xian

sorry, Mr. Jones. I didn't ignore you on purpose, i just didn't see it. I have many atheists who want a piece of me. ha ha. Ok, lets see your question:

i dont know where the line is. i just know there is more to me than material. obviously the material component of my existence and the immaterial component are joined.

in a universe of uncertainty- where nothing can be certain, I can ursurp this with my will. I can decide to do something, predict it, and do it with 100% certainty. (pending macro events like the earth blowing up, which are irrelevant to determining predictability expirements). I can conceptualize things that do not exist in the natural world, like eternality and infinity. And the one place I would expect to see God (morality), is the one place that I find Him there. I am keenly aware of a supernatural component to the universe. I have free will that I can control. If my will is simply the result of chemical reactions, then it truly is not controllable, and it is truly not free. I am controlling my will...but I am not chemical reactions. Unless I exist in a fashion seperate from the chemical reactions, then there is no basis upon which to say that free-will exists, since the chemical reactions themselves are determining my will for me.

I refuse...utterly refuse to believe or EVER accept an atheist tell me that chemical reactions are determining my will, and that my decision to type this paragraph is simply microscopic chemical components "deciding" that its time to write a paragraph. I am more than the sum of these reactions. It is enough evidence for me....perhaps not enough for you.



now, all of these are subjective. none of them identify your experiences, so i am not postulating these things as evidence for YOU, but they are evidence for me.

Hawkingfan

Not familiar with Occam's Razor (parsimony), eh?

King Rat

You are assuming an immaterial component. Many things can become greater than the sum of their parts.

The mind is a wonderful thing.

Ya lost me. Morality = god?

Ya lost me again. Chemical Predestination? Never heard of it, must be a new Creation Science term. Please elaborate.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? I don't follow your deductions.

Another leap worthy of the Six-Million-Dollar Man: Shn-n-n-n-n-n-n-n, Shn-n-n-n-n-n-n-n. Please elaborate on this Chemical Predestination thing you keep talking about.

Most excellent, I refuse too.

I agree you are, but it's evidence of what? You are freaking me out with this Chemical Predestination thing.

You have provided ample proof that all of this is subjective, but that is all.

xian

as anyone who interprets evidence of experiences and self-awareness, it cannot be anything BUT subjective.

I conclude that I have a soul, based upon my own existence, experiences, interpretation of evidences, and awareness of my existence. That is definitive evidence for me, neglible evidence for you.

will is the result of chemical reactions, which must come about prior to the will. In evolutionary science, you cannot "will" something prior to a chemical reaction, your will itself is the result of chemical reactions. The chemicals react --> will results. therefore, the will is determined by the chemicals, hence not free.

this, I fully reject.

orac

You're assuming that the brain being chemical means that the brain is deterministic. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily accurate, and it's certainly not a scientific theory.

Besides, even if free will doesn't exist, your being programmed to desire it wouldn't make it real.

The universe doesn't particularly care what you want to believe, or what is comfortable for you.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Well, that and you're arguing against a straw man anyway - atheism doesn't imply predestination, so arguing that you don't want predestination to be true is not even a vaguely valid refutation of atheism.

I am curious about one thing, though: you seem to be arguing that a magic spirit you that ceases to exist when you die is better than a chemical you that ceases to exist when you die. What is it that makes "I'm a magic spirit!" more comfortable for you to believe?

Of course, it could be "if I'm a magic spirit then I won't really die", in which case the source of your desire to believe is fairly obvious.

Still, why is being a physical being so abhorent to you? Is it anything more than a fear of death?

Arbogast

First
TheBeaves neat little prayer experiment was hilarious...

Second
Occams Razer is a rule of thumb, but the simplest explanation can be the worst... (Isnt Occams Razor go with simplest explanation?)

Third
It is my belief prayer is a good thing. But I also believe God tends to favor a smart man over a superstitious man. Hence, God favors those who goto a smart doctor.

happyboy

ok, using xtian's logic:

i pee like a race horse every hour, because of a damaged bladder; therefore, God exists.

my cat just farted; therefore, God exists.

my lawn is green, despite the cold weather; therefore, God exists.

pat robertson is in the 700 club; therefore, God exists.

the sun is yellow; therefore, God exists.

my cat's name is sammy; therefore, God exists.

isn't it wonderful, that by using xian's logic, i too can find ample evidence of our Lord and Savior! praise God!

happyboy, glad he can prove there's a God

Oolon Colluphid

Nope. It simply says that the most preferable explanation is the one that includes the least assumptions. The reason is simple. Each separate ‘entity’ (ie those things which should not be multiplied beyond necessity) in an explanation itself requires an explanation. So you can include as many things as you like, provided each is in itself justifiable and relevant, crucial for the explanation. The principle of parsimony just focuses our attention on including only what is necessary, not the superfluous, the tangential and the unsupported. This almost always leads to it being the ‘simplest’ explanation. Only what is needed to fully account of the data is required.

And, I can’t off-hand think of a “simplest explanation” that is “the worst”. One might think that Goddidit is about as simple as it gets... but it isn’t. It assumes a great deal of stuff... all of which itself needs explanation if the Goddidit explanation is to be satisfying. This is why Goddidit is no explanation at all -- it turns the unknown into the unknowable. So, does anyone have an example of the simplest explanation (that accounts for all the info) that is the worst?

Cheers, DT

Oolon Colluphid

You appear to be saying that the soul is subjective...? But what we want to know is, is it an objective thing?
Yup, subjective evidence. How might we establish that souls are an objective reality, not just something that our minds make up? Before we can tell if prayer -- which you concede is of no use in healing the body -- can do anything for our souls, we need to establish if there is a soul there to be healed!
Yeah yeah, we know you are satisfied that being awake is evidence you’ve got a soul. But why should we believe you? In a nutshell, how can we tell that you’re not just daydreaming?

We have two possibilities here: that there is a soul, and that there isn’t. How might we choose between them? Are there any predictions that either make that might be testable? What might we expect to find if there is a soul, that we would not if there is not? Or what might we not expect to find if there is, and find if there isn’t? We need a definition of ‘soul’, and some idea about what it’s supposed to do.

Since the default should be non-existence for anything except the self-evident -- we don’t need to argue about whether there are pigs, but we are not all convinced there are flying ones -- the burden of proof lies with you, Xian. I know you are satisfied. But it is not yourself you need to convince!

IOW, if you cannot back up your claim with anything except the subjective, why should we think what you’re saying has any relevance to the real world? You are, in effect, asking us to just take your word for it. Sorry, you’re out of luck.

Cheers, DT

King Rat

Circular, although not unexpected.

Sweet, me too. It also saves me the trouble of figuring out what the hell you are talking about.