(July 28, 2015 at 9:11 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Modern Scientists all agree that the universe had a beginning and further that it is a closed system.  

Feels like you're going to need a citation for that, since I can bring up a video of Alan Guth, a cosmologist who contributed the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem regarding universal origins with some other scientists, stating that he does not know if the universe had a beginning, but suspects that it is eternal; evidently, your claim that all scientists agree that the universe had a beginning is falsified. In fact, I've not seen a single solitary scientist actually make that claim in the simplified way that you're making it.

Quote: While I understand what you are saying and fully agree that simply saying "God did it" is not a valid explanation as the HOW or WHAT question you also must remember that there are differing forms of explanation that are not contradictory, but both complimentary or that some things require both explanations to be fully understood. There are mechanical explanations sure (as in your description of a rainbow), but there are are also explanations from agency. Science can explain the how answers, but not the why. To answer a why question fully you also need an explanation from agency. If I present to you a pot of boiling water on a stove and then ask you the question "why is the water boiling?", science can give a detailed description of the heat causing the aggravation of the water molecules, etc, etc. But I tell you no, it's boiling because I want a cup of tea. These are not conflicting explanations, but both are satisfactory and answer the same question.

If that's the way you want to define the nature of "why?" questions, then you're going to have to justify the assertion you're making that the universe requires, or could even coherently pose, a "why?" question. If "why?" questions are questions regarding agency, then you're going to first need to establish that the universe required agency before the possibility of it having an answer to a "why?" even makes sense. You're putting the cart way before the horse.

Quote:Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

Except that consciousness is a process undergone by specific arrangements of matter. It isn't made of matter itself. By your logic here, computer systems are just physical components, none of those components are programs, therefore computers can never have programs installed on them. It's ridiculous, not to mention a fallacy of composition, as has already been pointed out.

Quote:But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.

Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

Really? Because it's leading to an argument from ignorance, here: "I don't understand this, therefore non material consciousness." Are you even trying, anymore?

(July 27, 2015 at 12:57 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(July 27, 2015 at 12:48 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: You are assuming that the internal combustion engine (or any humanly designed artifact) is relevantly analogous to the universe.  You haven't even begun to justify that leap.

What I am showing is that we see something with complexity, function and purpose and we immediately assume a mind behind it.  Do you not look at something as simple as a letter and assume someone with a mind produced it?  

I find it fascinating how we can take something simple as the internal combustion engine and assume there was a mind behind it, but see something infinitely more complex as the universe and say its pure chance with no need for an intelligence behind it?  I don't find that logic very convincing.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that while we see billions of people all around us producing a wide variety of things both simple and complex, any alleged creator god is conspicuous by its absence.

You can imagine god did it. I can imagine the Universe unfolding as a result of the physical properties under which it operates. I know which one has more evidence.

(July 28, 2015 at 11:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(July 27, 2015 at 12:57 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: What I am showing is that we see something with complexity, function and purpose and we immediately assume a mind behind it.  Do you not look at something as simple as a letter and assume someone with a mind produced it?  

I find it fascinating how we can take something simple as the internal combustion engine and assume there was a mind behind it, but see something infinitely more complex as the universe and say its pure chance with no need for an intelligence behind it?  I don't find that logic very convincing.

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that while we see billions of people all around us producing a wide variety of things both simple and complex, any alleged creator god is conspicuous by its absence.

You can imagine god did it. I can imagine the Universe unfolding as a result of the physical properties under which it operates. I know which one has more evidence.

But that does not answer the question of the origin of those physical properties themselves.

(July 28, 2015 at 11:49 am)lkingpinl Wrote:

(July 28, 2015 at 11:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: That probably has a lot to do with the fact that while we see billions of people all around us producing a wide variety of things both simple and complex, any alleged creator god is conspicuous by its absence.

You can imagine god did it. I can imagine the Universe unfolding as a result of the physical properties under which it operates. I know which one has more evidence.

But that does not answer the question of the origin of those physical properties themselves.

Therefore god, right? Ignorance means that you're right, yeah?

Science: "Here are the models of reality we can be confident in putting forward so far."

Religion: "But what happens before that? Why is that there? How did it happen?"

Science: "We don't know yet. We're working on it."

Christianity: "Screw that. I'm going to make up answers."

Islam: "Me too!"

Buddhism: "Me too!"

Science: "... OK. Have fun with that. We'll just carry on working shall we?"

(July 28, 2015 at 10:35 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Pyrrho, 
If I present to you a pot of boiling water on a stove and then ask you the question "why is the water boiling?", science can give a detailed description of the heat causing the aggravation of the water molecules, etc, etc.  But I tell you no, it's boiling because I want a cup of tea.  These are not conflicting explanations, but both are satisfactory and answer the same question. 

Crap! Science can answer "agency" or "who" answers just fine. Science can peel open your brain and explain why the bio-chemistry of your blood is reacted upon by the brain to release serotonin and make you happy when you have tea.

This is ignored in science because "agency" usually isn't important information to us. Science doesn't waste time considering "why" water boils for you after they've established why water boils.

When we find any evidence that something in the universe was created by magic sparkly god fairy dust, then we'll go looking for your god. Until then we won't waste our time.

(July 28, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(July 28, 2015 at 10:35 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Pyrrho, 
If I present to you a pot of boiling water on a stove and then ask you the question "why is the water boiling?", science can give a detailed description of the heat causing the aggravation of the water molecules, etc, etc.  But I tell you no, it's boiling because I want a cup of tea.  These are not conflicting explanations, but both are satisfactory and answer the same question. 

Crap! Science can answer "agency" or "who" answers just fine. Science can peel open your brain and explain why the bio-chemistry of your blood is reacted upon by the brain to release serotonin and make you happy when you have tea.

This is ignored in science because "agency" usually isn't important information to us. Science doesn't waste time considering "why" water boils for you after they've established why water boils.

When we find any evidence that something in the universe was created by magic sparkly god fairy dust, then we'll go looking for your god. Until then we won't waste our time.

So does this mean that because science can explain everything about the internal combustion engine, that Henry Ford did not exist or create it?

(July 28, 2015 at 12:45 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:

(July 28, 2015 at 12:42 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Crap! Science can answer "agency" or "who" answers just fine. Science can peel open your brain and explain why the bio-chemistry of your blood is reacted upon by the brain to release serotonin and make you happy when you have tea.

This is ignored in science because "agency" usually isn't important information to us. Science doesn't waste time considering "why" water boils for you after they've established why water boils.

When we find any evidence that something in the universe was created by magic sparkly god fairy dust, then we'll go looking for your god. Until then we won't waste our time.

So does this mean that because science can explain everything about the internal combustion engine, that Henry Ford did not exist or create it?

Not only are you wrong about matters of religion, you are wrong about basic facts of history.  Henry Ford did not invent the internal combustion engine.  Don't believe me?  Look it up in an encyclopedia.  If you need me to give you a link, I can do so, but I would rather you look it up in an encyclopedia that you trust.

(July 28, 2015 at 12:45 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: So does this mean that because science can explain everything about the internal combustion engine, that Henry Ford did not exist or create it?

False equivocation between creation by rearrangement of already existing matter and creation out of nothing. And as has been explained multiple times, complexity does not imply intent.

Do you ever intend on addressing the objections to your arguments?

(July 27, 2015 at 11:29 am)lkingpinl Wrote: Honest questions here guys, curious to know your opinions.  

1.  Do you believe that modern science has completely done away with a need for God as an explanation for the universe?  

2.  Does one need to choose between God and Science?

1. I can't speak for theists because I am not one. Some people need a God to control their lives because they feel helpless without one. I have never needed God as an explanation for the universe because Gods and magic are the most simplistic and illogical explanations that primitive, ignorant people have made up.
2. I hope that one doesn't need to choose between God and science. If you're going to believe in an anthropomorphic puppet master that lives up in the sky and has magical powers, at least keep your faith separate from material science.