Are there any Level 1's here?

[Esquilax]

The supernatural is beyond the limits of the logic that governs natural.

If this is true, then how are you- bound to the logical nature of the universe- able to make any declarative statements about the properties of god at all?

God is omnipotent so we cannot box or define him outside revelation and what is written in scripture.

But if god is beyond the limits of logic, then how do you know that the scripture accurately reflects the nature of god at all? Something that does not adhere to what we know as logic must be illogical by definition, so how can you be sure that the scriptures you've been presented with aren't lies told for a reason beyond your comprehension? Or any other number of things?

The universe has laws that govern it and require a law giver or governor.

The laws of the universe are descriptive, not proscriptive. As such, they require no law giver, unless you can actually demonstrate otherwise.

Also the saying someone must show something to know it is arrogant asserton and absolutist.

If you cannot demonstrate your knowledge, how is anyone else supposed to differentiate it from a belief or a delusion? And if they can't do that, how can they be rationally justified in accepting your claim as knowledge, and not belief?

[Chas]

The supernatural is beyond the limits of the logic that governs natural.

You evidence for this is ... ?

God is omnipotent so we cannot box or define him outside revelation and what is written in scripture.

You evidence for this is ... ?

The universe has laws that govern it and require a law giver or governor.

You clearly don't understand what 'law' means when used in science. It means a mathematical statement of observed behavior. The lawgiver is man.

Also the saying someone must show something to know it is arrogant asserton and absolutist.

No, it is the basis for knowing anything. What is arrogant is you claiming knowledge that you can't possibly have.

[Avodaiah]

Esquilax: To be honest I don't understand what the problem is with the idea of dependency. We see it everywhere: Things bump into each other and react with each other and change the position, shape, color, structure, etc. of other things all the time. This is what I mean by dependency.

You have already presupposed a soul or something similar by suggesting there is a non-physical component to the mind.

But the motion of transistors is not knowledge. It cannot be called knowledge any more than flicking a light switch on and off can be called knowledge. The 'knowledge' on a computer seems to be knowledge much less so than information in the brain because a computer lacks a sentience to process said information.

It could be called knowledge more, but how much more I'm not sure. A light switch is far less complex than the information stored on a computer.

Neither of them are knowledge. True, a computer full of transistors and electrical wiring is more complex than a single light switch, but they are both just electrons and motion. Computers do not know things, they just move electrons around. This is why a sentient robot/computer is impossible.

The brain is governed by electrical impulses; why couldn't a robot be built off of the same principles some day? (I'm not saying whether or not it should, just that it could).

The brain is governed by electrical impulses; the mind is not. The brain may be the connection between the mind and the body, but it also only moves electrons around. The mind knows things; electrons and motion are not knowledge. So the brain is not the mind.

4) The governor/creator must be sentient.
This is probably the simplest of my four points: Humans are among those things in the universe that depend on each other and therefore share a governor/creator. Nothing can control a power it does not have. Therefore, if this governor/creator is in charge of sentient beings, he himself must be sentient.

What do you mean by "in charge of"? That fact that the laws of physics apply to sentient beings does not make physics itself sentient in nature.

To illustrate, let's think about your webpage example from earlier, except let's consider the webmaster of a site like this. He wouldn't be a very good webmaster if he did not know how to write code, or worse, if he did not have administrator access to his own servers. Why? Because you can't control something you don't have. A nonsentient being cannot control sentient beings for the same reason.

[Drich]

My question is this; why would anyone step into this obvious ambush? If I were a "theist" (pick a brand) it would be silly of me to admit/confess my faith, knowing the obvious outcome would be insults being hurled at me from the peanut gallery. I understand "witnessing" and all, but GC, I think you are casting your pearls among some without the perception required to comprehend the message you wish to share (I won't use the word "swine"). Godschild, if your message is not received, let your peace return to you, and when you leave that house/town, brush the dust from your sandals, and carry your word to the man of peace.

1peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

---

1++

When one Ask Seeks and Knocks for the Holy Spirit as outlined in luke 11 God the Holy Spirit becomes apart of you. If you are faithful to that gift, a larger portion of the H/S will be given to you, and as you grow and walk in your faith you get to see and can even begin to antiscipate how God will move in your life. If you remain faithful still you will/can be given the gift of being able to ask God anything, and receive a response/direction in return. A good example of this are found in men like Paul, Martin Luther, and can even be found leading in our local churches.

[Chas]

Neither of them are knowledge. True, a computer full of transistors and electrical wiring is more complex than a single light switch, but they are both just electrons and motion. Computers do not know things, they just move electrons around. This is why a sentient robot/computer is impossible.

The brain is governed by electrical impulses; the mind is not. The brain may be the connection between the mind and the body, but it also only moves electrons around. The mind knows things; electrons and motion are not knowledge. So the brain is not the mind.

All of the evidence points to the mind being an emergent property of the brain; that it cannot exist without the brain.

As for Strong AI, we don't know that is not possible. It is very probably possible.

You have made assertions for which you have provided no evidence or even rationale.

I suggest you read The Mind's I by Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett for a perspective on this subject.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax: To be honest I don't understand what the problem is with the idea of dependency. We see it everywhere: Things bump into each other and react with each other and change the position, shape, color, structure, etc. of other things all the time. This is what I mean by dependency.

The issue is that you're taking a rather simple observation- two objects of physical matter interact in some way upon contact, in accordance with physical laws- and attaching a metaphysical significance to it that you haven't demonstrated, nor is it immediately obvious. Having established this by nothing more than fiat assertion, you proceed to spin off into a larger explanation, underpinned by a concept you haven't yet shown to be anything more than an assumption on your part.

It's something we see quite a bit in apologetics, really: I can see the eagerness to do so, but if you can't demonstrate first that this dependency requires anything more than physics to function, then your house of cards has no first floor, so to speak.

[Darkstar]

True, a computer full of transistors and electrical wiring is more complex than a single light switch, but they are both just electrons and motion. Computers do not know things, they just move electrons around. This is why a sentient robot/computer is impossible.

But why would it be? If you continue piling on the electrical complexity until it resembles a human brain, why couldn't it know things in the same sense we do?

The brain is governed by electrical impulses; why couldn't a robot be built off of the same principles some day? (I'm not saying whether or not it should, just that it could).

The brain is governed by electrical impulses; the mind is not. The brain may be the connection between the mind and the body, but it also only moves electrons around. The mind knows things; electrons and motion are not knowledge. So the brain is not the mind.

The brain produces the mind. If you lose the brain, you lose the mind. If you damage the brain, you damage the mind. Unless you are positing that it is simply magic (which I am inclined to believe that you are).

To illustrate, let's think about your webpage example from earlier, except let's consider the webmaster of a site like this. He wouldn't be a very good webmaster if he did not know how to write code, or worse, if he did not have administrator access to his own servers. Why? Because you can't control something you don't have. A nonsentient being cannot control sentient beings for the same reason.

So...the laws of physics are sentient? Your analogy fails because you presuppose a sentient webmaster to begin with. If the webmaster was dead, the site would not change, but it wouldn't have to. It would already be governed by the implicit laws of physics. By contrast, the sentient webmaster's control is explicit. The laws of physics are mathematically predictable, but you won't know what the sentient webmaster is going to do to the site unless you ask him, and there need not be an pattern to the way s/he alters the site.