If I could interject for a moment.

I don't not believe in god because of science. (although it is nice that science seems to support my view).

No.

I don't believe in god because the idea is laughably stupid.

And not just Yahweh or Jehova all of them.

Any belief system that relies on a superntaural entity as its main star is on to a loser as far as I'm concerned.

So attack away at science. This in no way counts as an argument FOR god or gods.

I have followed this exchange with great interest. The key question posed by Statler reveals the vacuous metaphysics of ontological naturalism and materialism. The question is as follows:

(December 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: …you how you can account for…regularities (what we call laws) in a purely material and unguided Universe.

And the position of RS summarized thusly:

(December 18, 2013 at 2:02 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: You haven’t shown reason to believe there is a cosmic prescriber, only that we as humans describe the cosmos. Descriptions do not imply PRE-scriptions.

This statement is not only false but misleading. You fail to distinguish between physical laws and metaphysical necessities. For example, as currently understood the physical universe operates according to four fundamental fours and a handful of constants. Either these physical laws are the only possible ones for a viable universe OR other equally viable universes exist (multiverse) in which physical laws could be slightly different. In either case, a viable universe must conform to indispensible principles that constrain the possibilities. So you cannot have a universe that both exists and does not exist OR a universe in which mathematics does not work OR where causes do not have effects or effects causes. A universe in which the smallest particle is a Lego seems pretty unlikely, too. In addition, there must be a motivating force that makes change happen and yet keeps everything from collapsing back into nothing, i.e. “why is there something and not nothing?”
Now there is a huge gulf between transcendent principles and a personal god, but at the same time many of the attributes of a basic god-like entity match those of the transcendent principles. As Aquinas would say, “Everyone calls this God.”

(December 18, 2013 at 2:02 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: …every objective thing in the universe we are aware of, evidence can be found to support it.

When you talk about objective things, I take it that you mean sensible objects. That does not mean that all real ‘things’ are sensible objects. Are you prepared to argue that sadness, anger and joy are not real?
You also mentioned that everything is material even the mind. Tell me which of the following statements would you include in your position: 1) physical processes can cause mental properties to appear; 2) mental properties can influence physical processes; 3) physical processes and mental properties exist in parallel but do not interact?

(December 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Are you prepared to argue that sadness, anger and joy are not real?

Even those Chad, are descriptions of physical processes, and without the mind, those too cease to be of relevance. They're real insofar as there is a material physical being capable of describing the material physical process it is experiencing. Is as real as the codes being processed by software in a computer that generate other non"sensible objects". In many ways your brain is like a computer, but when the physical energy ceases to flow through a computer, and the codes that once produced data by means of the software programmed into it no longer having a sufficient vessel to produce that data, nobody questions whether or not it's " immaterial soul" is being rewarded or punished.

(December 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You also mentioned that everything is material even the mind.

I said we have every reason to think its material, and nothing more. I try not to make definite claims without having knowledge of all possibilities. That's where you guys seem to be missing me. I am open to a new possibility, but I haven't heard any reason from either of you to believe you've found a viable alternative to the material being all that exists.

(December 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Tell me which of the following statements would you include in your position: 1) physical processes can cause mental properties to appear; 2) mental properties can influence physical processes; 3) physical processes and mental properties exist in parallel but do not interact?

How about this: Mental properties are physical processes!! You would need a damn good argument to show otherwise. In this respect, it's no different that a material, physical computer. Are you saying that my iPhone has a soul? If Siri tells me she's sad, and I believe her, who are you then to tell me she's not?Hmm? Does Siri have a soul? If she's capable of every other descriptive ability that you think can only be explained by invoking a God within the one in possession of said property, how then do you dismiss her description of what we understand as emotion?

(December 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In either case, a viable universe must conform to indispensible principles that constrain the possibilities. So you cannot have a universe that both exists and does not exist

This is the only principle you've listed that's actually true, and it's because it's axiomatic; something can't be both itself and not itself.

Quote:OR a universe in which mathematics does not work

I don't know that this is true, though; all you can safely say is that you can't envision a universe where mathematics don't work.

Quote: OR where causes do not have effects or effects causes.

And this one's just a bare assertion; under certain quantum mechanical models, this universe has effects without causes, in some sense.

Quote: A universe in which the smallest particle is a Lego seems pretty unlikely, too.

But I'm sure the Lego corporation is working on it.

Quote: In addition, there must be a motivating force that makes change happen and yet keeps everything from collapsing back into nothing, i.e. “why is there something and not nothing?”

Another bare assertion.

Quote:Now there is a huge gulf between transcendent principles and a personal god, but at the same time many of the attributes of a basic god-like entity match those of the transcendent principles. As Aquinas would say, “Everyone calls this God.”

So, Aquinas is demonstrably wrong, because I don't call that god, but moreover, you've just exposed the extent to which these arguments are nothing more than religious grasping, because you don't believe in a vague motivating force, you've got a very specific, conscious god in mind. To make reference to Aquinas and transcendent principles as proof of your god is a non-sequitur; it helps no-one, because what you've described doesn't describe a conscious being at all. You've mentioned how this reveals the vacuousness of materialism, but in order to show that you presented an argument that can be applied just as easily to both of our positions.

Quote:When you talk about objective things, I take it that you mean sensible objects. That does not mean that all real ‘things’ are sensible objects. Are you prepared to argue that sadness, anger and joy are not real?

They're neurological arrangements inside the brain. We can literally measure that.

Quote:You also mentioned that everything is material even the mind. Tell me which of the following statements would you include in your position: 1) physical processes can cause mental properties to appear; 2) mental properties can influence physical processes; 3) physical processes and mental properties exist in parallel but do not interact?

The mind is an emergent property of the physical brain; your sense of self isn't some external thing, it's tied to your body. That's why it can be manipulated with drugs and physical stimuli.

Yay. Chad lets loose another furball of vapid assertions without support, and fallacy ridden arguments in an effort to sneak his rather patently obvious ontological "where the fuck did that get in here" anti-naturalism in under the worst invisibility cloak ever. I think Tex is off in deep waters without so much as a candy life saver, but it's good to know that whatever simplistic tripe can be thought of to attack theism, some theist will come along and up the ante with tripe that's twice as absurd and inane.

You really should give up philosophy, Chad, because you really suck at it. For completeness, the possibility you omitted in your rush to appeal to the fallacy of the excluded middle is, beyond this particularly configured universe, beyond the idea that all possible universes exist, is the possibility that a universe unlike this one could possibly exist. At this point, we simply don't know enough about the class of things labeled 'universes' to say much more than that we know this particular one exists (or seems to exist). That you want to rush to fill that gap in our knowledge with "metaphysics" and planks so obviously stolen from your religious agenda that they have "Made in Swedenborg" stamped all over them, is just mind numbingly stupid, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Another fine showing from you. What on earth possesses you to believe you have any business in metaphysics, or any other field of philosophy? It's patently obvious to this reader that, to you, philosophy is nothing but a hammer you can use to drive home your religious agenda. You have no morals and scruples, and you go way, way out of your way to hate on atheists, atheism, and the secular worldview; and you have the gall to impugn my motives as a religious hater? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You're such a massive hypocrite and hater, I guess it's the only model of human behavior you're familiar with, so you could only assume that I was one too because you can't imagine any other way to be. Scratch the surface of any religious apologist, and just under the surface you'll find seething hatred fueled by a sense of entitlement. This is obviously the case here, as amply demonstrated by your bile in the thread on the cross at Mt. Soledad.

They feel that they are right. End of story. The only way to cure it is either give them information so they can learn and come out of the dark on their own or just a put a bullet in their heads. I see no third option.

(December 19, 2013 at 11:33 am)feeling Wrote: They feel that they are right. End of story. The only way to cure it is either give them information so they can learn and come out of the dark on their own or just a put a bullet in their heads. I see no third option.

I can. How about "leave them to it".

My previous list did not include “mental properties are physical processes” because it begs the question. In order for two things be identical (in this case, mind properties=brain processes) both must have all the same properties; i.e. you cannot say something about the first that cannot be said about the second and vice versus. Now consider the following two descriptions of reality: 1) the smell of cookies makes me remember grandma so I write her a “thinking of you” card AND 2) A specific stimulation of olfactory nerves activates certain memory centers leading to complex bodily motions that disperse ink on paper. These statements are not identical. The subject and object of the first sentence refer to qualitative experiences. The subject and object of the second sentence refer to quantitative empirical observations. The claim that “mental properties are physical processes” begs the question, because the question at hand is the relationship between these two distinct parts of reality: mental properties (first-person experiences of sensation, imagination, intention and meaning) and physical processes (third-person measurements and categorizations).
So let’s try this again. The options for describing the causal relationship between mind and body are as follows:
1) Mental properties can influence physical processes and vice versus.
2) Physical processes can influence mental properties, but not the reverse.
3) Mental properties can influence physical processes, but not the reverse.
4) Neither mental properties nor physical processes can influence the other.
5) Only physical processes are real; mental properties are an illusion.
6) Only mental properties are real; physical processes are an illusion.
This list exhausts the possibilities. Choose wisely.

(December 18, 2013 at 6:21 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: This statement is not only false but misleading. You fail to distinguish between physical laws and metaphysical necessities. For example, as currently understood the physical universe operates according to four fundamental fours and a handful of constants. Either these physical laws are the only possible ones for a viable universe OR other equally viable universes exist (multiverse) in which physical laws could be slightly different. In either case, a viable universe must conform to indispensible principles that constrain the possibilities. So you cannot have a universe that both exists and does not exist OR a universe in which mathematics does not work OR where causes do not have effects or effects causes. A universe in which the smallest particle is a Lego seems pretty unlikely, too. In addition, there must be a motivating force that makes change happen and yet keeps everything from collapsing back into nothing, i.e. “why is there something and not nothing?”

There is so much wrong here. Firstly, I don't get the point you're trying to make by bringing up physical laws and metaphysical necessities. The metaphysical necessities you brought up are the laws of thought, basically. There is nothing particularly mysterious about them, they have to be the case. If contradictions could actually happen outside of language, it would follow then that they also could NOT happen outside language simultaneously. See how that gets you nowhere?

However, you are dead wrong on causality. A possible world without causality has no conceptual incoherence as far as I can tell, and even our own universe shows sign at lower levels of causality going out the window.

As for why there is something, rather than npthing, I would tend to answer that the concept of 'nothingness' is completely incoherent. What is nothingness purported to BE? Well, not anything at all. It cannot even be referred to, because you're not refercing anything. Neither is it a state of affairs, because that presumes the existence of some THING with an ontological status of some sort, which nothingness is purported to be antithetical to.

Quote:Now there is a huge gulf between transcendent principles and a personal god, but at the same time many of the attributes of a basic god-like entity match those of the transcendent principles. As Aquinas would say, “Everyone calls this God.”

The problem is that theists will flip the ontological heirarchy. These 'transcendent principles' aren't transcendent, they're immanent. They're the necessary facts of reality, and thus anything real. If God exists, he too would have to be such because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.