Big Bang Theory

[LastPoet]

Are you real?

Yep, last time I checked. Of course, if Atheism were true, I may just be a subjective chemical delusion created in your mind, with no objective reality. You really can't be sure what subjective chemical delusions you ought to experience as 'your mind'. You certainly can't test it scientifically, because even the rules of science would be nothing more than the deliverances of chemical delusions.

I asked you a simple question, are your beliefs in religions so that you reflect what you claim? I don't care about the ramblings you have about atheism, I just asked you a simple question: Are you really as dumb as you try to be?

[Kirbmarc]

Of course, if Atheism were true, I may just be a subjective chemical delusion created in your mind, with no objective reality. You really can't be sure what subjective chemical delusions you ought to experience as 'your mind'. You certainly can't test it scientifically, because even the rules of science would be nothing more than the deliverances of chemical delusions.

This philosophical position is solipsism. Could it be true? Yes. Does it lead you somewhere? No. We have to accept that the world outside our minds is real, otherwise we couldn't do anything.

If there's anything that I believe and can't be justified is this. The world is real. I take this an axiom.

Theists think that they can prove that the world is real by proving that god is real. This is a futile and potentially dangerous attempt, because if you have a theistic mindset any evidence against an intelligent god (and there's plenty of them: vestigiality, mass extinctions, quantum mechanics, etc) would also prove that the world doesn't exist.

Theism is a circular argument. Theists want to prove god through nature, but to do so they need god to prove that nature exists.

[Truth Matters]

lantinga's ideas about "chemical illusions" forget a very important fact: we live an universe that is not limited by our brains. Indeed, the universe, through natural selection, created our brains. Therefore our mental processes can't be an illusion, at least not completely. Otherwise we would have already ceased to exist as a species.

I's not Plantinga's idea of chemical causation of mind.
It's the logical implication of Athiesm.
Plantinga knows better. Atheists don't.
That's why you deflect off and ignore the logic.

Now explain how those chemcals caused the correct delusion in your head? Don't just ignore the question.

Evolution doesn't "ought" to deliver anything into Plantinga's mind. It's easy to understand that many mental patterns that have no corrispondence in reality outside of our brains are a huge evolutionary disadvantage (people who believe that they can fly rarely live long enough to have offrsprings).

Again, you ignore the question. What objective chemical delusion is the true delusion - necessary for you to claim Plantinga is wrong?
You have answered nothing. You can't answer.

There is no such thing as an "objectively correct" mental pattern. Mental pattern are correct (or not) relatively according to the data that we have. And according to the data we have, an intelligent creator is an unncessary hypothesis.

Then how in the hell do you explain your claim that Plantiga' is wrong?
Why makes your chemical delusions objectively correct? How do you know? Do chemicals also cause that delusion in your head?
Why do you make an implicit exception for the objective reality of your own chemical delusions when judging other delusions o be wrong?

Seems to me, you refuse to take Atheism seriously in reason.

Prove your interpretation of the concept of cause is correct?

You're grasping at straws. The concept of cause that I use is the one that is used by modern science. It may be wrong, but if so all of modern science is also wrong.

Grasping? I'm the one taking your Atheism seriously. You refuse to deal with the logic of chemical determinism of mind. You ignore the implications of chemical mind. Explain chemical mind in non-deterministic terms?
Explain choice and free-will in terms of chemicals causing mind.
You can't. It's logically impossible.

Prove Plantinga's argument is an abuse of the concept of cause? Where is your objective evidence?

The evidence for my claim is what I already wrote. This concept of cause is valid only between phenomena. A supernatural entity, therefore, can't be a cause of a natural phenomenon.

Again, you answer absolutely nothing. You merely ignore everything and pivot.

Atheism is madness.

---

Of course, if Atheism were true, I may just be a subjective chemical delusion created in your mind, with no objective reality. You really can't be sure what subjective chemical delusions you ought to experience as 'your mind'. You certainly can't test it scientifically, because even the rules of science would be nothing more than the deliverances of chemical delusions.

This philosophical position is solipsism. Could it be true? Yes. Does it lead you somewhere? No. We have to accept that the world outside our minds is real, otherwise we couldn't do anything.

If there's anything that I believe and can't be justified is this. The world is real. I take this an axiom.

Theists think that they can prove that the world is real by proving that god is real. This is a futile and potentially dangerous attempt, because if you have a theistic mindset any evidence against an intelligent god (and there's plenty of them: vestigiality, mass extinctions, quantum mechanics, etc) would also prove that the world doesn't exist.

Theism is a circular argument. Theists want to prove god through nature, but to do so they need god to prove that nature exists.

Do the chemicals cause that delusion in your head?

Where is your evidence that your chemical delusions are the correct chemical delusions?

Prove that Theism is circular?
I provide evidence and arguments to justify my belief.
You have utterly failed to defeat any one of them.

You offer no evidence or arguments to justify your Atheist belief. You offer your own chemically determined delusions - validated only by other chemical delusions in your have no objective value.

You sure put a load of faith in your chemical delusions.

Atheism is nuts when taken seriously.

[Edwardo Piet]

Listen, you are dismissing some very serious arguments with superficial handwaving. You clearly don't understand the arguments and evidences. Of course, I have offered a mere skeleton of outline. You should try to engage and learn them before responding with surface level dismissals.

I can't afford to write a book here, but I can answer any serious objections you may have.

Here is a great place that has lots of free podcasts and answers.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org

I responded to why I thought that the arguments you presented weren't valid or weren't sound. You say I did "superficial handwaving" but you don't explain how that's what I did. You say I "clearly don't understand the arguments and evidences" but you don't explain how that's true either, and I see this as a bad advertisement for the website link that you present to me.

[Something completely different]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

So is this the source of the ignorance and ideocy reflected in your posts Truth Matters?

Grotesk!!!:

[Kousbroek]

Do the chemicals cause that delusion in your head?

Where is your evidence that your chemical delusions are the correct chemical delusions?

You sure put a load of faith in your chemical delusions.

Atheism is nuts when taken seriously.

If one takes the time to listing to plantinga carefully one could hear him explain there is never such a thing as an objective truth, but that applies to theism just as much as atheism.
Your theistic believes are just as much a chemical delusion as my non believe ( atheism isn't a belief btw ).
What matters to me is what do i find more plausible, your theistic ancient bogus story about your invisible friend in the sky or an ever increasing scientific understanding of ourselves and our surrounding.
I'll go with the second if you don't mind, i feel much more comfortable being chemically delusion-ed by people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen hawking , Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene and Jim Gates just to name a few.

p.s. please be careful with generalizations like "Atheism is nuts when taken seriously." .
I'm not too offended by it ( yet ) because i know who is saying it but it sure doesn't help us to continue some sort of civilized intelligent debate.

[Ben Davis]

Nonsense

Vilenkins quote:
====
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

====

Deal with it

My quote post-dates yours. That means it stands as an update/retraction of his previous statement. You deal with it.

[KichigaiNeko]

Actually I have posted before, an interactive study regarding the influence of "Meditation, Prayer, and god" on the human brain and yes it is all chemically based and the so called "god experience" has no other basis than in a chemical reaction in the brain.

Can't seem to find it now but yes...religions is just a chemical based delusion; marijuana is just as good.

[Truth Matters]

Listen, you are dismissing some very serious arguments with superficial handwaving. You clearly don't understand the arguments and evidences. Of course, I have offered a mere skeleton of outline. You should try to engage and learn them before responding with surface level dismissals.

I can't afford to write a book here, but I can answer any serious objections you may have.

Here is a great place that has lots of free podcasts and answers.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org

I responded to why I thought that the arguments you presented weren't valid or weren't sound. You say I did "superficial handwaving" but you don't explain how that's what I did. You say I "clearly don't understand the arguments and evidences" but you don't explain how that's true either, and I see this as a bad advertisement for the website link that you present to me.

I see you are making excuses for the fact you cannot give serious answers.

---

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

So is this the source of the ignorance and ideocy reflected in your posts Truth Matters?

Grotesk!!!:

I see you still have no arguments or evidence to justify your belief - and cannot defeat those I presented. I always knew Atheism is for idiots.

But thanks for the pretty pictures.

---

Do the chemicals cause that delusion in your head?

Where is your evidence that your chemical delusions are the correct chemical delusions?

You sure put a load of faith in your chemical delusions.

Atheism is nuts when taken seriously.

If one takes the time to listing to plantinga carefully one could hear him explain there is never such a thing as an objective truth, but that applies to theism just as much as atheism.
Your theistic believes are just as much a chemical delusion as my non believe ( atheism isn't a belief btw ).
What matters to me is what do i find more plausible, your theistic ancient bogus story about your invisible friend in the sky or an ever increasing scientific understanding of ourselves and our surrounding.
I'll go with the second if you don't mind, i feel much more comfortable being chemically delusion-ed by people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen hawking , Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene and Jim Gates just to name a few.

p.s. please be careful with generalizations like "Atheism is nuts when taken seriously." .
I'm not too offended by it ( yet ) because i know who is saying it but it sure doesn't help us to continue some sort of civilized intelligent debate.

So you trust chemical delusions (brain chemicals) more than an objective mind (Soul behind brain chemicals) to make rational decisions?

You claim Atheism is not a Belief? Wow.
Do Atheists not hold a belief position on whether or not God exists?

But your brain chemicals delusion has a bias towards those whose chemical delusions are Materialistic?

Yep, Atheism is madness when taken seriously. But hey, I'm just taking your Naturalism seriously through to it's logically inescapable implications.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that anyone who trusts their delusions completely (in this case I'll just run with the whole delusions bit) is a fool. I don't see why that adds weight to ghosts as an alternative. Why would a ghost be more trustworthy to begin with amigo? More importantly, why should I prefer ghosts over chemical interactions in whatever limited amount of trust I care to afford? I've never encountered a ghost, there aren't any ghosts living inside of me that I'm aware of, and as far as I know there are no ghosts anywhere that anyone is aware of. Feel free to educate me.