The Case for the Existence of God

[Iacchus]

If anyone wants to see my argument, Who Created God? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45363) beautifully laid out, here it is (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?) ... I just got through reading the first half of it, and thus far it describes what I've said or, meant to say, word for word. The guy holds a PhD in micro-biology as well. If nothing else it's a great reference.


One of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that can be considered by the human mind is the question, “Does God exist?� In the field of logic, there are principles—or as they are called more often, laws—that govern human thought processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states that all precisely stated propositions are either true or false; they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same fashion.

The statement, “God exists,� is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?

[Zep]

I know PhD's in sciences who worship Satan, or believe in fairies at the bottom of their garden. So if I wanted a good reference in microbiology, I'd certainly take heed of your author's words. But as a religious philosopher, or indeed as a car mechanic, or as an astronomer, or as a TV repair guy, his particular PhD subject seems pretty much irrelevant and so carries no little or no weight at all in this argument.

So if you were impressed simply because he was a PhD in microbiology, perhaps you might care to read the same words while thinking that they were written by the TV repair guy, and then see how you feel about them.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zep

I know PhD's in sciences who worship Satan, or believe in fairies at the bottom of their garden. So if I wanted a good reference in microbiology, I'd certainly take heed of your author's words. But as a religious philosopher, or indeed as a car mechanic, or as an astronomer, or as a TV repair guy, his particular PhD subject seems pretty much irrelevant and so carries no little or no weight at all in this argument.

So if you were impressed simply because he was a PhD in microbiology, perhaps you might care to read the same words while thinking that they were written by the TV repair guy, and then see how you feel about them. I take it you didn't bother to read the article then. Or, maybe you did and this is the best you could come up with?

[Eleatic Stranger]

I read the article, and while it's mildly interesting (at best) it's just another good example of why people trained in one field aren't any better in another radically different field than anyone else.

For instance, the bit you linked to is arguing in support of the cosmological argument. Anyone with any philosophy training can tell you why the cosmological argument is nonsense. (And no, his attempt to relate it to physics does not count as a rebuttal of the criticisms.)

[Yahweh]

I agree with the statement that either God exists or he doesnt exist.

I'll take some snippets from the article:
It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of God, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based.
Prima facie, as far as I know, is a fact presumed to be true until proven otherwise. See Google Definition of "prima facie" for details (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+prima+facie&btnG=Google+Search).

In other words, the article assumes that God exists, and its entire case will fall apart if, and only if, any of the reasoning it provides can be shown to false or in error.

As the author believes the word "prima facie" means "a case that simply cannot be refuted", I'll make own presumption by assuming that the author's reasoning will follow a hodgepodge of other misunderstood Philosophical concepts.

Lets examine some Philosophical fundamentals even futher:
The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent� because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence.
From Dictionary of Philosophy - Necessary and Contingent Truths (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n.htm#nec):
necessary / contingent

Distinction between kinds of truth. Necessary truth is a feature of any statement that it would be contradictory to deny. (Contradictions themselves are necessarily false.) Contingent truths (or falsehoods) happen to be true (or false), but might have been otherwise. Thus, for example:

"Squares have four sides." is necessary.

"Stop signs are hexagonal." is contingent.

"Pentagons are round." is contradictory.
The existence of the universe is indeed contingent (it happens to be true that universe exists, however it could be possible that the universe could not exist, or even exist in another form). However, the reasoning supplied by the author seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge in the Philosophical Fundamentals of necessary and contingent truths.

Furthermore, there are explanation of the formation of the universe which dont beg the question or require the existence of a God. See this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29369) for a few scientifically acceptable explanations.

Moving on, lets see what solutions there are to the creation of the universe:
There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.
1: The universe is probably not eternal
2: The phrase "created itself out of nothing" is wordplay
3: What created the creator? And who created that creator? Ad infinitum.

See Cosmological Kalamity (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html) for the general problems with the cosmological argument.

I believe MRC_Hans has already shown that things can exist without ever being a cause (radioactive decay)

Moving on...
Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative.
Oh dear, that easy? No, its never that easy. Many people will challenge this idea, and I find the reasoning for the author's suggesting this (that Sir John Carew Eccle's Nobel Prize (http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/1963a.html) proves dualism).

The author further cites Norman Geisler (one of the most popular, but most laughably awful Christian Apologists) as an authoritative figure. Geisler is quoted as such:
Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I know it.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual; something cannot arise from nothing (1976, p. 247).
I suppose if Geisler wants to dwell in the world of Philosophy so far that he starts considering intangible qualities as things real in themselves, I'll see show Geisler's statement, that all qualities must come from a quality-giver, to be false: I'll say that certain virtues, like courage, cannot be given to a person by God. The argument would follow as such:

1: God is (by definition) a being than which no greater being can be thought.

2: Greatness includes greatness of virtue.

3: Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous. (from 1, 2)

4: But virtue involves overcoming pains and dangers.

5: Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.

6: A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one than which no greater being can be thought.

7: For you can think of a greater being, that is, one that is nonsuffering and indestructible. (from 2, 3)

8: Premise Therefore, God does not exist. (from 3, 5)

Put more simply, if I can posess characteristic like courage, then I could not have recieved those characteristics from a being who cannot not possess them. Geisler's statement is false. And even further, the God of traditional theism (one which is both virtuous and perfect) cannot exist.

I'll rate the apologetics article for the existence of God in the words of Michael Ruse (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#10):
Scientifically the apologetics is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair.

Good effort, but I'm afraid the original idea that the article presents a prima facie case for God is simply false. Add to that, the idea that it presents a case that cannot be refuted is simply laughable.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The statement, “God exists,� is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not.

Right there is the (first) spot where it loses me. It's true that the sentence "God exists" is a binary proposition, in that the statement is either true or false, but without an adequate definition of "God," you might as well say "Floogleblatt exists" for all the usefulness it provides. When discussing any proposition, it's pointless to even begin debating its accuracy if it's not clear what the subject is, and "God" is such a vague and ambiguous term that it's difficult to even know where to begin. The Christian deity? The absentee landlord of classical deism? Something even more abstract? This whole article is as problematic as Pascal's Wager, and for the same reason.

As for the rest, even trying to bring up the cosmological argument in the 21st century is laughable. It was obviously flawed when Aquinas proposed it, and it's obviously flawed now. The all-important question, "why are things the way they are?" is certainly a legitimate one, but that particular avenue of groping for an answer is a definite cul-de-sac.

Jeremy

[T'ai Chi]

From the article:


And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities...


Sorry, scientific proof is what is being sought, not legal "proof".


When the Bible records, “In the beginning, God...,� it makes known to us just such a First Cause.


So what is that, proof by relabelling God as First Cause? Whatever.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by jzs

So what is that, proof by relabelling God as First Cause? Whatever.

Quoth the Sagan "whether or not we believe in God depends very much upon what we mean by God."

What exactly does the honorable mister Eccles' work mean? How was it misconstrued as evidence for dualism?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger

I read the article, and while it's mildly interesting (at best) it's just another good example of why people trained in one field aren't any better in another radically different field than anyone else.

For instance, the bit you linked to is arguing in support of the cosmological argument. Anyone with any philosophy training can tell you why the cosmological argument is nonsense. (And no, his attempt to relate it to physics does not count as a rebuttal of the criticisms.) Anybody? What is that supposed to mean? Would you care to enlighten us yourself?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Quoth the Sagan "whether or not we believe in God depends very much upon what we mean by God."

What exactly does the honorable mister Eccles' work mean? How was it misconstrued as evidence for dualism? Misconstrued? I guess you didn't read that far did you?


In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles’ work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind. Notice the word intention in bold? And how about the book referring to his methodology, and the discussion that was later given by Norman Geisler?

[MRC_Hans]

About the exclusion of the middle ground: It is, of course, true that a sufficiently precisely stated proposition must be either true or false, but you will find that there exists surprisingly few precisely stated propositions in this world. And "God exists" is certainly not one of them.

Before it can become precise enough to exclude the middle ground, you must both define "God" and the term "existence" in the context of a being that is supposedly superior to the entire universe. For instance, does the "entire universe" include God?

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I agree with the statement that either God exists or he doesnt exist.

I'll take some snippets from the article:

Prima facie, as far as I know, is a fact presumed to be true until proven otherwise. See Google Definition of "prima facie" for details (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+prima+facie&btnG=Google+Search).

In other words, the article assumes that God exists, and its entire case will fall apart if, and only if, any of the reasoning it provides can be shown to false or in error.Indeed, isn't this none other than Occam's razor in disguise?


Oh dear, that easy? No, its never that easy. Many people will challenge this idea, and I find the reasoning for the author's suggesting this (that Sir John Carew Eccle's Nobel Prize (http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/1963a.html) proves dualism).How about John Eccles' own words? ...


John Eccles on Mind and Brain (http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bra.htm) ...

Distinguished neuroscientist and Nobel Prize winner Sir John Eccles rejects this theory, saying that it never goes beyond vague generalities; materialists believe that the problems will be resolved when we have a more complete scientific understanding of the brain, perhaps in hundreds of years, a belief which Eccles ironically terms "promissory materialism." Eccles feels that this "impoverished and empty" theory fails to account for "the wonder and mystery of the human self with its spiritual values, with its creativity, and with its uniqueness for each of us." (How the Self Controls Its Brain, pp. 33, 176.) He criticizes identity theory for allowing no real scope for human freedom. Extensive experimental studies have shown that mental acts of attention and intention activate appropriate regions of the cerebral cortex. An intention to move, for example, initiates the firing of a set of neurons of the supplementary motor area about 200 Milli-seconds before the intended movement takes place. If the mind is the brain, this would mean either that one part of the brain activates an other part, which then activates another part, etc., or that a particular region of the brain is activated spontaneously, without any cause, and it is hard to see how either alternative would provide a basis for free will. It sounds to me like somebody hasn't done their homework here. ;) And I would really hesitate before suggesting it was the author of the article.


Good effort, but I'm afraid the original idea that the article presents a prima facie case for God is simply false. Add to that, the idea that it presents a case that cannot be refuted is simply laughable. Yep, good ol' Occam's razor huh? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

About the exclusion of the middle ground: It is, of course, true that a sufficiently precisely stated proposition must be either true or false, but you will find that there exists surprisingly few precisely stated propositions in this world. And "God exists" is certainly not one of them.

Before it can become precise enough to exclude the middle ground, you must both define "God" and the term "existence" in the context of a being that is supposedly superior to the entire universe. For instance, does the "entire universe" include God?

Hans Yes, if we are a part of God, and God is a part of us, the entire Universe does include God. Or, even if we are unable to work out this much, the Universe does in effect have a beginning, and is therefore contingent upon some "other thing" for its cause. And that other thing will have to of always been.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, if we are a part of God, and God is a part of us, the entire Universe does include God. Or, even if we are unable to work out this much, the Universe does in effect have a beginning, and is therefore contingent upon some "other thing" for its cause. And that other thing will have to of always been. And, notice that you are immidiately forced to say "if", which demonstrates that "God" is not a precisely defined concept, and thus any propositions including the term "God" are not precise enough to exclude the middle ground.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by toddjh

Right there is the (first) spot where it loses me. It's true that the sentence "God exists" is a binary proposition, in that the statement is either true or false, but without an adequate definition of "God," you might as well say "Floogleblatt exists" for all the usefulness it provides. When discussing any proposition, it's pointless to even begin debating its accuracy if it's not clear what the subject is, and "God" is such a vague and ambiguous term that it's difficult to even know where to begin. The Christian deity? The absentee landlord of classical deism? Something even more abstract? This whole article is as problematic as Pascal's Wager, and for the same reason.I think the author is clear to where we can distinguish what he means by God.


As for the rest, even trying to bring up the cosmological argument in the 21st century is laughable. It was obviously flawed when Aquinas proposed it, and it's obviously flawed now. The all-important question, "why are things the way they are?" is certainly a legitimate one, but that particular avenue of groping for an answer is a definite cul-de-sac.

Jeremy The funny thing is, I'm not laughing about the article which, I find to be full of depth and meaning. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

And, notice that you are immidiately forced to say "if", which demonstrates that "God" is not a precisely defined concept, and thus any propositions including the term "God" are not precise enough to exclude the middle ground.

Hans God permeates everything. We are all the extension of it.

[AWPrime]

Then why call it god and give it the property of thought?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
God permeates everything. We are all the extension of it. You realize that your statement is meaningless, don't you?

It does not give the slightest hint of the nature of God, nor does it in any way indicate any distinction between the terms "God" and "everyting". You finding yourself in exactly the dilemma that all non-monotheistic deists find themselves: Once you are finished defining "God" your definition has become so broad that it is meaningless.

Hans

[Zep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I take it you didn't bother to read the article then. Or, maybe you did and this is the best you could come up with? If you took my post as a response to the article then more fool you. My post was to precisely these words of yours:The guy holds a PhD in micro-biology as well. If nothing else it's a great reference.The question again: If the guy who wrote it was your local milkman and not a PhD in microbiology, would you put more or less trust in what he wrote? While you answer that, I will think about a response to the article itself.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus

How about John Eccles' own words? ...
:roll:
Those are not the words of Eccles, but those of Pratt, presenting what can only be called his fantasy of Eccles. I would not trust Pratt as "John Eccles' own words".

It sounds to me like somebody hasn't done their homework here. ;) And I would really hesitate before suggesting it was the author of the article.
:roll: Indeed, somebody has not done his homework.

The author of which article? Eccles? Pratt? Thompson? You?

[Mercutio]

Since we are looking for Eccles' own words, I found a brief paper (http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/eccles.htm) which seems appropriate. In it, Eccles discusses the concep of "falsifiability".
At this opportune time I learnt from Popper that it was not scientifically disgraceful to have one's hypothesis falsified. In fact, I was persuaded to formulate the electrical hypothesis of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic action as rigorously as possible so that they invited falsifications. They were in fact falsified some years later in one of the first results of the intracellular method of investigating synaptic action. Thanks to my tutelage by Popper I was able to accept joyful this "death" of the "brain child" that I had nurtured for almost two decades, so that I was able to contribute immediately, both theoretically and experimental, to the successful rival (Loewi-Dale) hypothesis of chemical synaptic transmission. My personal experience has shown that action in accord with Popper's view of scientific method has two great practical advantages. First, the development and precise formulation of an hypotheses so that it encourages attempts at falsification greatly economizes the experimental effort, and gives it significant direction. The experiments are designed so as to subject the hypothesis to the most rigorous testing. Diverse experimental procedures are not being tried simply in the hope that something interesting will turn up; usually such random probing is a wasteful procedure which has the great disadvantages of cluttering up the literature with reports of meaningless investigations. Second, when one's hypothesis has been falsified one should even rejoice, because in this denouement science has been well served. We advance in scientific understand by the experimental rejection of erroneous hypothesis, clearing the way for new conceptual developments.
At least here, he certainly does not sound like he would appreciate the poorly-conceived and unfalsifiable definitions of god. Perhaps he changed his mind, I don't know...but if so, it would be tremendously ironic, given that his work on the mechanism of neural transmission is so helpful in dismissing prescientific ideas of how our bodies (including brains) work.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by AWPrime

Then why call it god and give it the property of thought? Because we are the extensions of it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

:roll:
Those are not the words of Eccles, but those of Pratt, presenting what can only be called his fantasy of Eccles. I would not trust Pratt as "John Eccles' own words".

:roll: Indeed, somebody has not done his homework.This is merely conjecture on your part isn't it? I know Pratt is referring to the same book that the article refers to, How the Self Controls Its Brain, and even refers to specific pages, this is why I took it to be Eccle's word. Did you happen to notice that too? I suppose one way to find out real quick is to get ahold of a copy of the book, don't you? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

At least here, he certainly does not sound like he would appreciate the poorly-conceived and unfalsifiable definitions of god. Perhaps he changed his mind, I don't know...but if so, it would be tremendously ironic, given that his work on the mechanism of neural transmission is so helpful in dismissing prescientific ideas of how our bodies (including brains) work. I was just reading about this elsewhere from a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carew_Eccles), that this brainchild of his is not the same thing he's referring to in the book, since he gave it up in 1949 and the book was published in 1977 ...


Apart from these seminal experiments, Eccles was key to a number of important developments in neuroscience. Until around 1949, Eccles believed that synaptic transmission was primarily electrical rather than chemical. Although he was wrong in this hypothesis, his arguements led himself and others to perform some of the experiments which proved chemical synaptic transmission. Bernard Katz and Eccles worked together on some of the experiments which elucidated the role of acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter.So? ... Got any better ideas? ;)

[daenku32]

So, since we are basing thinking on something else than purely physical brain, I assume we have learned everything there is to learn about the physical brain?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because we are the extensions of it.

- You can't proof that.

- You have stated that everything is a part of it and not all have the property of thought and therefore you can't extend that property to 'god'.

[gnome]

Yahweh:

I believe the correct defintion of a "Prima Facie" case, is one that holds up if you assume the entire argument is true.

For example:

A) Joe killed Bob. We know this because Joe got into an argument with him in a bar.

This would not be a prima facie case, since there are no facts offered that are sufficient to conclude Joe's guilt.

B) Joe killed Bob. We know this because we have his fingerprints on the gun and eyewitnesses at the scene saw him do it.

This would be a prima facie case, since IF all the facts presented are true, the conclusion is correct.

The facts may be in dispute, and so a conviction is not guaranteed on this point. The purpose is to make sure the argument is complete.

If given a motion to dismiss, a judge can throw out a case based on A) without hearing any arguments from the defense.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is merely conjecture on your part isn't it? I know Pratt is referring to the same book that the article refers to, How the Self Controls Its Brain, and even refers to specific pages, this is why I took it to be Eccle's word. Did you happen to notice that too? I suppose one way to find out real quick is to get ahold of a copy of the book, don't you? ;) The writing you quoted was Pratt's. Unless he lied about his writing, that is not conjecture on my part. He does quote Eccles, but not much, and never so much as a complete sentence! Given this, it would be child's play to selectively quote something which sounds supportive of Pratt's view. Yes, the way to find out is to read the actual book, and to be careful not to call something "Eccles' words" when only 28 out of 107 words of the quote were, in fact his.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Misconstrued? I guess you didn't read that far did you?


Notice the word intention in bold? And how about the book referring to his methodology, and the discussion that was later given by Norman Geisler?

I should have been more specific. I want to know what Eccle's discovery was, in his own words, and not by someone who for all I know id co-opting misquoted scientific literature to their own rhetorical ends.


Eccles calls the fundamental neural units of the cerebral cortex "dendrons", and proposes that each of the 40 million dendrons is linked with a mental unit, or "psychon", representing a unitary conscious experience. In willed actions and thought, psychons act on dendrons and, for a moment, increase the probability of the firing of selected neurons, while in perception the reverse process takes place.

From wikipedia.

I'm not sure I get this, is Eccles referring to certain neurons as psychons or is he positing a heretofore undescribed entity?

So: tell me if I've got this straight:

The article in question posits that the universe (as we know it) *began* at some point, because evidence shows it probably hasn't been around forever. Given what I've read, I think this is reasonable.

Then the author goes on to say that the universe cannot have been self-created, thanks to the law of conservation of matter/energy (thank you Einstein!). By this logic, something must have created the universe.

Wait a second, is he saying that that something is outside the universe (paradoxical)? Cause he just said a moment ago that the universe had a tangible starting point!

He then goes on to posit (I presume, the author is a master of superior reasoning through obfuscation) an incorporeal (and I use that word with all the connotations it carries) creator of the universe, apparently ungoverned by the laws of physics as the only possible alternative.

Holy dualism batman!

As the sole evidence for the existence of incorporeal entities, he cites Eccles.

Here's where it gets interesting

If: Eccles work that won him the Nobel is the same work that posits "phychons".

And: Said "psychons" are considered by Eccles to be non-material entities, i.e. Eccles doesn't subscribe to a more materialistic dualism.

Then: Eccles' work can be considered *one piece* of evidence.

Else: The author is quote mining, making an appeal to authority by mentioning an irrelevant Nobel prize. This is either the result of sloppy or disingenuous writing. The quote mining, further, provides no evidence of an incorporeal being who created the universe, i.e. the "intelligent" designer who saddled me with my useless appendix.


The argument also assumes that the law of conservation of matter/energy applies to the formation of the universe, and that those laws apply all the time. I would think (but not know for sure) that such an assumption may be on shakier ground than the author presumes.

The seemingly unrelated mention of intelligent design is curious, the author makes no support for his assertion of a "well order" universe, whatever that means, and manages in the same sentence to make straw men of agnosticism and evolution. While I find that most impressive, I also find it of highly irrelevant nature to the argument before.

Finally, the author mentions that "morality is here", along with intelligent life and so forth. That's a new one to me. How exactly does morality disprove atheism (which he seems to have incorrectly lumped with agnosticism)? Morality, as far as I've been informed, has been proved to be nothing further than a human construct. Does the author believe that if he reifies something really hard, it magically becomes a tangible entity?

To use my colleague’s parlance, Father_cannon always considered sports to be the expression of deep tribal instincts and traditions. He sees pro sports, especially football, as proxy warfare. I doubt the idea is original to him, and in any case he’s never claimed it is.

I’m beginning to see debate in much the same light. A football game has never been used to definitively resolve who the best players are, that’s not the point of football. The point of football, and debate, is to hash out your perceived differences (which in truth are trivial) in proxy battle with proxy enemies. Perhaps humanity has imbibed more of Thanatos than I give my species credit for, but at least we’re good at finding diversions for actively killing each other. To quote Cicero (who was otherwise a dull twit) “Let the general’s laurels yield to the orator’s tongue.�

That a debate is a substitute skirmish with the unsalvageable and evil enemy is already accepted. Note that we say to “attack� an “opponent’s� position, or that we “demolish their positions�. The uninitiated would almost be forgiven thinking the after-match discourse was on siege craft and artillery, if they didn’t use the same idioms themselves without training.
I therefore consider debate to be a sport exactly like any other, except a different set of brain/muscle connections are used, and the groupies aren’t a good. I suppose the team mates make up for that particular deficiency, but that’s a separate topic. The point is that the same rehashed arguments for the existence of unverifiable deities will always be made down the ages. Their point is not so much to convert, because by and large they’re bunk. The point is to harass the other side, or from the point of view of the other side (i.e. me, and the audience of this garbage who find a little sympathy for the author’s sentiments) to provide practice in the same way that fish in a bucket do.

Save the big artillery for the debates where scrutiny counts I guess, because I sure would like to know a whole heck of a lot of unsolved scientific questions, and no amount of scrutiny and meticulous argument seems to make any difference here.

Originally posted by Yahweh
Good effort, but I'm afraid the original idea that the article presents a prima facie case for God is simply false. Add to that, the idea that it presents a case that cannot be refuted is simply laughable.



Heartily agreed. I should not worry over such a trivial matter, it makes on miss all the heavenly glory.

[Prester John]

The author states:

Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical.

The actual Nobel prize was for :

for their discoveries concerning the ionic mechanisms involved in excitation and inhibition in the peripheral and central portions of the nerve cell membrane.

Clearly different and i find the article to be factually incorrect in the above. Dr Eccles was a dualist but the article uses the Nobel prize as support for an argument based on authoritory, in order to dismiss the entire athiest/materialist viewpoint. It is worth re iterating that the author claims a PHD so is scientifically literate, i suggest therefore that the above is an intentional deception.

[Prester John]

If you remove reference to the Nobel prize, it weakens the entire argument. What you have then is essentially Dr Eccles opinion. I also think the article is worded to draw you into discussion of Dr Eccles view, which whilst interesting is not central.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

The writing you quoted was Pratt's. Unless he lied about his writing, that is not conjecture on my part. He does quote Eccles, but not much, and never so much as a complete sentence! Given this, it would be child's play to selectively quote something which sounds supportive of Pratt's view. Yes, the way to find out is to read the actual book, and to be careful not to call something "Eccles' words" when only 28 out of 107 words of the quote were, in fact his. Well, after reading this person's review of The Self and Its Brain (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415058988/102-1620615-6720912) at amazon.com, it apparently didn't dissuade them from believing either Eccles or Popper were dualists.


This is a book in three parts. The first, is on the self; written by philosopher of science Karl Popper. The second is on the brain; written by neurologist John Eccles. The third part is transcript of dialogues between the two. But here's the thing. They are both body/mind interactionists, or shall we say, dualists living in a world of materialism.

First, my obligitory disclosure. Eccles section is slow going if you are not well familiar with brain science, so my review focuses on section one and three. (I tried to read Eccles section, but it proved too much.)

Popper starts off by distinguishing three 'worlds' (not literal, but metaphorical) of things. World 1 is the world of physical matter; world 2 is the world of subjective thought; and world 3 is that of objective thought (thought translated into language, creative product or something else 'apart' from your subject. He then tackles what he regards as mistaken philosophies in the traditions of materialism and paralellism. As the book was written in 1977, most of the views he tackles - like the behaviorist assertion that mind doesn't really exist but as impulses - no one really believes anymore. As a result, much of this is not very exciting.

Both his section and the final section of dialogue between Eccles and Popper are very slow going in that Popper, in particular, rehashes his views on mind/brain interaction, the 3 worlds of thought and other previously published scientific views without explaining them or their relevance to his dualism as well as he could have. In the end, I was left wondering a.) is what Popper and Eccles wrote here all that interesting?; and b.) is it at all contreversial? In the end, I answered "no" to the first question - after all, even those of us who profess materialism are, in daily life, practicing dualists. To the second question, I answer "yes". Much of what Popper has to say is going to strike the reader as contreversial. I just don't think it - particularly his 'three worlds' theory - will strike her as relevant or accurate. Also note, this is not the book that Pratt was referring to, but the book that was mentioned in the original article (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?).

[Iacchus]

While here are a couple of amazon.com reviews regarding his more recent book, How the Self Controls Its Brain (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387562907/102-1620615-6720912), which Pratt does refer to ...


Editorial Reviews

Book Info
Psychological research on the nature of consciousness and mind-brain interaction. For psychologists and neuropsychologists. Illustrated.


Book Description
In this book the author has collected a number of his important works and added an extensive commentary relating his ideas to those of other prominent names in the consciousness debate. The view presented here is that of a convinced dualist who challenges in a lively and humorous way the prevailing materialist "doctrines" of many recent works. Also included is a new attempt to explain mind-brain interaction via a quantum process affecting the release of neurotransmitters. John Eccles received a knighthood in 1958 and was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine/Physiology in 1963. He has numerous other awards honouring his major contributions to neurophysiology. The soul found by a neurologist, January 4, 2003

This book is a unique example of a scientific trying to go further of the materialistic approach that prevails in the scientific community.

After the book he wrote with Karl Popper (The brain and its mind) sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize in the 60's, wrote this one, described by him as "the book he had been trying to write during his entire life". Actually, he passed away soon after writing it.

This book is about the search of way to allow the mind to control the brain, and so allowing the very reality of the free will. The main adversary here is the energy conservation law. That law expresses that the total energy in the universe is constant. The problem with free will is that it needs the possibility of a movement (Finally energy) triggered by the mind. He finally found that way, bases in very small cells in the brain whose response to electrical stimulus falls under the laws of quantum mechanics.

The book is in many occasions difficult to follow if you are not a neurologist, but is so well written that you can assess the quality of the arguments even when you can't catch all the technicalities. This book is a must for everyone interested in the relationship between mind and brain, and is the perfect gun, in the battle against a materialistic reductionism of the mind, for those who still believe in the free will and the real existence of the soul.

[AWPrime]

This book is about the search of way to allow the mind to control the brain, and so allowing the very reality of the free will. The main adversary here is the energy conservation law.

Sounds like a strawman to me.

[neutrino_cannon]

Eccle's interesting musings on psychons and dualism are irrelevant to the essay, a fact the author was disingenuous of sloppy enough to miss. As Prester John points out, the Nobel he won was for different work, the mention of the Nobel Prize is an appeal to authority, and the weakest link in a rather weak and none-to-polite essay.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

Eccle's interesting musings on psychons and dualism are irrelevant to the essay, a fact the author was disingenuous of sloppy enough to miss. As Prester John points out, the Nobel he won was for different work, the mention of the Nobel Prize is an appeal to authority, and the weakest link in a rather weak and none-to-polite essay. I take it you didn't read the whole article (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?) then? There are four things about Eccles which we can be certain. He was a Nobel laureate, he was neuro-scientist, he was dualist and, he wrote two books about the brain which were no doubt infuenced by his dualism. So obviuosly his research (the fifth thing here) must have entailed this as well. So even if we dropped the part about his winning the Nobe prize, claiming that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain, which thus far no one has conclusively proven -- with it being so much easier to cry foul -- it does little to detract from this particular part of the argument.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I take it you didn't read the whole article (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9505a.htm?) then? There are four things about Eccles which we can be certain. He was a Nobel laureate, he was neuro-scientist, he was dualist and, he wrote two books about the brain which were no doubt infuenced by his dualism. So obviuosly his research (the fifth thing here) must have entailed this as well. So even if we dropped the part about his winning the Nobe prize, claiming that the mind is a seperate entity from the brain, which thus far no one has conclusively proven -- with it being so much easier to cry foul -- it does little to detract from this particular part of the argument.

Neg, the fact that Eccles believed in additional and as yet unproved mechanisms that support dualism has no bearing on his Nobel Prize. The two were not related, and Eccles’ book was published a great deal after his experiments that concerned the prize were completed. The essay mentions offhandedly that Eccles won the prize for proving said mechanisms, which is either simply erroneous or dishonest. If you remove the support for the idea of incorporeal entities having been proved by a distinguished scientist, that part of the essay turns into the kind of strawman thrashing and word-flailing that typifies the rest of the piece, which I most certainly read before criticizing, despite your crude insinuations to the contrary.

[Iacchus]

Do they assign the prize to the body of the work or not? Yes or no? If so, is it possible that this other claim might be included within the research? ... if, in fact it supports it and was conducted at the same time? It's a simple enough question, and thus far no one seems to want to address it. All I can figure is that no one else understands how the prize is awarded themselves either, and all they want to do is squawk about it. ;)

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do they assign the prize to the body of the work or not? Yes or no? If so, is it possible that this other claim might be included within the research? ... if, in fact it supports it and was conducted at the same time? It's a simple enough question, and thus far no one seems to want to address it. All I can figure is that no one else understands how the prize is awarded themselves either, and all they want to do is squawk about it. ;)

As stated abundantly before, the prize had nothing to do with dualism (http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1963/eccles-bio.html), thus it's mention in the essay is suspect. His books regarding psychons and soforth, as best as I can tell were published after the prize was awarded.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

As stated abundantly before, the prize had nothing to do with dualism (http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1963/eccles-bio.html), thus it's mention in the essay is suspect. His books regarding psychons and soforth, as best as I can tell were published after the prize was awarded. I followed the link and, in fact have been there before, and there doesn't seem to be anything said about it one way or the other. Not unless I'm missing something?

[Iacchus]

While here's something quoted from the Other Resources (http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/hon_roll/eccles.htm) link from the link that you furnished ...


Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), Foundation Professor of Physiology in the John Curtin School (1951-1966), shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1963 for his fundamental contributions to the ionic mechanisms of synaptic transmission in the brain, based on research carried out in the School. He was also recognized internationally for his outstanding investigations of the properties, interconnections and integrative functioning of neurones in the mammalian spinal cord, hippocampal and cerebellar cortices, and for his numerous writings related to the mind-brain problem. Hmm ... Synaptic transmission in the brain? ... Based upon his research? I mean is it possible that this might be related to what we're referring to here? Once again, I don't claim to know?

[Earthborn]

The statement, “God exists,� is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not.I disagree. I think God can exist and not exist at the same time.

Suppose we have an atheist who claims: "God does not exist. It is just believer's fantasy." If he is right, then God does not exist as a real tangeable being, but at the same time God does exist as a concept in the mind of a believer.

The terms in 'God exists' are not at all precisely defined. In it, 'God' could potentially refer to an actual Supreme Being or to an idea in someone's mind. 'Exists' could mean tangeable existence in objective reality or it could mean an existence as a subjective belief.

Even if a Supreme Being does exist, God can still exist and not exist at the same time. If a believer has a very different idea of what God is then what God actually is, his/her concept of God does not exist and therefore it can be argued that what s/he calls God does not exist. At the same time there exists a Supreme Being that deserves to be called God.

I really don't understand what the point is of trying to prove the existence of God through a few logical arguments. Perhaps God is so great that the practice of trying to 'catch God' - with a few easily understandeable propositions and one or two trivial observations - can only be described as blasphemous.

[plindboe]

The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?

Aha, I see this guy doesn't know the definition of the word atheist. It means a person with no belief in god/gods. A belief is not a statement. If one doesn't believe because of lack of evidence, which is what he says is the agnostic stance, that is also the atheistic stance. Atheism doesn't make statements about the existance or non-existance of God, religions do that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by plindboe

Aha, I see this guy doesn't know the definition of the word atheist. It means a person with no belief in god/gods. A belief is not a statement. If one doesn't believe because of lack of evidence, which is what he says is the agnostic stance, that is also the atheistic stance. Atheism doesn't make statements about the existance or non-existance of God, religions do that. Really? I've heard any number of Atheists boldly state that God doesn't exist.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Really? I've heard any number of Atheists boldly state that God doesn't exist.

I've boldly stated many things. They don't necessarily spring from my atheism.

If I called myself a Christian and then stated that Jesus never existed, would that mean that all Christains believe like me, and they they're all mired in that contradiction?

EX: C.S. Lewis fancied himself an Atheist before he converted. From what I know of him, I don't think he ever was an atheist in the whole of his life.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Really? I've heard any number of Atheists boldly state that God doesn't exist.

What a silly argument. Want me to offer a counter-argument, or have you already realized that you might have made a mistake posting those words?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

EX: C.S. Lewis fancied himself an Atheist before he converted. From what I know of him, I don't think he ever was an atheist in the whole of his life.

I think he was trying to imitate The Confessions of Saint Augustine.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Iacchus
While here's something quoted from the Other Resources (http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/hon_roll/eccles.htm) link from the link that you furnished ...


Hmm ... Synaptic transmission in the brain? ... Based upon his research? I mean is it possible that this might be related to what we're referring to here? Once again, I don't claim to know?

LOL, yes it is, but not in the way you think. I mean you are trying to argue a point of science and you don't appear to understand the basic terms being used. Admit its a misrepresentation and move on.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by plindboe

What a silly argument. Want me to offer a counter-argument, or have you already realized that you might have made a mistake posting those words? Whether you say it's a matter of belief or, the lack thereof, belief itself is the medium. Just as nothing in and of itself cannot exist, except that it stand in contrast with something. So, like it or not, Atheism is wholly contingent upon belief.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Prester John

LOL, yes it is, but not in the way you think. I mean you are trying to argue a point of science and you don't appear to understand the basic terms being used. Admit its a misrepresentation and move on. Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), Foundation Professor of Physiology in the John Curtin School (1951-1966), shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1963 for his fundamental contributions to the ionic mechanisms of synaptic transmission in the brain, based on research carried out in the School. He was also recognized internationally for his outstanding investigations of the properties, interconnections and integrative functioning of neurones in the mammalian spinal cord, hippocampal and cerebellar cortices, and for his numerous writings related to the mind-brain problem. Now, are you willing to conclude that the body of his research didn't include this discovery? If anybody is jumping to conclusions here it's not me.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Whether you say it's a matter of belief or, the lack thereof, belief itself is the medium. Just as nothing in and of itself cannot exist, except that it stand in contrast with something. So, like it or not, Atheism is wholly contingent upon belief.

A non-belief is not a kind of belief, the same way that a non-elephant is not a kind of elephant. My computer is not a kind of elephant.... or tiger..... or meatball.

Atheist simply means a person with no belief in God/gods. In this group we'll find both people that...:

1) doesn't believe in God/gods (often referred to as soft atheists) - This option is a non-belief.
2) believe that God/gods doesn't exist (often referred to as hard atheists) - This option is a belief.

The first one is what the actual definition of atheists is, while the second one is a sub-group of that broader definition.

All this said, neither 1 or 2 boldly states anything about the existance or non-existance of God/gods. A belief, as we have in option 2, is not a statement.

[Prester John]

Do you know what a synapse is Iacchus?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Prester John
Do you know what a synapse is Iacchus?

More importantly, do you have any that work?

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by c4ts
I think he was trying to imitate The Confessions of Saint Augustine.

I thought that was Enrique Iglasias. Without the chastity at the end of it all, of course.

Still, thank you for reminding me of that absolutely delicious custom that he mentions - all your sins are washed away from you at baptism, so it was common practice to delay baptism until just before you died...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by plindboe

A non-belief is not a kind of belief, the same way that a non-elephant is not a kind of elephant. My computer is not a kind of elephant.... or tiger..... or meatball.

Atheist simply means a person with no belief in God/gods. In this group we'll find both people that...:

1) doesn't believe in God/gods (often referred to as soft atheists) - This option is a non-belief.
2) believe that God/gods doesn't exist (often referred to as hard atheists) - This option is a belief.

The first one is what the actual definition of atheists is, while the second one is a sub-group of that broader definition.

All this said, neither 1 or 2 boldly states anything about the existance or non-existance of God/gods. A belief, as we have in option 2, is not a statement. Why is the word "non-belief" associated with the word "belief" then? Could it be because it's part of the belief process? Yes or no? Indeed, how is it possible to have a belief in something without a "lack of belief" to compare it to? Hey, if you want to call it something else, fine, but don't attach to it the word "belief."

Also, the fact that you're attaching more than one "option" here suggests it is a matter of belief.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Could it be because it's part of the belief process? Yes or no?deed, how is it possible to have a belief in something without a "lack of belief" to compare it to?

Oh! This one's easy.

Do you believe that the melting point of calcium is 850 degrees, or do you disbelieve it? Unless you work in the field, my guess is you have an utter non-belief in whether the melting point of calcium is 850.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards

Oh! This one's easy.

Do you believe that the melting point of calcium is 850 degrees, or do you disbelieve it? Unless you work in the field, my guess is you have an utter non-belief in whether the melting point of calcium is 850. So what, it doesn't keep you from believing in anything else does it? Like it or not, it's all about belief. In which case everything I know, is contingent with my beliefs.

Also, people could be just as adamant about their lack of belief in something as they could about their belief in something. Why? Because it no doubt manifests itself in other aspects of what they believe as well. Certainly if they felt it restricted their freedoms in those other areas.

For example, let's take the obvious notion of going to church. Wouldn't it be fair to say that no self-respecting Atheist would be caught dead going to church? I could be wrong of course. But, if it's just a matter of not believing in something, what's the big deal? Why feel so abhorrent about it then? If this is so, and I'm sure there are a good number of Atheists that feel this way, then what it suggests to me is that they believe there's something wrong with going to church ... which, I can appreciate because I probably wouldn't be caught dead going to church either. ;) And yet it cleary illustrates a matter of choice (hence belief) when it comes to religion.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why is the word "non-belief" associated with the word "belief" then? Could it be because it's part of the belief process? Yes or no?

No. It says nothing about the word that follows "non-". You are a non-chair and a non-cheesecake, that doesn't make you associated with those objects however.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Indeed, how is it possible to have a belief in something without a "lack of belief" to compare it to? Hey, if you want to call it something else, fine, but don't attach to it the word "belief."

The whole reason why we're having this argument, is because believers make a big deal about people who don't believe the same as they do. It's called NON, because it's not attached in any way. It has nothing to do with belief. Like I mentioned in my previous post, my computer is a non-elephant. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with elephants, it simply means it is not an elephant.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Also, the fact that you're attaching more than one "option" here suggests it is a matter of belief.

Huh? There's absolutely no reasoning that could lead to such a conclusion. I attached it because I wanted to explain the distinction between belief and non-belief. Atheism is defined as a non-belief, but that doesn't rule out that atheists can have beliefs.

PS.You should really try to read my previous post again, and try to understand it, because I think I explained it very well, in a way that I can't imagine could be misunderstood.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Iacchus
For example, let's take the obvious notion of going to church. Wouldn't it be fair to say that no self-respecting Atheist would be caught dead going to church? I could be wrong of course.

Yes, you are very wrong. I'm an atheist, even a hard atheist by the definition I explained above, but I like being in churches. I like the atmosphere and the artwork, I like the priests because they are usually very kind people that you immediately feel comfortable with.


Originally posted by Iacchus
But, if it's just a matter of not believing in something, what's the big deal? Why feel so abhorrent about it then? If this is so, and I'm sure there are a good number of Atheists that feel this way, then what it suggests to me is that they believe there's something wrong with going to church ... which, I can appreciate because I probably wouldn't be caught dead going to church either. ;) And yet it cleary illustrates a matter of choice (hence belief) when it comes to religion.

All this is because of delusion. It's something you have convinced yourself of, so you can feel more secure in your beliefs.

[Prester John]

Yes, you are very wrong. I'm an atheist, even a hard atheist by the definition I explained above, but I like being in churches. I like the atmosphere and the artwork, I like the priests because they are usually very kind people that you immediately feel comfortable with.

Agreed, even further, i am getting married next year - in a Church.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what, it doesn't keep you from believing in anything else does it?

You asked how it possible not to have a belief in something without disbelieving it. I showed you.

For example, let's take the obvious notion of going to church. Wouldn't it be fair to say that no self-respecting Atheist would be caught dead going to church?

Atheists are not some coherent mass of people who all think the same way, so this is pointless, but...

I go to churches reasonably often too. I've even participated in a cell/"doing theology" group as an atheist. Religion fascinates me. You don't have to be an architect to be interested in buildings. You certainally don't have to be a brick.

[c4ts]

I think it was Aristotle who said a the mark of an educated mind was the ability to entertain a thought without believing in it.