If I were an Atheist

[abaris]

Have scientists reached an understanding of how the human mind exists? If we really are autonomous free will agents who can volitionally do things does that fall under the purview of the laws of nature? What law does that follow under?

Have you formed an opinion on how animal minds exist? Do you have any other authority than woo to rule them out? There's a lot of research going on right now about both animals and humans. And I'm certainly not the one claiming that one or the other doesn't have free will. But it doesn't take some sky daddy to take that for a reality. It also doesn't take some explanation from wonderland. Just evolution and the parts we just now start to understand.

I could write pages about cognitive science, but I have my suspicions that it would be a wasted effort with someone who obviously is in desperate need of some higher authority calling the shots in his life. If you're at all interested, do a google or look up some youtube vids.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Hi Salesman,

Thanks for providing a definition...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true?

If there are, I do not know anything about them and neither do you.

If so until such time as scientists understand such phenomena they are supernatural correct?

there is a difference between phenomena that is not yet understood and phenomena that is undiscovered. You keep conflating the two.

If the universe was caused to exist that cause couldn't be the very laws of nature that were caused to exist.

How do you know that it was caused to exist? Define the type of cause and it's properties, and then demonstrate how you know it is true. If you cannot, the most honest thing would be to say "I don't know" (Welcome to Atheism)

the universeis a phenomena beyond scientific explanation and can't be understood by an appeal to the laws of nature.

The universe is within the scientific understanding, and it can be understood using the laws of nature. The entire understanding of the universe's origin is still undiscovered, and nothing else can be claimed to know about it beyond that. You are attempting to do just that, and I don't know why you have yet to understand why you are unjustified in doing so.

My personal definition (for what its worth) is the supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it can happen and then it becomes 'natural'.

Exactly. Now stop positing crazy things without evidence.

---

That's game.

---

An unembodied mind that poofs universes into existence would be a good example of such an unscientific and supernatural entity.

Wouldn't mindless forces that poof a universe into existence be a good example also?

That's another unknown possibility. I do not know what it was and neither do you. But we do know that minds exist within our universe, and they don't create external physical objects without the aid of their material and physical counterparts which we have every reason to think they are entirely behold unto. Whatever the answer is to the origin of the universe, it is currently unknown. But as you said, when we do find out, it will be natural. So the point everyone here has been slapping you with is, there's no need to preemptively assert unfalsifiable hypotheses while we wait...so stop, unless you have evidence. Until you do, we don't believe you.

Opinions regarding subjective things like music or color do not inspire debate. There is no right answer from one person to another with regard to preference. But when the question is about an objective existence, it either exists, or it doesn't. If you assert the positive (which you have) it can be rejected due to faulty reasoning (which it has). Same goes for the assertion that it does NOT exist, but I haven't done that. I'm dismantling the things you are saying and I don't need to know anything about the actual answer to the question to do that.

Have scientists reached an understanding of how the human mind exists?

Not a complete one. But we do have some understanding of what it is and what it is capable of doing. And to date, I don't believe a single one has been accredited the creation of an entire physical universe. So, why do you think that a mind could do that? Try to use something other than a circular argument this time...

If we really are autonomous free will agents who can volitionally do things does that fall under the purview of the laws of nature?

I don't think there's even a chance that you and I are going to come to an understanding on the possible answer to this question. I don't know what your understanding of "free will" is. Before I answer, do you have an understanding of the differences between Determinism vs. Fatalism? If you believe that you are the conscious author of your thoughts and that you personally conjure each thing into consciousness and you are 100% aware of everything that compels your thoughts from one second to another, we should not even bother trying to converse about that last question...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hi Salesman,

Thanks for providing a definition...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true? If so until such time as scientists understand such phenomena they are supernatural correct?

No. They are only supernatural if they are attributed to a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

In other words, we may not understand why Katrina hit New Orleans instead of Galveston. Attributing that to God's anger over the Big Easy's immorality is supernatural. The event itself is not.

Saying "we don't know" is not the same as "we don't know, but it's a result of another force we don't understand."

[Whateverist]

Have scientists reached an understanding of how the human mind exists?

Have you formed an opinion on how animal minds exist? Do you have any other authority than woo to rule them out? There's a lot of research going on right now about both animals and humans. And I'm certainly not the one claiming that one or the other doesn't have free will. But it doesn't take some sky daddy to take that for a reality. It also doesn't take some explanation from wonderland. Just evolution and the parts we just now start to understand.

I could write pages about cognitive science, but I have my suspicions that it would be a wasted effort with someone who obviously is in desperate need of some higher authority calling the shots in his life. If you're at all interested, do a google or look up some youtube vids.

Great point. Perhaps there is a god of every species which have raised up each species to consciousness. So humbling.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I know my dog has free-will (In some capacity that allows options beyond instinctive reaction). When I have food on the table, he sits close by and starts staring at me. I tell him to "go look in your dish", and he goes. He walks up, looks in his dish, and then comes back to the table without eating a bite. If he was entirely behold unto his desire to eat and satisfy hunger, he would have eaten what was in his dish. Instead, he, dare I say "chooses" to wait for the off chance of something different. It's only when the last dish has been cleaned and put away that he'll go back and eat his own food but, not always. Some times he'll just go lay down somewhere. Now I don't have a clue what that means, but he's defeinitely deciding something when he turns away from that dish, and I certainly didn't force him.

[JuliaL]

Wait a minute.....


I am an atheist.


Walks away whistling.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know my dog has free-will (In some capacity that allows options beyond instinctive reaction). When I have food on the table, he sits close by and starts staring at me. I tell him to "go look in your dish", and he goes. He walks up, looks in his dish, and then comes back to the table without eating a bite. If he was entirely behold unto his desire to eat and satisfy hunger, he would have eaten what was in his dish. Instead, he, dare I say "chooses" to wait for the off chance of something different. It's only when the last dish has been cleaned and put away that he'll go back and eat his own food but, not always. Some times he'll just go lay down somewhere. Now I don't have a clue what that means, but he's defeinitely deciding something when he turns away from that dish, and I certainly didn't force him.

A table-scrap or two never hurt, man -- c'mon, have a heart.

Yes, I am your dog's lawyer.

[Whateverist]

My dog just waits to hear the sound of silverware scraping plate. Then she comes over ready to supply a prewash removal of particulate matter before it goes into the dishwasher. This she does freely both to please me and as its own reward.

[abaris]

I know my dog has free-will (In some capacity that allows options beyond instinctive reaction). When I have food on the table, he sits close by and starts staring at me. I tell him to "go look in your dish", and he goes. He walks up, looks in his dish, and then comes back to the table without eating a bite. If he was entirely behold unto his desire to eat and satisfy hunger, he would have eaten what was in his dish. Instead, he, dare I say "chooses" to wait for the off chance of something different.

Brian Hare currently is one of the leads into the dog mind. There are a bunch of videos up on youtube showing his work and some presentations. Theres also a center that studies dog cognition in Vienna. It's funny that dogs are with us for tens of thousands of years, but science only started to study their mind within the last decade or so.

[Mudhammam]

It's funny that dogs are with us for tens of thousands of years, but science only started to study their mind within the last decade or so.

What's not quite so funny is that science has been with us for hundreds of years, and people like Drew still exist.