Hell is an Unattended Stove

[Falconer02]

I added a comic just for you, Queen.

[queenofnines]

I added a comic just for you, Queen.

Heh, nice! 

[shernajwine]

when we think about things that seem improbable, it's kind of silly to get THAT hung up on how unlikely something may seem, if it is indeed the reality we are witnessing.  You and I being alive (in our current states), for example.

You said before, God is improbable. Take this statement apply it to your own logic. Especially when evolutionary science can give no empirical fact for prebiological beginnings. Any theories thrown out there are speculation. Yet, you easily believe it because God is so improbable, only evolution makes sense.

They also do brain scans that show lighted areas as a person thinks different things.

I want you to THINK about what you're saying. When researchers do tests on electrical patterns in the brain....and correlate that with what a person is thinking. They ASK the subject to think about a certain thing, or, they ASK what the subject is thinking. They then develop a foundation for the patterns shown. Without knowing what the person is thinking, they can make NO conclusions. Therefore the mind IS NOT physical. You can't, see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the mind. You cannot use ANY of your senses to observe the mind. That defies the definition of physical.

1) I am just naive and don't want to accept determinism or 2) some amount of choice exists within the confines of the physical (not TOTAL choice, of course, because I do believe genes/environment play a large role).

I mentioned determinism because it is relevant to dualism. If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup.

You favorite atheist Dawkins brought this is up in The Selfish Gene. "We are survival machines....programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." He does try to amend what he is implying with such a statement by adding that we should rebel against our genes in situations that are immoral. But then how is this beneficial to the selfish gene....by natural selection anyone who is able to defy the selfish gene would be "killed off" by evolution because that would contradict the genes survival!

Steven Pinker wrote in an article, basically implying that a woman who kills her baby on the day of its birth or in the first few days, is only a product of hard wiring from her ancestor who routinely did this sort of thing as a means of survival! He tried to say it's an immoral act to kill infants, but in what sense can any conduct be immoral if it is a product of a genetic imperative? Well, after he faced a great amount of harsh criticism, Pinker then wrote in his book, that moral reasoning requires that we assume the existence of things which science tells us are unreal "Ethical theory requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused, and its conclusions can be sound and useful even though the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events...A human being is simultaneously a machine and a sentient free agent, depending on the purpose of the discussion."

This seems self-contradictory but it may be worse than that, Pinker may mean that morality is founded on a "noble lie" that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people. Of course the priests themselves know the lie for what it is and do not recognize it as a limit on their own thinking or conduct, but they conceal their nihilism by pretending to believe in conventional morality.

And if your opinion on this subject is due to your mind subjecting to the laws of physics, and your actions based on an evolutionary force to preserve your genes, then anything you say cannot be trusted. After all you are not a "free thinker" in that nothing about you is free when you are bound by determinism.

[jcribb16]

If your god in ominiscient, all-powerful, perfect, etc. like your holy texts say, then he has predetermined everything for you. He knows what is going to happen. Again, you only have the illusion of free will. Everything is set in stone for you, but you do not know it. You can play the naive card, but that has very little grasp on the foundation of the original post.

It is you who are naive. You have a hard time grasping the concept of personal, free will choice.  Your life is set in stone depending on what is in your heart and how you make your choices.  Like Annella, I could also help expand on this with the Bible (God's Word) but you would not believe it anyway. God is not going to beat you on the head because you do or will not accept Him.  He is disappointed, of course, but once again, YOU make your OWN choice - HE is NOT going to make it for you.

[jcribb16]

That's one reason why there are missionaries across the nation and world - to introduce them to God so those that will, given the opportunity, accept Him or not.

I thought your camp says that if a person never hears of Jesus Christ, they won't automatically go to hell.  Why do missionaries risk putting people in hell then?? 
It's a valid question.  Imagine I live in some remote village, and if nobody ever came to preach the gospel, I would go to heaven because I was a decent person who lived a good life.  But let's say a missionary comes to that same village and I do hear the Word, but of no fault of my own I simply can't believe it because I wasn't raised to blindly buy into such silly concepts, your missionary is now responsible for sending an otherwise heaven-bound me to hell!

It is NOT the missionary who would be at fault.  They did what they had to do - the person receiving the info has his/her own choice to make.  After the rapture (in the future), those ones who never heard God's Word, will still have an opportunity to accept Him or not. 

[queenofnines]

First of all, I want to lighten the mood by saying thank you for challenging me, Sherna.  I still like you and everything, don't forget that! 

You said before, God is improbable.

A personal, defined god is improbable, like the god of the Bible.  There are many reasons for this.  As for god(s) in general?  That kind of god is more probable than a personal god, but there still hasn't been any good evidence that's demonstrated the reality we observe had anything more than natural causes.

They then develop a foundation for the patterns shown. Without knowing what the person is thinking, they can make NO conclusions. Therefore the mind IS NOT physical. You can't, see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the mind. You cannot use ANY of your senses to observe the mind. That defies the definition of physical.

I can compare this to us wanting to look at a computer's processing without yet having a monitor invented.  While it's true we do not yet have the technology to read people's minds, it's definitely coming, and will be very beneficial when it does (it will help solve crime and whatnot).  Right now we can "read people's minds" in a rudimentary manner; just because we don't fully understand how it all works YET does not make it non-physical.

Think about where people thought sound came from before we knew about sound waves.  Would it have been right to pass this phenomena off as magic simply because we didn't yet understand it?  Of course not.

Once again, the most clear evidence that the mind IS physical can be seen in the example of my grandmother, who has Alzheimer's.  The parts that were "her" (personality, memories) were eaten away by her brain years ago.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57w0YDRYgZU

If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup.

Yep, this is possible.  And if it IS the case, at least we can "enjoy the ride".

we should rebel against our genes in situations that are immoral. But then how is this beneficial to the selfish gene....by natural selection anyone who is able to defy the selfish gene would be "killed off" by evolution because that would contradict the genes survival!

No, we would NOT get killed off by acting in a civilized manner.  Quite the opposite, actually.  When we work together as a society, the GROUP'S rate of survival goes up, more so than if it was "every man for himself".  It's quite easy to have kids in a harmonious society, which is the main way of passing on your genes...

He tried to say it's an immoral act to kill infants, but in what sense can any conduct be immoral if it is a product of a genetic imperative?

Just because you may have been raised a certain way does not automatically guarantee you HAVE to make certain choices.  And yes, killing the infant would still be wrong from a human's perspective, regardless if the mother "knew any better".  If I were to create a computer program to perform a certain function and it malfunctions, I have the right to remove that program from my computer, even though the computer isn't doing something "wrong" in a universal sense, it's not conducive to what is desirable, so it needs to be taken care of.

Pinker may mean that morality is founded on a "noble lie" that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people.

Yes, this may very well be the case.

After all you are not a "free thinker" in that nothing about you is free when you are bound by determinism.

This cannot currently be proven; therefore, I go by what reality appears to be (some amount of choice for the average individual) before I conclude it is all an illusion.

[Annella]

I've read so many posts back and forth from QON, Falconer02, and others about their atheist beliefs.  That would be great if you wouldn't get so nasty about it, or revert to intimidation tactics, name calling, etc.  (Christians "slime around"?)......please

Shernajwine has given intelligent, informative, information, and you don't "hear" that she's actually trying to show you another side of the argument of which she sees BOTH sides!  She explained the existence of a Creator to you far superior than anyone I've ever heard explain it, and from a SCIENTIFIC stance too!  You claim we don't "think" outside the box.  She certainly has.  If she lived anywhere near me, I'd put her on my staff so fast, it'd be a blur.

BUT......your still asking proof of the existence of God.  I guess what I'm posting here is what is the atheists main objective?  You accuse us of trying to assimilate people into Christianity.  What are your objectives?  What is your motivation to talk to people about the belief in atheism?  Are you not trying to convert, or assimilate?

[shernajwine]

That kind of god is more probable than a personal god, but there still hasn't been any good evidence that's demonstrated the reality we observe had anything more than natural causes.

There is no good evidence to suggest that God isn't the cause. The only thing evolutionists can go on is the observation of evolution on a micro level. They jump from empirical science to philosophy when they begin to suggest that finch beak variation and insect pesticide immunity explains how finches and insects came to exist in the first place. If indeed the reality we are witnessing is that we exist, with an extraordinary capability to reason, and introspect, and science has no GOOD explanation for it....(in your words) isn't it silly to get so hung up on how unlikely it may seem and accept that a Creator was the cause? Furthermore, go back to the universes beginnings....once again, science can only know the universes history at the point of the big bang. They now admit, the universe had a beginning, whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause? What is that cause? Science cannot answer that. The God that seems so improbable can.

just because we don't fully understand how it all works YET does not make it non-physical.

Coming to understand the mind doesn't change the definition of physical. However, if you can find a credible scientist that says human consciousness is a physicality, and not just the result of the physical brain, I will concede to being wrong.

If your conscious mind is nothing but a result of the complexity of the brain, then it is completely bound by the laws of physics. Therefore, everything you do and everything you are was determined by your genetic makeup.

Yep, this is possible.  And if it IS the case, at least we can "enjoy the ride".

I seem to recall you stating in another thread about "prejudice against fat people" that genetics plays only a small part if any in a persons weight. You basically said that they make a choice to be the way they are because they don't have to stay that way.

And by what you're stating, that you ARE your brain....then there is no "this is possible". It would be, this is the reality. So which is it? Are you a robot with no free will or not?

No, we would NOT get killed off by acting in a civilized manner.

Then the selfish gene doesn't exist and Dawkins is full of it. He claims we are robot machines programmed to preserve the selfish gene. The logic implies that it may be only natural for robot vehicles to murder, rob, rape or enslave other robots to satisfy their genetic masters.  Darwin himself predicted in The Descent of Man that the most highly developed humans would soon exterminate the other races because that is how natural selection works.
Dawkins tries to get around the moral implications (as I stated before) by saying "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to."

This is both scientifically absurd and morally naive. How could natural selection favor the development of a capacity to thwart the interests of the ruling genes?

And even more to the point.....the ability to thwart the ruling genes would imply free will, which determinism extinguishes! You either believe you have free will and therefore your mind is not controlled alone by the physical brain, or you believe that everything is subject to naturalistic explanations and subject completely to physical laws giving you NO FREE WILL. If you have NO FREE WILL, then any acts of societal immorality aren't your fault, and therefore permissible in a sense because you had NO CHOICE. Does this sound reasonable to you?

Just because you may have been raised a certain way does not automatically guarantee you HAVE to make certain choices.

Then determinism is FALSE. Determinism says your choices are not really choices at all but determined on your genes!
Remember, determinism is the idea that every prior action affects human actions and choices. This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. By extension, all moral behaviors and choices are subservient to chemical reactions of the functioning brain.

I go by what reality appears to be (some amount of choice for the average individual) before I conclude it is all an illusion.

Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me.

I still like you too  

Edit: Information collected from The Wedge of Truth by Phillip E. Johnson, Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, and godandscience.org

[shernajwine]

If she lived anywhere near me, I'd put her on my staff so fast, it'd be a blur

Aww, thank you Annella, I'm flatterd. 

[Annella]

If she lived anywhere near me, I'd put her on my staff so fast, it'd be a blur

Aww, thank you Annella, I'm flatterd. 

Truth!

[Falconer02]

It is you who are naive. You have a hard time grasping the concept of personal, free will choice.  Your life is set in stone depending on what is in your heart and how you make your choices.  Like Annella, I could also help expand on this with the Bible (God's Word) but you would not believe it anyway. God is not going to beat you on the head because you do or will not accept Him.  He is disappointed, of course, but once again, YOU make your OWN choice - HE is NOT going to make it for you.

I think you can't grasp the very essence of the original argument. If your god is all-knowing (he knows the entire timelime already --past, present, and future-- the absence of choice for us in the big picture of things), he knows what everyone will choose to do. Knowing your creations are going to fail (climb up the ladder), suffer for eternity (fall onto the stove), and allowing it to happen is both lazy and evil. Any loving individual would turn off the stove or remove that needless pathway completely so the child would not climb and fall onto it.

I've read so many posts back and forth from QON, Falconer02, and others about their atheist beliefs.  That would be great if you wouldn't get so nasty about it, or revert to intimidation tactics, name calling, etc.  (Christians "slime around"?)......please

I'm not an atheist, though my beliefs run somewhat parallel so that's why I constantly find myself arguing for them. And, as nasty as it sounds, some christians do slime around. Tod Bentley? Yikesssssss!  lol

BUT......your still asking proof of the existence of God.  I guess what I'm posting here is what is the atheists main objective.  You accuse us of trying to assimilate people into Christianity.  What are your objectives?  What is your motivation to talk to people about the belief in atheism?  Are you not trying to convert, or assimilate?

If I may speak for their side in full as it is the same motive as mine, it is not to convert. James Randi is a perfect example of what the "main objective" is-  the aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today. Why do we do this? Because this thought process extends greater than just religion- it dives into politics, philosophies, lifestyles, etc. It's just to insert free-thought where there needs to be.

[queenofnines]

They now admit, the universe had a beginning, whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause? What is that cause? Science cannot answer that. The God that seems so improbable can.

Our current universe had a beginning and therefore had a cause, but the jury's still out on exactly what it was.  I've seen a chart before that listed various things that emerged after the Big Bang (i.e. electromagnetism), and they all had "natural cause" tied to them.  Like my "reading minds" technology, just because we don't have a way to understand the origin of the Big Bang today doesn't mean we'll never know!  Give science some credit - it's come a long way!

As for god solving the origins dilemma...not really.  You are just asserting that god always existed without tangible evidence.  Non-theists can do the same thing with universes.

if you can find a credible scientist that says human consciousness is a physicality, and not just the result of the physical brain, I will concede to being wrong.

I thought you said the mind doesn't reside within the brain?

I seem to recall you stating in another thread about "prejudice against fat people" that genetics plays only a small part if any in a persons weight. You basically said that they make a choice to be the way they are because they don't have to stay that way.

And by what you're stating, that you ARE your brain....then there is no "this is possible". It would be, this is the reality. So which is it? Are you a robot with no free will or not?

I don't know.  It's a good point, I'll give you that.    Like I said, I'm on the fence about whether determinism is true...my hubby's argument for it is that the cause-and-effect chain is so complex it's too difficult for any of us to understand; therefore, it really seems as if we have "free will" when we don't.  The main point I argue is that determinism completely devalues the human experience; I think most people would find it a fate worse than no afterlife for their entire life to already be set in stone from the moment of the Big Bang!!  This argument is primarily emotional, of course, which may make it not true.

This is both scientifically absurd and morally naive. How could natural selection favor the development of a capacity to thwart the interests of the ruling genes?

I've wondered that about birth control, lol!    The argument is that once our brains get big enough, we can use it to our advantage and hijack some of our genes.

the ability to thwart the ruling genes would imply free will, which determinism extinguishes!

Yep, I see your point.  Although hubby would argue that hijacking said genes was ALSO determined.  lol

If you have NO FREE WILL, then any acts of societal immorality aren't your fault, and therefore permissible in a sense because you had NO CHOICE. Does this sound reasonable to you?

Nope, it doesn't sound reasonable from my limited perspective.  It definitely would not be in our best interest to go spreading that message - even if it is ultimately true.

Then determinism is FALSE. Determinism says your choices are not really choices at all but determined on your genes!

That's my other main argument against determinism.  But I could be wrong.  I've asked my hubby, "So I was determined to not be raised religiously, find Christianity, and then become an atheist again?"  Him: "Yup."  Me: "That makes no sense."

This means that human behavior is ultimately controlled by genes that control personality, by brain neurochemistry, and interactions with the environment. By extension, all moral behaviors and choices are subservient to chemical reactions of the functioning brain.

First video I ever watched on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LvI0-Sykkk

Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me.

It very well might be.  Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say?  lol  

[Annella]

Hmmm sounds like intellectual dishonesty to me.

It very well might be.  Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say?  lol 
[/quote]

Color me surprised.....pleasantly

[shernajwine]

I thought you said the mind doesn't reside within the brain?

I did. That's my point. I don't imagine you will find a credible scientist...even a materialistic one that will assert any definitive statement that the mind is purely physical.

As for god solving the origins dilemma...not really.  You are just asserting that god always existed without tangible evidence.  Non-theists can do the same thing with universes.

You are right, and they certainly try....but here is where you come to an illogical argument. Atheists refuse belief in God, demanding irrefutable proof. They say God exists outside of the natural therefore he cannot exist. You say God exists outside of the natural because theism says God is eternal and created the laws of time and physics we are now subject to...He is defined as Supernatural.

YET, once it was irrefutable that the universe had a beginning....NOW, to get around God once again, they develop this idea of a multi verse and some kind of mother universe which churns out other universes?? Where did the original universe come from? If something had a beginning and therefore had to have a cause....you are eventually going to get to SOMETHING that is eternal and therefore NOT NATURAL by definition. You are going into serious rank speculation here with the multi universe idea. This is NOT scientific fact and it contradicts the very idea that God's eternal nature is so unbelievable. And it's very convenient to make such a theory that is completely unprovable. My point is.......you said it was silly to get so hung up on the improbable and accept the reality of what we see....I accept that God's eternal and invisible nature goes beyond human understanding but His existence is evident in humanity and creation.

Now isn't that intellectually honest of me to say?  lol

Yes, but maybe your genes made you say it so I would shut up!  

[jcribb16]

It is you who are naive. You have a hard time grasping the concept of personal, free will choice.  Your life is set in stone depending on what is in your heart and how you make your choices.  Like Annella, I could also help expand on this with the Bible (God's Word) but you would not believe it anyway. God is not going to beat you on the head because you do or will not accept Him.  He is disappointed, of course, but once again, YOU make your OWN choice - HE is NOT going to make it for you.

I think you can't grasp the very essence of the original argument. If your god is all-knowing (he knows the entire timelime already --past, present, and future-- the absence of choice for us in the big picture of things), he knows what everyone will choose to do. Knowing your creations are going to fail (climb up the ladder), suffer for eternity (fall onto the stove), and allowing it to happen is both lazy and evil. Any loving individual would turn off the stove or remove that needless pathway completely so the child would not climb and fall onto it.

I admit I don't understand why He allows it to happen.  I just know that He is the Creator and has reasons for it that ultimately at the end we will all know.  So, until then, my aim is to introduce Him to others, and let them make their own free-will choice about their own eternity.