saying there’s a chance that an elephant isn’t greater then a walnut.

You may also argue logic evolved in man, but that would make our logic unreliable and incomplete. Unless you think that we’re all done evolving. You look at a monkey and it may be convinced that its logic is right on, but by our more advanced logic we know the monkey’s logic is a bit weak. But if evolution is true, then, like the monkey, we are merely at an incomplete stage of logic and our logic can not be trusted. Even Darwin himself was troubled by this one:

I might add that if your whole “concept of greater” idea applies here then, Darwin calling monkeys “lower animals” is only what he “holds as” lower, with neurons firing, chemical reactions blah blah…

Likewise

Your problem is this Nog. You claim that the mind IS the brain, you say they are identical. If two things are actually one thing that means that all thing s about the mind must be exactly the same as the brain.

For instance if you here of a guy named woodchuck, then of a guy named EEf and you compare the two you will find out that whatever is true of EEf is true of woodchuck, and these are actually my two names I commonly use, not that EEf and woodchuck are two separate people. But if you find out that woodchuck has one leg and that EEf has two you would conclude that EEf and woodchuck are two people not one.

You are correct that an event occurs in the mind when one has a thought. But just because the mind and the brain are inseparable does not mean they are the same thing. A mental though it not identical to a brain event, just as the redness of a tomato is not identical to the roundness of the tomato (though you can not separate the redness from the roundness). My thought of a sumo wrestler doesn’t have physical attributes- it can’t be located, it can’t be measured, it can’t be weighed. That was my point there. There is an image of a sumo wrestler in my mind, yet no image of a sumo wrestler in my brain, perhaps an event yes, but no image- according to logic that makes the mind and the brain two separate things.

I could memorize every phone number in my phone book but my head would not now weigh more because it’s crammed full of memories. Sure our brains grow as we grow, but not to the capacity of our memories. When you add more to a physical thing it grows, yet the brain does not do this- so it seems that the mind can grow but the brain doesn’t, therefore they are not the same thing. You compare the mind to a disk but a disk can run out of space, a mind can always store more- that’s because the information on a disk is physical were as the information in a mind is unphysical.

You go on to use an example of “Dave” on a computer disk. If in your illustration the computer is the body, the disc is the brain; Dave is the thought- then there still something missing. Dave does nothing without a mind to click the mouse and save the planet. If there is no person (mind) to play the game then all that will happen is a screen saver for all of eternity.

Also, I don’t know at what scale you are comparing the brain to a computer- but if all the mind does is receive input, give output, and advance to another internal state then you are disregarding the fact that I can be thinking of something even when there is nothing physically that would cause that thought. Even more I have a choice to think of anything I want to right now and so do you, but if a thought in the brain is a reaction then what is it reacting to if it is not in the physical world? The brain reacts to my mind which is ME, my soul, myself- which transcends the brain. I want to think of a chicken shaving the feathers off its chest, my brain reacts to my mind’s desire to do that. The two work very closely together, but are not one thing.

Also, a person with Tourette’s syndrome involuntary jerks around and screams obscenities. It is their brain that is doing this; the brain is messed up and is causing these things to happen. The mind, however, has no desire and no intention to say or do these things. It would seem that in this case the mind is divided against the brain- if the mind IS the brain then there would be no conflict. The brain is messed up while the mind is intact.

You’re the physicalist, not me Nog. If you replace the molecule in the salt it is physically a different piece of salt. It may serve the same purpose but it is not physically the same. You may change a part on the car, but physically it is not the same car. If you replace all the parts on your car you will not have the same car at all- your car will be in different scrap heaps in different places. Each part serves the same purpose but it is not the same part. I replace a bumper that had a bumper sticker on it, I will have a bumper but the sticker will be gone. The bumper serves the same purpose, it protects my car, but it is not the bumper that was originally there.

So even if my mind is physical yet constantly replacing pieces of itself- why do I still have my memories? If memories are physical things they are in my brain in some physical way. You may replace an atom in my brain that is still capable of thinking, but what if that atom held a memory? If memories are objects then they must replace themselves but we know that this does not happen. That’s because the brain is capable of remembering things that are stored in the mind in an unphysical existence. This ties in with my above explanation that the brain does not expand with more memories, it does not get little dots in it for each one- though they are there the same as they were 7 years ago even though my brain is not. That’s because they are two separate things.

So I may not rely on particular atoms to be woodchuck, but I do rely on my memories to be woodchuck. If you take away all I ever learned I am no longer that woodchuck, I am now this woodchuck. Perhaps the last woodchuck had it in his brain to shoot Phil, but this woodchuck loves Phil. If the last woodchuck shot Phil how is it this woodchuck’s fault? We’ve been thru that already.

You did- “chemical REACTIONS” a reaction is just that: a reaction. Each event happens only because a prior event caused a reaction. A choice implies that I have control of my brain, but that would imply a mind. I have control of my arm because my brain controls my arm, and I control my brain. There is no way that a fully physical mind could NOT be deterministic.

How can a chemical reaction be a choice without a mind above it making that choice?

You give “nature” a lot of credit. Nature caused us and everything we are is from nature right? So why are we having this conversation? Why would nature create in me a need for meaning and truth when it itself does not consist of it? We’ve been through that. You may also argue survivalism, but that’s pretty far-fetched.

If “nature” has programmed us only for survival, why would it program us to destroy the earth? Is that not what man does? All the animals keep the earth the way it’s been, but mankind is tearing it apart and destroying it and polluting it. Nature must be suicidal. Not only that, but everyday we do things that have no benefit to our survival. I’m a cartoonist- (that explains a lot huh) so why do I think of cartoons? They do not help me survive. Why do we have emotions, why do we entertain ourselves? We’d live without that stuff right?

This implies that while the physical world has a nature of its own, we have a nature of our own- the soul (mind). Nature fully controls itself, but it seems it does not fully control us. So what controls these things about us that separate us from nature? Our minds.

Explain how the physical world is not determinist Nog.

Morality has plenty to do with it. We’re talking about the mind right? So where do you claim morals and morality come from? According to you the brain- the subject at hand. I find it very important to discuss morality during this topic because it seems to me that you’re philosophies twist morality into what the individual wants it to be, not what it is. I think that your argument is incredibly dangerous and if people really believe it the world is going to go into absolute chaos. I’m arguing that nonphysical things do exist and that morals are an example of a non physical thing.

You said “If morality is human then why should I tolerate anything that you may want it to be?” You are a human right? I’m a human right? Are you saying that you should be allowed to choose your own morality? If you feel morally convicted that there are no moral absolutes, then your conviction could only hold if it tolerated all morals. How can you call a man wrong if you say it’s wrong to call other people’s morals wrong? It does not follow…

Also, I must have missed your point on the whole illustration about speed limits because you seem to imply that I can’t decide to speed on a highway which I have done many times (forgive me Lord). God may have not directly handed down the speed limits but I believe that even speed limits are based on the value for life that God put in us, and as our value for life diminishes, so will our laws that protect and preserve life (it’s happening right now).

Also, my perception of what you’re saying is that morals aren’t really that big a deal; please explain if you feel otherwise. If you lower your value of what a moral is, you must lower your value of what a person is. This you have done. You have made a person merely a blob of matter no different from a pile of dirt, you have made morals a flimsy, empty chemical reaction, and you have made life a joke; a very tragic and pointless joke. It is not to say that it is not theoretically possible, but that it’s a very dangerous thing to preach if you aren’t 100% positive because you are telling people they are worthless. You may not feel personally that they are worthless, but that’s what your arguments tell me. Please explain if you actually do value human life, because I just don’t see how you can with your ideas. I’m not saying you don’t, I’m saying that if what you say is true about humans, then it does not line up that a human has more value than a severed badger nipple- so if you do have value for life then your argument must be flawed.

Well, sorry I haven’t been writing as often, life’s been busier lately. I don’t plan on stopping though, this is great. I look forward to your response, especially your reasoning behind morality and free will in a fully physical realm.

Until next time,

-EEf the woodchuck

NOGO

"Gathered to his father". Did a bit of research on this.
Actually Jews did tend to get buried with their ancestors.
Here is an example
Caiaphas (Joseph Caiaphas) (kâ´yefes), fl. A.D. 18–36, high priest of the Jews. In the BIBLE, he presided at the council that condemned Jesus to death. Archaeologists discovered his tomb in Jerusalem in 1990.

His tomb was found in 1990 and there were actually many family members in the same tomb.
What usually happened is that people were buried for a year alone. Afterrrwhich their bones were transfered to a communal family tomb.

So "gathered to his father" means exactly what you suspected that it meant. Congratulations!


Just saw your new post. I am glad that you are still in. I thought that I had lost you.
I will answer it of course but here is an immediate reaction just by looking it over.

Roughly? How did you calculate this number?
Believers are fond of repeating arguements without verifying them.
This is an example. Please go to your source and tell me in detail how this number was calculated?
Can't wait.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

MORALITY PART I.

So you wanted to know where my morality comes from.
I am sure that you will agree that my morality and yours come from the same place whether we admit it or not.

When I left home I shared an apartment with three other students. We agreed on how much each would pay and other obvious details. Then came the communal living. One guy used the phone too much which left the others frustrated. One guy snored. One guy never cleaned the kitchen after use. Etc. We complained, talked about and made new rules. And so it went.

I have not talked about morality yet. I will argue that morality follows the same pattern. Injustice is first perceived then there is struggle for it to be recognized and finally new rules are made or changed. Rules which obtain overwhelming support from a majority of people across many generations are promoted to the status of moral law. There are exceptions to this general outline and I will deal with these exceptions as I go.

Let me start in Genesis

Gen 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

So God does not want humans to know good and evil.
Note that God says that "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die"
Well they did not die on that day. More on this point later.

Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

They did not know that it was shameful to be naked. Blissful naivety. Not knowing what is good and what is bad.

Gen 3:4-5 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

All this is correct they did not die and their eyes opened and knew good and evil.

Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

According to the bible this is where humnity acquired the ability to tell what is right and what is wrong. I call this a myth but if you believe that this actually happened then so be it. Humanity aquired this ability and it seems that God himself could not take it away.

Gen 3:10-11
He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

"Who told you that you were naked?" No rule (law) had been given, yet they knew.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

Man is like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Note that God did not want man to eat from the tree of life and live forever. Man was mortal and did not die when he ate of the tree of good and evil.

So the serpent was correct in every aspect. Man did not die and was like the Gods, kowing good and evil.


Moving on to "Thy shalt not kill."
This is a most fundamental rule which every civilization has had.
According to the bible this law was given to Moses after the exodus from Egypt. This was about 1300 to 1400 BCE. At that time the Egyptian civilization had been in existance for something like 1500 years already. No civilization can exist that long without a "thy shalt not kill" law.

Cain killed Abel. Since Cain did not have the "thy shalt not kill" law then he simply did not know that killing was immoral. Right?
Reread this story in the bible. Did God say oops I should have given man a set of moral laws!

Gen 4:7 If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

So God warns Cain that he is about to sin. BUT on what basis since no law had been given at that time

Gen 4:8-10. Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground.

Note the "voice of your brother is crying to Me"
As I said people complain and then rules are created.
Note also "from the ground"
Where is the afterlife?

Gen 4:11-12 "Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. "When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth."

So God punishes Cain. It seems that Cain knew he had done something wrong. Cain was not like Adam and Eve in blissful naivety when they did not know that they were naked.
He had knowledge of good and evil and knew that what he had done was wrong.
He had no law to go on since it was not given yet.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Hi Woodchuck,

It seems that our first round in the brain/mind topic did not get very far.
What is really amazing that we live in the same world but think so differently.
I cannot even fathom the difference both of us would have with the people who wrote the gospels.

Your arguement is based on the false premise.
It goes something like this

Premise:
If you replace all the atoms in your brain with similar atoms that do the same function then your memory should be changed if it were physical.

Conclusion:
It has not changed and therefore you conclude that memory is not physical.


Same reasoning but with the salt example.

Premise:
If you replace all the atoms in a salt molecule with similar atoms that do the same function then the salt characteristic of the molecule should be changed if "being salty" were physical.

Conclusion:
It is not changed and therefore you conclude that "being salty" is not physical.

Do you see the problem?
"Being salty" is a physical characteristic yet it is not changed by replacing any or all the atoms. That is why I stated that memory and saltiness do not depend on which atoms are present. It is the "pattern" which is important here not the elements. Sodium (Na) is a poisonous metal. It is as unlike salt as you can get. We are talking about chemical bonds which is not the same as a mixture. If you put salt when making pie then the pie will have some salt-like characteristics. Salt, however, is not sodium-like.

Atoms do not hold memory. That is exactly my point. The atom Na in the NaCl molecule does not know that it is part of salt. What makes it salt is the particular combination. The pattern, if you will. Memory in the brain is similar. Memory is not in a particular atom or in a particular neuron. Memory is a pattern of connected neurons. As long as you keep the pattern intact your memory will remain. If you break the pattern your memory will vanish. An accident or a spoon inside your brain will break patterns and will destroy memory. This, Woodchuck, is establish fact. Memory can be destroyed and is therefore physical.

Your whole arguement stands on the fact that in seven years all the atoms or molecules in your body have changed yet your memory is still there. This is normal and does not imply that there is something unphysical happening. Memory in the brains is a pattern of neural connections. There is not a one-to-one correspondance between a thought and a neural connection because the brain stores data redundantly. I am no expert on the brain but I do know that memory tends to be associative. Every time you recall information you make new connections associating that thought to something new.

Let me give you an example of how memory works (or doesn't work).
I was taking dancing lessons with a group of people. We were rehearsing a routine. After dozens of attempts we were begining to get the hang of it. The teacher then pulled a fast one on us. He wanted us to try the routine starting at the opposite end of the room. No problem right? Wrong? All of us made so many mistakes that we were unable to complete the routine. The change in view of the room was enough to stumble our memory. Or put another way our memory of the new steps we had just learned was dependent on objects around the room. The brain made some connections between those objects and the steps of the routine. Every time we think about something our brains reorganizes the connections (ie makes corrections). In this way some memories are reinforced and some are broken. What is really strange is that all the people made mistakes that they were not making before the switch to the other end of the room.

Memory is, therefore, a complex network of neural connections.
You want proof?
I already gave you some of these but you totally ignored them. I will try again.

First I want to talk about this fact that you argued about namely that every atom or molecule in your body is changed every seven years. It is not hard to believe that the body does this without changing any of the vital patterns in the body. The heart stays a heart and continues to pump. Neither its appearance nor its function is altered. This is the same for eveything. Your glands continue fabricating hormones etc. All these functions are physical !!

Your face may change a little over seven years but people are still able to recognize you despite that ever atom has been changed. Bottom line is this. The seven year cycle does not disrrupt patterns and functionality in the body.

Why, oh why do you think that this should be different for the brain?

My mother-in-law died at an age of 90. She was a wonderful person who would literally take a sweater off her back to give it to someone in need. She was also a wonderful pianist. Her dexterity even at 85 would have amazed you. After 85 here memory started to degrade. She stopped talking and eventually stopped playing the piano too. She would sit at the piano and make rhythm but no melody. How sad. Communication with her became impossible, even in writing. Woodchuck, unless you had seen it yourself you cannot really understand it. What you call the mind slowly deteriorated over a five year period. The body was well, but the mind gradually disappeared before our eyes.

How can you account for this?

For me it is a deterioration of the brain. Brain cells do die and as they die the mind dies with them.

I already gave you the exmaple of the football player who lost his memory in a car accident.
He did not remember his wife and children. His love for them disappeared too. He did not remember any part of his footbal career. He remembered things from his childhood but a good part of his adult life vanished.

How do you explain this?

To me the accident traumatized the brain and neural connections were destroyed. They are gone and with them his memory. Apart from his lost memory this fellow was totally normal (ie he had totally recovered except for his memory).

My brother was in a car accident. He got away with just a few stitches. His friend who was driving required several surgical operations. His wife was in coma for several days. None of the three remembered anything about the accident. My brother remembered getting in the car and riding and then he woke up in the hospital bed.

How do you account for this?

A spoon can destroy your mind as it can destroy you brain.

This statement flies in the face of everything science knows about the brain.

Please provide evidence for your statement and also explain how we forget, in view of the examples that I gave above?

NOGO

This is a naive and profound question all in one (no offense intented here)
When I talk about nature I am talking about the nature of things. Na combines with Cl to give salt. We can say that this is their nature. We can exaplain that Na has an extra electron somewhere and Cl is missing one and together they are more stable than apart etc. This is a good explanation but then why do electrons and protons behave as they do? etc. etc. etc.

I don't know. You wish to believe that God makes and electron behave as an electron. God makes Na combine with Cl etc. etc. etc. On that basis we can agree that God gives nature its nature. But is this of any use to us? We still don't know. You may feel better because God is in there that you want to have a father in heaven to look after you but for all practical purposes we are back to square one. Nature is nature.

Actually this point should be made clearer with the story of Galileo. Galileo said that the earth moved and the church said that it did not. Galileo had evidence. The church's position was as follows. It may be that it is more logical that a small object (earth) rotates around a larger object (sun) and not the other way around BUT God can make an exception and have the sun go around the earth. Galileo gave in. He had no choice. My point here is this. We have not found that one case where something in this universe behaves contrary to the rules, ie we have not found that exception where something disobeys nature's laws. That would be proof that something intelligent is behind nature's laws.


We don't know that. The fact of the matter is that the universe is there and a bomb has never repaired a collapsed building. I have no reason to link the two.

Life? All the life that we are aware of and can talk about with confidence is material. That is it is made of atoms and molecules. Life is a chemical reaction. The sun builds complex atoms from Hydrogen. As far as I know this has nothing to do with life. What is happening in the sun is nuclear not chemical.

What you are trying to say is that only life can be intelligent and you see intelligence in nature. Actually there are so many thing in nature that are not very intelligent. Let me give you an example so that you can see what kind of things that I am talking about. Man walks upright yet his basic structure is the same as animals like the horse which walks on all fours. A horse has a very straight backbone. Ours is in the shape of an "S". Why? For maximum stability and strength our backbone should be straight. There are many many people who have lower back problems due to poor posture. But the posture is poor because basic architecture is faulty. The basic architecture is for a four legged animal and later adapted to walk upright. Want proof? The "S" shaped backbone is necessary to keep balance. If our backs were perfectly straight we would not be able to stand in a stable fashion. Try it, stand with your back perfectly straight and vertical. So the hips turn toward the front and so are our shoulders and the net effect is balance but also an "S" shaped backbone which gives us trouble. Have you ever heard of a horse with a back problem? No they don't and they also have very straight legs. Why are our legs crooked? A horse's head hangs off of its backbone (neck). Man's head hangs off of its backbone (neck). This is bizarre because it is obviously good form on a horse but why it is the same on an upright creature?

Let's open a branch here because I don't want to get sidetracked. We will call it "intelligence in nature or lack of it". I believe that books have been written on this. I may come back to this subject.

I have never said anything like that. Matter and energy do transfor themselves all the time without any help from anybody. Now what you want to know is how did life come about. You can be made to accept that NaCl formed by itself but life is another matter. Life goes right to your own nature and you cannot bear the thought that all you are is a chemical reaction. But until you have evidence to the contrary life is just a chemical reaction. All the evidence is in that direction. In fact you know that life procreates and it does so without God (notwithstanding the idea that God makes nature what it is which I have discussed above). You agree that DNA is a molecule composed of atoms found in nature like NaCl atoms are found in nature. We can agree that nature (ie atoms and molecules) sustains life. Again no intervention from God and again notwithstanding ...

Our understanding of life is in its infancy, however, we know how life procreates itself. DNA which you mentioned somewhere, is a molecule which duplicates itself. How? It makes a mirror copy one step at a time until two molecules exist side-by-side. The twin helix then splits and you have two identical molecules. The fact that the very essence of life duplicates itself by very chemical means should tell you something.

You can fall back to "who created the first DNA?"
Good question, however, by asking this question you admit that all life is a special but definitely chemical entity. No point asking this question if you say that life is more than a physical chemical entity.

Most believer fight the "who created the first DNA?" or "how did life get started" because we don`t know the answer to this question so it is easier to argue. The non-physical nature of life is a lost cause.


Time? Time is a concept that only exists in the human brain. Surprized?
Things change. Change is real. Time is not. We measure time with vibrations.
We assume that certain vibrations are regular that is they do no vary from one vibration to another. If there were no changes there would be no time. Time is a concept.
Can God think? If he can then time exists for God too. There is the before such and such thought and there is after such and such thought.
Time is a human concept like a square. There are both totally abstract and cannot be found in nature.

"In fact, how can The Creator be created? A cake does not bake cakes, "
Yes, but humans make humans.

If matter/energy and their nature always existed then God is not necessary as a creator.


Biology is the study of nature. We have arbitrarily subdivided knowledge of nature and one such subdivision we have given it a name, biology. Mathematics is not the study of nature. Mathematics is man-made. Man has invented complex numbers. I don't know if you have studied complex numbers? If you have you will know that the only reason we have complex numbers is because they have found a use for them. They are useful in describing, for example, currents and voltages in complex electronic circuits. Man invented mathematics as it was needed. In ordinary life people have no need for complex numbers and they do no use them.

I did not say that numbers don`t exist. I say that numbers are in our heads. They exist in our brain and not in nature. Complex numbers are a good example.

"2 is an unphysical property of the calcium ion"
I would say that a physical property of calcium ions is that they are charged.
We can evaluate that charge and based on that measurement we can say that it has two more or less electrons than protons. But all this is a model that we have made of the atom. A model is an abstraction and is therefore not real. Let me be a bit clearer here. A model is an abstraction which exists in our head. The model is not real in the sense that it does represents something in nature but it (the model) is not reality.

Let me give you an example. Gravity is modeled in Newtonian physics as a force between any two masses and a mathematical formula is given. This is the force model. The model is used to predict what will happen in certain circumstances. This model has worked fairly well.
The model however is not reality. There is no proof and never will be proven that two objects attract one another because of their masses. It is just a model. Within a limited scope the model works and can be used. Outside this scope the model fails and that is when we realize that it is just a model and not reality. It is an approximation. This model exists only in our heads. It is neurons firing and chemical reactions that are going on in our brain. Neurons firing and chemical reactions are definitely physical. Now Einstein`s model for gravity did not say that masses attract one another. In this new model matter distorts the space it occupies. It is a completely different model.

I don`t see how you can say that 2 is an unphysical property.

I am a bit surprized by what you are saying here. A new born child is 100% illogical. Have you ever tried to have a conversation like this one with a six-year-old. How do children learn?
Where does superstition comes from?

We start by copying, imitating, repeating; logic comes later.

Try teaching a four-year-old about time. They just don`t get it. Yesterday, tomorrow and next week means nothing to them.

Show me where animals have logic?
Only man uses logic because man has invented it.
Only man uses language because man has invented that too.
Animals do communicate with each other but are incapable abtract language such as ours.

Perhaps I did not express it very well. "greater" is not very accurate. "A" can be greater than "B" in some respect but less than "B" in others. If "A" &gt; "B" and "B" &gt; "C" then "A" &gt; "C".
This is a rule of logic and it does not really matter what you mean by greater.

"An elephant is of greater size then a walnut even if no man is there to perceive it."

That is true. But, without man the elephant is there and the walnut is there.
Now the question is - where is the comparison? Or if you like who is comparing the two?
No animal will sit there and say to himself - hey look an elephant is larger than a walnut, how interesting.

You are mixing things here. Geometry for example is based on five axioms (if my memory is still good) These axioms cannot be proved. Some people will say that they are obvious. All of geometry is based on those five axioms. If one or more of these axioms is proven wrong all of geometry goes out the window.

Even this conversation that we are having must start somewhere or on something that we can agree on and proceed from there.

I have no absolute truth.
Anything that I hold as true is based on evidence.
If the claim is ordinary and the evidence is good then I hold it as true.
If the claim is ordinary and the evidence is poor then I tend not worry about it.
If the claim is extraordinary and the evidence is poor then I doubt.
If the claim is extraordinary and the evidence is extraordinary then I believe.

The bible falls on the third option.


Some people have said that mathematics is a pure science.
Mathematics is not a science in the sense that it is not a study of nature.
You seem to have a need for absolute truth.
An elephant is greater than a walnut provided that by greater you mean "weighs more" or "is taller". To a chipmunk the walnut may be greater. But I don`t think that a chipmunk would pause and consider the difference between the walnut and the elephant. To a chipmunk the walnut is food and the elephant is something to avoid.


You either side with logic or with myth. I have made my choice.
People who wrote the bible were not terribly logical. They believed more in myth. Once you have logically analyzed the bible you will realize that it cannot be true. At this stage, however, all you can do is keep looking at the evidence.

What makes you think that the writings of people thousands of years ago is more trustworthy than current logic?

You have all your eggs in the bible basket. I think that this is a mistake. To convince you of that we need to look at the evidence.

You want me to believe that the bible is the reliable word of God and therefore more trustworthy than logic and science. For me to take such a position would required that you prove beyond resonable doubt that the bible is the word of God. After examining the evidence i arrived at the conclusion that this is not the case. You need to look at the evidence and then we can return to this subject.

You memory is not infinite. As you learn more the brain tends to forget things.
I am going to make the analogy with the computer again not because I think that the brain is like a computer but simply because in this case it is.

When you buy a computer it has no data in it, at least non of your data. Then you write letters, write music, make posters, scan pictures etc. and your hard disk gets full of data. Does it weigh more full than it did empty? No it doesn't. Data is stored magnetically on your hard disk. The magnetic material is placed on the disk when it is manufactured. All the head does during a write is bias the magnetic material one way or another. The data on a disk is a pattern of magnetic fields. The writing head does not add material nor does it take it away. It works very much like taping music on a cassette. The weight of the cassette does not go up just because you have recorded music on it.


More to come ...

woodchuck

Sorry I've been slackin on the resoponses nog, yer a persistent one. I dont even know where to start in all this stuff. I don't have time to confront every single thing we've brought up, but it seems we're kind of goin off in a million directions anyway.

One thing that seems to get constantly avoided is personal issues- man's search for meaning and understanding, emotions, love all that stuff. I want to hear yu rant on that.

As for my next response, i dont even know where to start so how bout yu choose something. I've been studying the hell sheol stuff alot lately in my own time, it's very interesting. I want to answer everything but I doubt I can, and I doubt it will really take us anywhere but further into more and more tangents...

Anyway. lemme know-

EEF

NOGO

Hi Woodchuck,

Before we add more things to discuss we should aim to close some subjects or at least agree to disagree.

There are two items which I thing we should continue and perhaps close. One is the issue of memory being physical or not. So why not concentrate on that for a while.

The other was on morality. So when we finish with memory we can move to morality.

Please do not feel any obligation to continue this. From my side I can continue as long as you can throw arguements at me. I will certainly respond.

NOGO

I don't believer that I avoided these issues. We just did not speak of them.

As I see it you have just taken on step back.
When we started talking about memory and morality it was one step back from the Bible. Now you want to take on step back from that.

I frankly don't mind but I would try to first close the two I mentioned above before we get onto something else.

I will say one thing on "man's search for meaning". It is such searches which make people write books like the Bible, the Koran, or the buddhist teachings. On this subject I have a question for you. Suppose that God appears to you and tells you that this life is all that you are getting. No second serving. How would you live the rest of your life?

How would you live your life knowing that God exists (you now have proof) but you will die and that will be all?

Please answer this as honestly as you can. Your answer will reveal many things. If you have the courage you can share these things with us and I will certainly comment on them.

NOGO

Hi Woodchuck,

Whatever you do, do not abandon your search for the truth.

Take care,
NOGO

woodchuck

Hey Nogo,
Sorry for not comin on lately I can never find the time anymore, and when I do I’m trying to figure out where to start. But hey, excuses are lame and anyway, we’re just havin’ fun right? Well I decided I’ll go ahead and answer your last question as honestly as possible, since I can pretty much answer it straight from the gut…

Not to categorize you, you are definitely and honest guy asking an honest question- but it seems to be the skeptic’s favorite game to ask “what if?” questions all day long. These questions rarely take anyone anywhere; they just get you way off track.

Your question, however, I am not trying to invalidate- Like I said, I will answer, and I do not think it is a stupid question. I came here to answer the questions I was given to my best ability and this is one of them I guess.

So woodchuck’s chuckin’ wood one day and God shows up and says that all I have is this life and no afterlife to look forward to. I spit out my wood, and go sit down and ponder this revelation…

I’m not sure why you ask this, but it may come from the common assumption that people believe in God just to get to heaven. In fact, I believe that one definition of religion is defined as man’s pursuit of heaven. Here’s where knowing Christ differs from being religious. Knowing Christ is the reward, it starts right here right now- I love Christ, I want Him, and he is everything in my life. I don’t follow certain rules and live a certain way because maybe if I die then I will go to heaven- that is absurd.
The change in my life from the day I turned to Christ has been pivotal. The things I have turned from, the changes I have made, the costs, the mockery, the loss of friends… What fool would give all that up unless he had found something better?

I will say this. Many do become religious because they feel it makes them a better person, or because of the status they acquire in their society, or whatever reason. But we see these people all the time shatter. Man can not be made better if he tries to follow stricter rules. Religion doesn’t make me better than anyone or anyone better then me, no one is good, and religion cannot solve that. I am still the guy who I was when I met Christ, but there is a new life in me.

So what would I do? I suspect nothing would change. I would simply agree and go along with my God because in my experience that has always been the best of choices. I would not stop worshiping him, I would not stop praying to him, and I would not begin to rebel against him- if that’s what you think I was going to say. See, you think that I am looking forward to an afterlife and just putting up with this world, that’s where you are mistaken, and if that was your experience as a Christian, you did not experience Christ; you experienced religion, and came up dry- I’m sorry if that is what happened.
Eternal life began in me the day I met Christ in my heart. Heaven has already begun. You will have to argue quite persuasively if you want me to disbelieve in heaven, because I experience it daily. Not in full, yet, but I get glimpse by glimpse… a little more of it for a little less of this world, and that will be completed when I die (unless God shows up and tells me this is it), for the power of heaven is not the streets of gold and whatnot, it’s the presence of God! And that presence is in me, and that is why amidst all struggles I have a joy that was never there before, I have a peace that doesn’t leave. These are things I can not prove to you, and you can just as easily come up with your own excuses for them, but I know what has happened in me and no matter what you want me to “consider” please be aware that I have much weightier considerations on God’s side at the time, and I would not give it up for the world.

So would I give that up? Of course not. Even if it will end into nothingness. We spoke a lot about Ecclesiastes, about how man goes unsatisfied all of his days. I mentioned that Ecclesiastes seems to point to the rest of the bible- this is what I am speaking about! No man can be fulfilled until he has experienced the presence of God in him- he was created to be in unity with God, to be one with his maker- that is life. You say that Adam and Eve did not die, but you are speaking of the wrong kind of dying. Sin is not bad things we do, it is separation from God- death is separation from God. None of this can be fully understood until one has come face to face with it all- I tell you Nogo, when Christ becomes real in your life, everything thing else becomes so much less real. When Christ puts new life in you, your old life was merely death.

I know a lot of that was what secular elation would dub “religious sentimentality” but you wanted an honest answer and that’s what I gave you. No doubt this post rolled some eyes. I know you’ve probably heard all this before, but man I hope you get to experience it.

I hope that this partially answered some of britinusa’a question about my relationship with Christ. I am glad to talk about this any time, just ask. As for the rest, I want to start getting into your morality debate and stuff, but I already see lots of places where we will basically just disagree, especially on the way you interpret scripture.

Thanks for the encouragement to keep searching for the truth. I know it would probably really piss you off if I said I have found it, but I gotta be honest- I’m not searching anymore. I know you would probably call that a chemical brain malfunction of some kind, go ahead and I will disagree as usual.

Sorry once again for the delay in response. If you can handle my lack of speed in answers, I do want to continue, thanks for bearing with me, you have taught me a lot (much of which you probably were not trying to teach me).

Here’s the thing I still can’t see a connection to, and I have not had an answer to yet:
You claim that the brain is all chemical reactions, yet you claim it is not determinist- you claim we do have free will (do you?) yet it doesn’t line up, and you have in no way lined it up. This is a big hole and leaves what you have told me this far foundationless and incomplete. Please clear this up.

Well, until next time… (And who knows how long that will be) we will type again.

-EEf the slow woodchuck.