Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[KFunk]

I adore empirical science to the extent that it attempts to make our experience intelligible, but deplore the tendancy to crown it with absolute truth. When that happens, it merely becomes the new religion. The problem as I see it is the distinction between reality and appearance. I doubt that there is one. It's all appearance. 'Reality' pawns itself off as the absolute truth with very little basis.

This is all part of a grand war on language. It fools men into believing that there is pure reason, when all we really have are constructions of perfect realities which dont/cant perfectly match up with our experience. Whether this is liberating or nihilistic, I havent decided yet.

W.V.O. Quine: "[W]e cannot detach ourselves from it [that is, our conceptual scheme] and compare it objectively with an unconceptualised reality. Hence it is meaningless, I suggest, to inquire into the absolute correctness of a conceptual scheme as a mirror of reality. Our standard for appraising basic changes of a conceptual scheme must be, not a realistic standard of correspondance to reality, but a pragmatic standard."

However, part of the pragmatic standard may likely involve the assumption that there exists some form of observer-independent, external world. Most of our ends and desires relate to this entity/construct/whatever that we call 'the real world' and so even if we can't verify its existence through some 'absolute' or 'objective' method (say logic, or cartesian intuition, for example), we are nonetheless prone to include the existence of such an entity as a core part of our conceptual scheme (perhaps it is ultimately something akin to Moorean common sense which keeps us grounded). It's interesting to consider what would become of human relations if we were to abandon it entirely.

But once you break things down there's no real distinction between a truth of the belief and a physical truth, because a belief is a physical manifestation within a human being.

I'm tempted to agree with the claim "there's no real distinction between a truth of the belief and a physical truth", but I'm unsure why "because a belief is a physical manifestation within a human being" is the right justification of this. Why is the physical reduction of belief so important here?

 

[_dhj_]

I'm tempted to agree with the claim "there's no real distinction between a truth of the belief and a physical truth", but I'm unsure why "because a belief is a physical manifestation within a human being" is the right justification of this. Why is the physical reduction of belief so important here?

I think I see your point. The important thing is that the conscious or human truth has every element that the physical truth has. Perhaps its formulation depends on the particular properties of a conscious living being, but it still has to exist in some physical form.

 

[Enteebee]

Dhj, my dear fellow, in what do you ground your meaning and truth then? Yourself?

The same things in practice that everyone does... Even if God exists and has created absolute moral truths, how do we ever discover them for certain?

 

[Iron]

? Conscience and Sacred Texts. A complete discovery is only possible in the next world, the Kingdom of God. That is the promise of religion, as dhj said.

We are beyond this though

 

[Enteebee]

whether absolute moral truths exist or not, you're equipped with equal power as if they didn't to know them. So in practice all we're left with are the same 'relativist' truths that you hate so much... Maybe you think it's better to believe there are absolute moral truths even if you're getting to them the same way as a relativist?

 

[jb_nc]

No, God does not exist.

 

[Iron]

whether absolute moral truths exist or not, you're equipped with equal power as if they didn't to know them. ...

Unfortunately for you, absolutism extends to the realm of syntax.

 

[Enteebee]

Unfortunately for you, for someone who believes in 'absolute truths' you never seem to have any real answers... Just rhetoric, red herrings and insults.

 

[Stevo.]

Unfortunately for you, for someone who believes in 'absolute truths' you never seem to have any real answers... Just rhetoric, red herrings and insults.

Zing!

 

[Iron]

The keen observer would note that the last sack of inflammatory rhetoric I posted was walking the other side of the street.
And quiet, you.

 

[KFunk]

I think I see your point. The important thing is that the conscious or human truth has every element that the physical truth has. Perhaps its formulation depends on the particular properties of a conscious living being, but it still has to exist in some physical form.

Aye, I would suggest that structural isomorphisms (between the representation and the represented) are central if you want to explain what makes a belief a 'good enough fit' to the state of the physical world to call it 'true'. However, the question of whether such representations have to be physical themselves awaits, I feel, a more complete theory of mind and consciousness. In particular, I think your claim relies on the, as yet unconfirmed (though strongly indicated, some would argue), identity between consciously experienced representations and physical brain states.

However, mightn't it be the abstract, structural features of our subjective, conscious representations that are most important here, rather than the question of whether these features and representations admit of physical reduction?

 

[_dhj_]

Aye, I would suggest that structural isomorphisms (between the representation and the represented) are central if you want to explain what makes a belief a 'good enough fit' to the state of the physical world to call it 'true'. However, the question of whether such representations have to be physical themselves awaits, I feel, a more complete theory of mind and consciousness. In particular, I think your claim relies on the, as yet unconfirmed (though strongly indicated, some would argue), identity between consciously experienced representations and physical brain states.

However, mightn't it be the abstract, structural features of our subjective, conscious representations that are most important here, rather than the question of whether these features and representations admit of physical reduction?

I feel that it's easier, from the logical perspective, to refer to the physical as the point of reference. Comparisons between physical objects rely on reference yardsticks. For instance, an apple is larger than a grain of sand, but a grain of stand is harder than an apple. Likewise, a mountain is larger than chemical reactions in one's brain, but those chemical reactions harbour human consciousness. Of course, if size is the yardstick, the importance of physical manifestation of the chemical reactions seem trivial. But size does not have to be the yardstick. Furthermore, the chemical reactions need not be called chemical reactions. You can call it human consciousness, it's the same physical entity.

 

[KFunk]

I still think that you need to be careful about trying to provide your descriptions at that kind of level. It strikes me as being like insisting that a student of art theory wishing to compare the works of Mondrian with those of Pollock must conduct their comparison at the molecular level. Sure, the paintings' structural features can be reduced to this level, and we can perhaps reduce the painting-society relations to the interactions of physical systems (that is, once science has advanced far enough for us to do so), but why would we bother? Not only does such a task present an incredible technical challenge, but it also obscures a great deal. A further analogy: it's like explaining to someone the workings of microsoft word using binary. It's certainly very useful to be able to translate between our lived 'symbolic' world and the 'first generation language' of the universe, but in many instances, in particular when we are most interested in talking about higher-level features, this exercise is unlikely to prove enlightening.

 

[Enteebee]

It's certainly very useful to be able to translate between our lived 'symbolic' world and the 'first generation language' of the universe, but in many instances, in particular when we are most interested in talking about higher-level features, this exercise is unlikely to prove enlightening.

While I agree with your point, to disagree with the example... I personally think if we didn't know programming language but had the programs it would be incredibly enlightening to crack it and until we do so arguments regarding the higher functions will always have fatal flaws.

 

[KFunk]

While I agree with your point, to disagree with the example... I personally think if we didn't know programming language but had the programs it would be incredibly enlightening to crack it and until we do so arguments regarding the higher functions will always have fatal flaws.

I agree that to learn how to perform such translations is very useful (note: I say exactly this in my post above). However, I think we have to be realistic/cautious about how we make use of this ability to translate. I just think that some discussions and arguments are better had at a higher level and that you loose out on the relevant higher-level structural features if you insist on speaking in terms of the lower level.

 

[_dhj_]

I agree that to learn how to perform such translations is very useful (note: I say exactly this in my post above). However, I think we have to be realistic/cautious about how we make use of this ability to translate. I just think that some discussions and arguments are better had at a higher level and that you loose out on the relevant higher-level structural features if you insist on speaking in terms of the lower level.

I'm not sure what the real distinction is between the "higher level" and the "lower level". Obviously one can pass the value judgment that human consciousness is more than the physical. But it doesn't matter if it is more or less than something, it only matters that it is. Its formation depends on the physical around it (as distinct from being thereof), not merely in terms of the biological phenomenon of consciousness, but also the physical reference points that give content to the conscious. Film, for instance is merely the physical object of the reel. The appreciation of film depends on the audience and are different truths in the sense that they independently exist. However they are not distinct from physical truth in the sense that they rely on the biological mechanism of conscious reception and the absolute interaction between that reception and the reception of physical objects and events in one's past experiences and one's biological make up (in short, the context of the individual). This interaction further stimulates the conscious. The whole sequence or phenomenon, one sense is indistinguishable from wind blowing across the desert or waves traveling across the sea.

 

[KFunk]

One issue that I should have brought up is that of 'fuzziness' or of multiple realizability. Here I'm using 'multiple realizability' in a non-mind-specific sense to refer to the phenomenon where several non-identical arrangements of a basic, 'micro'-level system (particle arrangments, for example) can give rise to identical higher- (or macro-) level objects. Most mass produced consumer products give a nice example of this.

Of course, these objects are not numerically identical given that they are spatially independent and are composed of numerically distinct particles. However, when you take the fuzzy case of qualitative identity such objects can indeed be deemed identical (the same pair of shoes, the same car, the same flashlight...). There are many particle arrangements which can generate a 'red box', for example, and so when we are discussing the nature of a red box I think the specific arrangement of particles is somewhat beside the point. We could, I conceed, talk instead of the class/set of relevant particle arrangements which give rise to red boxes. However, I still think that this approach is far too intellectually cumbersome. It is certainly great to be able to say that we can jump from something like the mind to cognitive models to neurophysiology to neurons to molecular biology to biochemistry to chemistry to physics, and our relative ability to do so proves very useful when trying to understand certain problems (e.g. Parkinson's Disease). However, I think trying to work in terms of molecular biology and neurons the whole time can also have a detrimental effect, e.g. in psychiatry it is possible to neglect the more 'human' or social elements when presented with the gifts of high-tech neuroscience.

In short, I think that the reductionist enterprise yields some wonderous treasures, but I feel that we make a mistake if we think that we should work at, or think in terms of, the most basic/reduced conceptual level whenever possible.

 

[KFunk]

To make some of the above relevant to what you have previously said:

The important thing is that the conscious or human truth has every element that the physical truth has.

This won't hold for multiply realizable entities or properties if 'every element of the physical truth' involves detailed descriptions of particles and the like. It may, however, be possible to get such human truth <--> physical truth isomorphisms to hold when dealing with the fuzzy/qualitative categories that arise at higher levels (to clarify an ambiguous sentence: I mean that it may be possible for the mind to model the essential elements of fuzzy/higher-level categories. I apologise if I'm not expressing myself clearly on this issue, so feel free to pull me up on any ambiguous statements).

 

[BradCube]

Ahh,

so I haven't posted for quite a while it seems. Reason being that I have been continually revising what my thoughts are, and thinking over what we have discussed. It seems I have come to a brick wall though - one that at first appears simplistic but so far is proving to be an insurmountable obstacle in my christian faith. Quite a difficult thing to admit, I assure you.

Simply put, if we do not have free will, then God is wholly responsible for where we end up (hell or heaven). This leaves me with three conclusions. In order for me to maintain my christian faith I need either:

a) a new definition of free will,
b) a drastically different view of hell
c) or a drastically different view of Gods character

I am currently leaning to a) or b) and would certainly be open to opinions and input from others.

Reasoning for belief in lack of free will goes as follows (much of this was through discussion with Kfunk, 3unitz and all you other guys and gals ):

All choices stem from a form of reasoning. Reasoning which relies upon the conditions of the brain you have and other conditions in your environment and previous choices. Ultimately when presented with a choice you can only choose one option.

With this established then, all things that enable you to make the choices you do are ultimately out of your control. If an omnipotent God exists, then He is the one that establishes these conditions which you are outside of, or unable to control. Therefore, through Gods own creation and conditioning of the world (and humans themselves!), you are created only able to make the choices he allows you and has designed you to. To suggest that you would do something outside of what God expected you to limits God significantly and removes is all-knowing nature.

And so, I am left where I am. I would be very interested to hear how others deal with this problem, and if there are any other solutions for which I have not yet heard.

Yeah... anyway.

BradCube, I believe you stated that evolution is fundamentally an intelligently designed process.

You said something like: DNA is looks like it is intelligently designed, and that you doubt random chance could produce such complexity.

Here's an example of an experiment that proves nucleic acid polymers (RNA, DNA) will evolve randomly, and do so under selective pressure:

http://physorg.com/news128181162.html

And the self-assembling nucleic acid polymers used in that study were snippets of RNA previously randomly generated. Randomly generated - a bunch of nucleic acids were thrown together and, as predicted, structure eventually emerged as, while many of the nucleic acids formed bonds as polymers, it was the nucleic acids that could replicate which were most common in the end. Why? Because if something can reproduce, it's hard to kill. But if it can't reproduce, it dies and stays dead.

In summary, point of interest number 1: a bunch of nucleic acids were thrown together, many polymers formed and broke apart, eventually one emerged which could self-replicate, then exponential growth took hold until it dominated the sample. Point of interest number 2: said RNA polymer was then increasingly exposed to a selective pressure with the end result being the evolved RNA was almost twice as efficient at processing 'food' as the initial RNA strand.

And thus complexity was created without even a guiding hand from humans (and was a thoroughly random process). All that humans did was provide the starting conditions and selective pressure, but as previously demonstrated, these also exist in nature without human intervention. As such, one can conclude that it is 100% possible for evolution and life to begin and prosper without intelligent design.

Forgive me if I am sounding a little arrogant here, but this explanation seems to simplistic to do away with the whole argument. It could just be a case of you dumbing it down for my sake (in which case I thank you )

I do find it a little confusing that you are claiming that humans had no intervention in the experiment. What do you mean by "selective" pressures? Who is being selective? Also, I would be interested to know how well these conditions match what we believe of the early earths conditions. From the light reading I have done most experiments that come up with these results, change those original conditions and omit certain elements that would have broken down those self replicating polymers.

 

[Slidey]

Forgive me if I am sounding a little arrogant here, but this explanation seems to simplistic to do away with the whole argument. It could just be a case of you dumbing it down for my sake (in which case I thank you )

I don't think so. The basis of your argument was that DNA couldn't produce complexity without a guiding hand. Here I've shown that basis to be false, nullifying your argument. If you want to continue making a case of intelligent design, you need a new groundwork, because "DNA can't produce complexity through evolution" turns out to be false.

I do find it a little confusing that you are claiming that humans had no intervention in the experiment. What do you mean by "selective" pressures?

Id est: the selective pressures are those which occur naturally in nature. The point here is that while in this case the environment and pressures were artificially created, they also occur in this form in nature; the results are fully expandable.

Who is being selective?

Again, you need to get past 'who' or 'what'. There is no guiding entity here. The researchers exposed the RNA snippets to smaller and smaller amounts of 'food' over time, with the effect that those snippets that processed food best replicated fast. That is: they evolved towards a better capacity to use the fuel provided in order to replicate. You might say this means it's a man-made process, except starvation adaptation is something we clearly see in real-life, even in viruses. It is the basis for the idea of the logistic curve.

Also, I would be interested to know how well these conditions match what we believe of the early earths conditions.

RNA self-replication and spontaneous formation of nucleic acid polymers has been observed in a large variety of circumstances and settings, including modern-day earth's natural settings. I have previously given examples of some of Earth's past environments and their likelihood of producing NA polymers. In fact, they certainly did; that's not in question. I'm just demonstrating hard evidence as to how random chance can and does produce complexity (which you claim is impossible without a creator).

From the light reading I have done most experiments that come up with these results, change those original conditions and omit certain elements that would have broken down those self replicating polymers.

Please cite examples. As I said, spontaneous formation of NA polymers occurs naturally (even outside of biological systems), so I fail to see how you're not convinced they could survive long enough to replicate before degradation.