Bible Humper

Hello David

Nonsense, the mysteries of the origin of the universe are yet to be unraveled.

All known phenomena of the universe have to date been shown to be naturalistic.

Not a single phenomenon to date has been shown to be supernatural.

"Natural causes can be expected for natural phenomena" were your own wise words. The origin of the universe can be expected to be a naturalistic phenomena until evidence of supernature throws this in doubt.

If all speculations of what could be possible are to be seen as "evidence that the naturalist must rationalize away", B.I.A.Lism has evidence of its truth as well.


Naturalists accept that there are questions that may never be answered, but this is not in any way equivalent to saying that the answer isn't naturalistic.

On the one hand, you hold naturalism to a ridiculously high standard of burden of proof, despite its record of having never been wrong when the mysteries of any particular phenomenon were unraveled!

On the other hand, you hold supernaturalism to a ridiculously low standard of burden of proof, despite its record of having never been right when the mysteries of any particular phenomenon were unraveled!

If you were to hold naturalism and supernauralism to the same standard of burden of proof, we know what would happen, don't we?

Naturalists cannot yet present empirical proof of a naturalistic origin scenario because the origin of the universe is beyond what is currently known.

Should we pull a myth out of our ass so that we can say "the universe came to be like this, don't worry about any evidence though" like the theists?

Naturalism has had so many successes that "naturalism in the gaps" is completely superfluous. Unlike theism.

There are no known qualities of the universe that can be attributed to God without being "God in the gaps" arguments. If there were, atheism would not exist.

I have shown how B.I.A.Lism is even more reasonable than Yahweh as an explanation for "everything-that-exists" using your own methodology.

Your inability to refute this, but at the same time refusal to grant it equal consideration, is due to the fact that you have presupposed Yahweh, and do not demand the same burden of proof that you demand from B.I.A.Lism.

<sigh> Back to the gaps we go!

I don't know, and I feel no need to pull a myth out of my ass for the sake of pretending I know.

What sort of supernaturalistic explanation is possible for phenomena which preceded the origin of supernature? You are presented with the same problem.

I am concerned with the gaps because all theistic arguments are located there!

The BIG difference between "naturalism in the gaps" and "God in the gaps" is that in the entirety of human history, there has not been even a single phenomenon that has proven to be supernatural, whereas all phenomena whose mysteries have been unraveled have proven to be naturalistic!

Naturalism has no need to resort to the "gaps"
Supernaturalism has nothing besides the "gaps"

If naturalism and supernaturalism are given the same standard of "burden of proof", the winner of the two is undeniable.

Once again, an argument that supports B.I.A.Lism as much, if not more, than theism. You know the drill

Since we have yet to find a single supernatural phenomenon, and all of the mysteries of all phenomena unraveled to date have proven to be naturalistic, would YOU say that it is logical to work under the assumption that these modern mysteries have naturalistic solutions UNTIL a reason to believe otherwise becomes apparent? If not, why not?


These evasions are dishonest, David. I have asked you to do this many times but each time you have simply given me a variant of "I could do so, but I don't feel like it".

I am well aware of why you "don't feel like it", it is because you can't do so.

An honest answer from you would be "I cannot do it, but I still believe in Yahweh."

Name them!

The second evasion of my challenge in this post.

Naturalism is the belief that scientific principles are adequate to explain all phenomena. A naturalist is an atheist.

Not all atheists are naturalists.

Not having an answer is different from having a non-answer. Equivocation will get us nowhere.

I look at the ability of naturalism to explain all phenomena whose mysteries have been unraveled to date.

I look at supernaturalisms utter failure to explain
a single phenomenon whose mystery has been unraveled to date.

All evidence that has been collected to date points to a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe

You are unable to offer a single piece of evidence that points to a supernatural explanation of the origin of the universe.

It cannot be proven that these phenomena are either supernatural or natural unless/until the mysteries of these phenomena are unraveled, so we are both ignorant until this is accomplished.

Give naturalism and supernaturalism the same standard of burden of proof, and the same benefit of the doubt, and we know what would happen.

Replace "God" with "B.I.A.L" in the statement above, you know the drill.

ROFL You mean "Naturalists", not "Atheists". There are pagan atheists who believe in a magical origin.
The lack of belief in a deity does not imply belief in any particular origin theory.

Naturalism has never been wrong when it said "I don't know" because it did not know.

Supernaturalism has never been proven right despite saying "Yes, I know" a trillion friggin times!

The pathetic record of "God in the gaps" is unprecedented.

There are no "atheist explanations". If you are going to blame atheistic pagan failures or atheistic UFO cultist failures or whatever on naturalists like me just because we both lack belief in a deity, go ahead if it make theism seem less absurd.

Naturalism has yet to fail even once when the mysteries on any particular phenomenon were unraveled.

This is ridiculous, if all atheists are going to be lumped together regardless of whether they are naturalists, supernaturalists, B.I.A.List or whatever, then I shall lump all theists together as well and debate the flaws of Al Qaeda as if they were your own flaws.

Yet another evasion, that make three in one post. tsk tsk tsk

What is convincing to you about supernaturalism, much less theism, much less your particular theism?

I have not seen you address this issue. Based upon what I know of your beliefs, especially considering your belief that God is "unknown and unknowable" and does not intervene in a way that can be perceived by man, I would guess that you view the resurrection as an "abstract spiritual event" rather than a literal event. Is this true or am I totally wrong? Feel free to explain fully.

Goodnight David.

David Mathews

Good Morning Splashing,

David: All naturalistic origin-of-the-universe and origin-of-life scenarios are creation myths, serving all of the same functions as any of their religious predecessors. You hold naturalism in high esteem because you have no other alternative.

David: Yes, the mystery of supernaturalism is analogous to the mystery of naturalism. I have said this a number of times in several threads.

David: I can't say that naturalism has an unbroken record of success even about natural phenomena. Quantum mechanics would seem to indicate naturalism's failure to encompass even physical things.

David: No, I do not. I have no faith in the ability of the human intellect to comprehend anything so very soon after we have descended from the trees. Humans civilization have not even existed for a million years and here we already pretending to know everything. That is the absurdity of naturalism.

David: If you prefer that answer then that settles it: That is my answer.

David: If not all atheists are naturalists, it seems possible that not all naturalists are atheists.

Anyhow, the thought that scientific principles are adequate to explain all phenomena has already been refuted by Heisenburg uncertainty principle.

David: You seem to contradict yourself when you draw a distinction between naturalists and atheists, as in a previous paragraph you said: "a naturalist is an atheist."

David: Of course, naturalism successfully explains those phenomena that naturalism explains.

David: As I have stated in a different thread: the ineffable mystery, that mystery which is unresolved and unresolvable by science.

David: The resurrection of Jesus is a physical event beyond the reach of historical investigation.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Bible Humper

Good morning David


You are equivocating here, David. Creation myths and origin theories are two different things.

Naturalism holds hypothoses in higher regard than speculations.

Naturalism holds theories in higher regard than hypothoses.

Naturalism holds laws in higher regard than theories.

Theistic origin scenarios are considered law by the theist, not merely a hypothosis or theory.

Current naturalistic origin scenarios are considered hypotheses or theories by naturalists, but no theory has yet been elevated to law.

Well, QM is certainly an area of science that needs more exploration.

QM could indeed conceivable elude all attempts to ever explain it, but this does not mean it is a supernatural phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. I freely admit that there are "questions that may never be answered" in naturalism, as I have previously.

Whether a phenomenon is actually naturalistic or actually supernaturalistic has nothing to do with the ability of humans to prove that it is one or the other.

That comment about "knowing everything" seems to ignore the many times I have pointed out that naturalism make no such claim.

Theism, on the other hand, claims to have knowledge of "unknowable" supernature, as well as the "answer" to all origin mysteries. Replace "naturalism" with "supernaturalism" in your quote above and you will find it fits much better.

Since we have yet to find a single supernatural phenomenon, and all of the mysteries of all phenomena unraveled to date have proven to be naturalistic, would YOU say that it is logical to work under the assumption that these modern mysteries have naturalistic solutions UNTIL a reason to believe otherwise becomes apparent?


Actually, I have been clear about my preference that you take the challenge.

Your concession here is extremely significant, and I hope that you analyze the implications of this for your own edification.

I truly hope that you view our debate more as a collaboration than a competition, because we can both learn a lot from each other, as long as we are willing to do so rather than "score points".

It is no more possible for a naturalist to be a theist than it is for a christian to be an atheist.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

P.S. ROFLMAO, wickedness? Do note that "wickedness" is the archaic usage only. I'm not too wicked, honest

Now on to the next:

I found this on a Heisenburg uncertainly principle site:


This uncertainty leads to many strange things. For example, in a Quantum Mechanical world, I cannot predict where a particle will be with 100 % certainty. I can only speak in terms of probabilities. For example, I can say that an atom will be at some location with a 99 % probability, but there will be a 1 % probability it will be somewhere else (in fact, there will be a small but finite probabilty that it will be found across the Universe). This is strange.

We do not know if this indeterminism is actually the way the Universe works because the theory of Quantum Mechanics is probably incomplete. That is, we do not know if the Universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (there are many possible paths a particle can follow and the observed path is chosen probabilistically) or if the Universe is deterministic in the sense that I can predict the path a particle will follow with 100 % certainty.

My first point is that the HUP is a scientific principle.

My second point is highlighted in bold above.

I wouldn't be shocked if QM is never completely understood, but I have addressed the fact that naturalism does not claim complete knowledge so many times that I'm worried that you are getting sleepy from the hypnotic regularity of it.

You were referring to non-existant "atheist origin accounts", I have given the dictionary definitions of naturalism and atheism above to prove that I wasn't pulling my definitions out of my butt, so I think that this issue is resolved.


Well, since all phenomena have to date been naturalistic, this covers everything currently known.

There is no need to post yet another critique of "God in the gaps", because my B.I.A.Lism challenge is at the core of why it is not sound, so I will spare you the tedium of listening to me rant about it yet again.

I would bet good money that you knew as you wrote this that I would bring up B.I.A.Lism

Out of respect for your decision not to take the B.I.A.L challenge, I will not contest this.

I thought that it was more likely that you held the other belief, good thing I asked.

Bracer

Sorry for breaking in here right in middle of everything, but I’ve seen this sort of exchange come up before and I really feel the need to clear this up.

Quantum Mechanics (that is, the branch of physics that deals with phenomena at very basic, sub-atomic levels), is by its nature counter-intuitive. However, it is a grave (if sadly common) fallacy to leap from this to stating that such phenomena are “illogical”, or that the explanations for why such phenomena occur are in any way mysterious or somehow not “naturalistic”. Indeed, if it were the case that one had to throw logic, mathematics, and experimental verification out the window when studying quantum interactions, we wouldn’t have gotten very far in understanding them. That truly would have been something “ineffable”.

It simply (OK, not so simply, but bear with me here) turns out that at a quantum level, reality behaves very differently from what we’re used to at the everyday, macro-atomic scale governed by classical Newtonian mechanics. This is in part because, yes, quantum reactions can only be described in terms of probability (and note that I say “described in terms of probability,” not “happen in uncertain ways,” or “are unpredictable” -- the distinction is an important one and where most people, often quite willfully I’m afraid, fall off the reality bandwagon).

The great hurdle that physicists had to overcome early in the 20th century was not one of logic or math (even probability itself is governed by well understood mathematical rules -- rules which are far better understood today than in Heisenberg’s time, BTW). The hurdle was in whether they could accept such a idea as a concept, whether many of the truly bizarre seeming phenomena they were observing were indeed really happening, and if they could trust in the highly counter-intuitive conclusions their otherwise rigorous mathematical proofs were leading them to. Of course, in time -- and a surprisingly short time at that -- experimental verification of their conclusions made it clear that, yup, at the quantum level things happen in ways not seen before. Not illogically, certainly not ineffably, just very differently from what we had come to expect.

And this is in itself is not surprising, actually. Richard Dawkins has pointed out that human brains evolved to deal with physical reality at a purely Newtonian scale. For example, humans can throw a rock and hit a target dozens of yards away because we have a deep-rooted, intuitive understanding of the underlying physics involved -- our ancestors’ survival depended on such an understanding, and so that’s the way things still make sense to us. Quantum phenomena are quite outside our everyday experiences, and so our brains didn’t develop to understand such interactions in the same hard-wired, intuitive way. It only stands to reason that quantum phenomena can seem quite puzzling, and often prove difficult to get your mind around.

But it’s worth pointing out that even though this is the case, the scientific method and methodological naturalism still work spectacularly well. Indeed, if anything it’s clear that the study of Quantum Mechanics is one of the scientific method’s greatest and most inspiring successes. In probing the universe we’ve actually reached the point where the biological limitations of our own brains to understand what we’re observing could have prevented us from going any further. Yet by simply sticking to what can be logically worked out and experimentally verified, we’re finding out how it works anyway. The proof is in the very computers that we’re all using to have this discussion, solid state electronics being just one practical application (true, I’ll grant that my PC does occasionally work in puzzling ways, but I believe the fault there lies with Gates, not Heisenberg ).

So please, in future don’t try to hold up Quantum Mechanics as being something beyond human understanding, because it quite demonstrably isn’t. It should also be noted that when it’s said that QM is not “complete”, it’s no more so than any other area of scientific inquiry (in much the same way that, for example, Evolution is “just a theory”). Certainly we still have a lot to learn, and you won’t get any argument from me there. But we are doing quite well, thank you, no ineffable mysteries required.

OK, once again, sorry for breaking in. Please resume.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bracer ]</p>

Bible Humper

Hello David, before I allow this thread to disappear altogether I would like to get your last word.

You have accepted Pascal's wager,

Will you accept the <a href="http://www.freepascal.org/" target="_blank">Pascal wager</a>?

excreationist

Firstly, I'll talk about what I think awareness and consciousness is:
from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000268&p=" target="_blank">Humans vs. Nonconscious Machines (page 1)</a>:
So those things become increasingly intelligent. I think consciousness is higher form of awareness. I think that animals such as mammals and maybe some birds satisfy my definitions of awareness. Humans have a huge potential for learning things but initially they start at a low stage... it takes experience for babies to learn to become intelligent philosophers - when they are born they aren't pondering whether their is life after death or what the world will be like in a century's time or what they want to do when they retire...
So my point is that we aren't born with "consciousness" (which I'd say are the later stages which Piaget identified) - we are born with animal-type "awareness", with the potential for consciousness.
So that's what I think awareness and consciousness are.

This is what I wrote on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000268&p=2" target="_blank">page 2</a> of that thread:
from <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000268&p=3" target="_blank">page 3</a> of that thread:
Anyway, lungs don't have things like this:
"...long-term memories that it has accumulated that it uses to predict what it needs to do in order to attempt to satisfy its fundamental drives..."

So it isn't aware. Sufficiently educated living human brains connected to inputs (eyes, etc) and outputs (a muscle-filled body) do have those things... and they'd also be at Piaget's higher stages of cognitive development and could therefore be considered "conscious".

On the topic of consciousness, this article is fairly interesting:
<a href="http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/ASSChtml/ASSC.html" target="_blank">Experience is not something we feel but something we do: a principled way of explaining sensory phenomenology</a> [the "raw feel" of things]

Bible Humper

Thanks for those links, Excreationist. That last one was especially good, lots of fodder for those "look at this cool mind trick" e-mails.

excreationist

For more of those, check out these links:
<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/illusions/black_dots.jpg" target="_blank">The scintillating grid</a>
It was discovered in about 1994... it is *not* an animated graphic - it even works if you print it out onto paper! (Assuming it has really high contrast and you are the right distance away from it) If you stare at one dot it will stay white.

<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/illusions/colours.gif" target="_blank">Left/Right brain conflict</a>
Here you can fight against yourself...

<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/illusions/" target="_blank">the directory</a>
this has a couple other files.

I've also got some non-visual mind tricks...

for these tricks, make sure you read the question, answer it, then slowly scroll down... *don't* jump ahead! (Or look back!) And make sure you *don't* hesitate in giving answers! Think of the *first* answer that comes into your head! Choose the most obvious answer!

Trick 1:

What's 1 + 1?

*

*

*

What's 2 + 2?

*

*

*

What's 4 + 4?

*

*

*

What's 8 + 8?

*

*

*

What's 16 + 16?

*

*

*

What's 32 + 32?

*

*

*

*

*

*

Think of a number between 12 and 5.

*

*

*

End of trick 1.

Trick 2:

What's 2 + 4?

*

*

*

What's 5 + 1?

*

*

*

What's 3 + 3?

*

*

*

What's 4 + 2?

*

*

*

Think of a vegetable.

*

*

*

For both tricks, apparently about 90-98% of people give the same answer. To check what those answers are, ask someone else those questions. (The leading questions are very important)

I think this works because of the quirks we have associating things together in our brains. Maybe doubling is associated with subtraction (12-5 = 7) and 6 is associated with a six-lettered vegetable somehow.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

yahwehyadayada

I hope noone minds me breaking in here to say
Dear Splashing,
I love your old men on crutches on the god of the gaps island metaphor. Or simile. I always get those two confused.

Bible Humper

Excreationist: Thanks a lot for those!

For your non-visual mind tricks, I answered the same as the 90-98%, choosing 7 as the number between 5 and 12, and 6 letter "carrot" as the random vegetable.

This shows that "random" thoughts are nothing of the sort, clearly biased by coincidental thought processes as shown by the results of my own "random" thoughts in these exercises.

I am going to take a good look at this phenomenon, especially the implications it has for the reliability of "intuition".