Thanks for your Response my friend, I like your writing style and how you break things down, I can learn a lot from you, how did you end up on this site? What happened that made you who you are today? Without further adue I try to tackle some of your tough questions
Science and faith don’t mix
My apologies this is a hard concept for me and I struggled with it for quite some time perhaps you can shed some light, To me it seems circular, if science detects only natural then why expect it to detect supernatural and then say that only the natural exists, if don’t believe all there is the natural, then you cant hold a scientific belief, thing is just because science cant detect the supernatural doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist. Just because I cant see Spectrox hiding behind a door about to surprise me with a delicious red velvet cake, doesn’t mean he isn’t there. It seems Science can only do what it is designed to do detect the natural and that’s it, it cannot as you have stated do anything else, so why should it be used as a method to judge the non natural? Goku cannot throw a Haduken and Sakura cant throw a Kamehameha. Let me take this a bit further if I may
You haven’t personaly asserted this but, if someone was to say there is no evidence for God, that’s hard to say considering one would have to have all knowledge, one is then forced to say based on the evidence I seen myself so far, I deducted that there isn’t a God. So if they don’t have All knowledge or all the evidence, then the evidence they don’t have could be what shows that God exists. But evidence for God is another topic, back to science you seem like a nice reasonable guy im sure you know philosophy, this is something I picked up on I believe you have created a genuine category mistake, when we judge something outside of its category, for example if God exists and creator of the universe he wouldn’t be a product of that universe so if we assume that all things could understood just by observing the universe, by necessity one would preclude the existence of God, if we were to look at it objectively, but you wouldn’t be able TO detect him, you would have to use another criteria to judge whether or not God exists. This runs into a problem because atheists has pre creteria that do not allow superatural proof to even occur, so it seems a mute point to then ask for proof of something you would never accept. So God would need to be detected by some methodology even if it wasn’t scientific. What do you suggest? If we say “Currently Unknown” does that mean at some point supernatural entities will be known and detectable by science? this cant be “Currently Unknown” but “Never known” because science observes and experiments upon the natural but God is outside of the realm of science, unless it plans on changing its definition. We cannot use the scientific method on a different category, So I ask again what do you suggest my friend to detect God? Cant say science because the scientific method, it necessarily defines God out of existence. If this is the case then how would you found out if God exists what kind of things would you look for to determine supernatural involvement? If it cannot detect supernatural by default how would you look for the supernatural anyway? Something that doesn’t comport with the scientific inquiry. This is why I struggle with this I need your help because it reminds me of when I was riding on a merry go round when I was a kid.
Mind only create Mind
If I am intellectually dishonest with myself then YES a mother does have participation in the Painstakingly creation process of the babies mind. She sticks her hand in her ******* and skillfully weaves the contours of the physical brain and then casts a level 13 spell from pathfinder 3.5 and creates the thoughts of the babies mind. Legit! All the doctor has to do is pull the baby out and Viola!
If I AM intellectually honest then the word farfetched is a vast understatement to describe the scenario above, so it seems then we are somewhat on the same page. Page 11… My lack of clarification of Mind only create mind has by few here conjured up many definitions and for that I apologize.
I agree humans can’t directly create the mind, of course not lol, they cant even create a bird, a dog or even a leaf, let alone a complex mind. Science, to my understanding I could be wrong, believes that non intelligence can produce intelligence, amorals can produce morals, impersonal can create personality, meaningless and purposeless can create meaning and purpose…….can you show me an example of this happening?
When I say Mind creating Mind, my definition of that phrase is different than what you would proposed, so it was a simple misunderstanding. I agree a human cannot have a direct influence of a mind as I have given a joke scenario above to show that however, perhaps the word “CREATE” is the wrong word to express what I meant, I was in a rush was trying to summarize all of what I mean in a simply way but the message got distorted again I apologize. Maybe using some of your examples I could explain my perspective…..A Human can produce something that has a mind because it also has a mind, A human cannot get pregnant and give birth to a box, a boat, or phoenix down, same with animals they cannot give birth to a alienware computer, a glock, or a gigapet. They can only produce something that has Mind just like it does. Even in the case of evolution being true, ape creating/ or evolving to human, Mind came from mind. This is what I meant when I said Mind can only create Mind.
This wasn’t pre assumed that God is the creator there are well arguments to support it, not just God because I want it to be but with deductive reasoings. arguments too many to list, but I will say this, working with an antonymic pair( meaning a scenario that has 2 and only 2 options only) When one of the options is invalidated the other one is validated. By process of elimination it leads to the other choice. Either God exists or he doesn’t exist. Is there a third option?
Evolution is inherently intelligent,
Evolution is inherently intelligent,and that the process requires no intelligence to design it, so it is then fair to say that intelligence emerges naturally from random events…..
The definition for intelligence” capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.” What Evidence that evolution is inherently intelligent that it has a brain? exactly HOW does this happen? and how do you Know for Sure??
Faith is personal choice, not necessity
I believe your definition of faith is different than my definition, psychology 101 tells us that we should define terms or we may both set each other up for accidental redherrings and strawman arguments. You state that certain things wont damage your faith because it required ignoring evidence. I that definition faith can be substituted for the word “opinion“ and it could match perfectly. My opinion could be unaffectedby anything contrary to what coheres to realty, confirmation bias sets in and its just plain stubborn as you mention, yes using that definition of faith is using it as I it means opinion. people use the word very loosely so definitions should be established I however have a different definition for faith…..
To me, Faith is the same as trust and with trust you believe things with lack of evidence, it Does not mean there is NO evidence, it entails there is lack of evidence available and there is no PHYSICAL or VISIBLE evidence. Not all evidence is something you can see hear feel or touch, evidence could be abstract, it could be any data or information which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood. With that being said it is very possible to believe something without physical evidence like truth or logic. You cannot bury them, or dig them up, you cannot, freeze or burn them, and you cant hand it to me in a cup to drink. Yet it is just as real, just like us. Just because you cant SEE something doesn’t mean it is not there. I cant see bed bugs but man they can prove catastrophic if they get out of hand, the big ones you can see but that’s besides the point. So we can deduct that since some evidence can even be a concept and non tangible, not say we should all go ahead start believing anything and everything without seeing, im simply stating that not all evidence is something that you can see and that we cannot dismiss that fact, people tend to link physical evidence to the only evidence there is. So it is not that faith has no evidence, its that faith lacks physical or visible evidence because it is based on trust.
Lets look at an example of some faith evidence, How do you know when your driving on the road that the person who was previously driving next to you just fine one minute, wont suddenly just swerve into you and knock you off the road? What physical evidence do you have to prove that the person wont do that? I think someone said what doesn’t need evidence can be dismissed without evidence, on the flip side what there is no evidence for, can be proved without evidence. If you don’t have physical evidence then should you not believe? The only thing you could do is have reasonable certainty but never be 100% sure. You would by default believe something without having physical evidence to do so, but just because you believed without physical evidence doesn’t mean your belief is invalidated or non true. We get on a plane without knowing the pilots name and sometimes not even seeing his face yet we still have faith enough to ride it. Yet Christians are called out for doing something that everyone else already does. If some has confirmation bias that’s a character flaw, im not speaking of people who do that on purpose. Faith and trust is about the same thing, the very definition of trust in the dictionary has the word faith in it. Sure some People don’t have faith in God, but to say people shouldn’t have faith at all means you cannot trust anything, going to work, school or driving a car. Because we are incapable of fully knowing other people, to some degree faith (trust) is an integral ingredient in all relationships.
Learning will risk your faith and lead to de converting
Well when I said learning, I meant learning about communicating with people here and how to speak with atheists, I have a long way to go and still learning. Too many Christians, only talk with Christians an so therefore don’t know how to talk with anyone else, because their head is stuffed with a one sided view. I choose to take it a step further. Now, If learning about life, science and way life works threatens my faith then so be it, I rather know truth then believe something because it sounds good. Any case learning is a journey and if your willing to be patient as I walk along it, then I’m happy to have people who care to be a Northern star for me to self discovery. Thanks Falemon…..My names Aaron you? How did you end up believing what you do now bud?
Thanks for your inquisitive nature it has always stimulated me, again your other questions I would like to make a separate topic for them from me to you, to address your concerns because I do not want them to get mixed up with these, not to ignore them it would just makes things more complicated, be easier if I can make a separate topic for them and everyone can pitch in after I have answered them, I would like to do that on my next wave of responses if that is okay. If I happen to come across a response or answer to one of those questions in these wave of responses, I will re address it in the other topic as well. And take that mask off, its not Halloween, im sure you have features that any woman would die for
“If you're talking about the complexity of the universe and lifeforms, then all I would say is that these things started off simple and became more complex over time. For a creator God to exist and maintain all of reality, he would have to be at least as complex as the universe is now. Where did God's complexity come from?”
Darn good question, all I do know is that nothing cannot bring itself into being, until it comes to Be, it does not exist, if it doesn’t exist yet then how can it cause anything. Logically something had to already exist without a cause, In order to start causing stuff, Scientists have already proved the universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause, nothing can give itself what it does not have, in order for the universe to change it would have had to give itself its future state before it changed. An acorn has potential to be a tree, but it is not yet a tree, it cannot be a tree or give itself something now, that it would come to have later. So you see the result of change cannot actually exist before the change, it can only change with the potential to change, it needs to be acted upon for that potential to be made actual. Something cannot actualize its own potential to exist, as this would require that it exist before it existed, which is self-contradictory. The universe consists of matter, space and time, there must be somrthing that exists outide of the characteristics in order to create those things, If there is nothing outside the natural universe then does this mean there is nothing that can cause the universe to change?
If you are kissing a woman and making her feel special, the second you stop kissing, she stops feeling special….hopefully you will in about less than a millisecond see that this is a bad analogy so lets use another one. If you a playing the piano you are causing the music, if you stop, the music stops. On a No God hypothesis all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order for them to exist and if all things have a cause but there is no uncaused cause this is contradictory. Lets put it this Say Cause is a person and existence is like gift that Mr cause wants to give to Mrs effect, if there is no gift, then there cannot be anything to give or pass down to the chain of receivers. If everyone has to borrow a Playstation 3 to play Walking dead, but no one actually has it, then no one could ever get it.
In the No God hypothesis, there is no God who has no existence by eternal nature then the existence cant be passed down the chain of receivers and we could never get it. But we do get it and we exist. Why does there need to an uncaused cause, why cant there be an endless thing mutally keeping each other in being? Well if I was super drunk I may not be able to stand on my own but if there was 20,000 drunks surrounding me then on stable ground we may be able to keep each other upright, a cause b and be cause c and caused a. this would be weird because Things cannot have a cause and effect at the same time. if something exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must be a being whose existence is not a gift, otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being but nothing in addition to everything, could exist to give it that means nothing would actually be.