Michael Egnor on why evil shows that there IS a God

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 4, 2018

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time. — Big Bang/NASA

From Michael Egnor at ENST, replying to one of the universe is “itself a mind” philosophers, Phillip Goff:

Evil is not a problem, and in fact does not exist, if there is no God. And Goff errs in proposing that the universe is a Mind and that the Mind embodied in the universe is the ground of existence.

The universe is not a Mind. It is a manifestation of a Mind, the creation of a Mind, but it has no mind itself. A mind is an aspect of a soul, and what characterizes a mind is its ability to hold the form of another substance in it without becoming that substance. For example, my mind can grasp the idea of a tree or of justice, but I do not therefore become a tree or justice. The universe certainly has forms, but those are substantial forms, which make the universe and the component parts what they are. There is no reason to impute “mind” to what is clearly an assemblage of material substances.

Furthermore, the universe is contingent. Its essence — what it is — does not include the necessity that it is. Nowhere in a physical description of the universe or of its laws is there any necessity of its existence. When we describe a distant galaxy or the Big Bang, it is possible that we are engaging in fantasy or error. But the ground of existence must have necessary existence — its essence must be existence. What it is must be that it is. That is clearly not true of the physical universe. More.

See also: At Aeon: Fine-tuning is easy to explain: The universe itself is conscious, and somewhat like a human. Goff: “However, it now seems to me that reflection on the fine-tuning might give us grounds for thinking that the mental life of the Universe is just a little closer than I had previously thought to the mental life of a human being.” Indeed. If we keep going in this direction, we will run into Zeus. The only remaining mystery is why our Stone Age ancestors gave up on him after a while.

At Quartz: Materialists are converting to panpsychism

Latest consciousness theory: Rocks have minds

The universe may be conscious?

Evading hard problem of human consciousness: Consciousness is in everything!

The illusion of consciousness sees through itself.

And the naturalist’s biggest problem, to hear him tell it, is the persistence of stubborn doubt about naturalism.

Comments

Molson Bleu @
Molson Bleu: Bob and Seversky ... have presented their views honestly, ... and effectively.
If that is true, then you will have no problem summarizing/explaining their position for us. Seversky's (and Bob's) main claim is this:
Sev: Being an a/mat does not necessarily mean you are bound to hold that consciousness, etc are illusions.
Since you hold that this view has been presented "honestly" and "effectively", can you tell us why that is? How can free will, consciousness and morality exist in a world which consists solely of matter and impersonal laws?Origenes_{March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 47 -
If you are not defending atheistic materialism, then you had no business whatsoever asking that question. For you not to specify how your philosophy differs from Seversky, and Darwinists in general, if at all, is misleading and pathetic.
I've been trying to get you to understand something that I would hope would be simple - you don't necessarily understand what other people's view are (in particular mine and Seversky's). It seems to me that if you don't even appreciate that, trying to explain my views would be a waste of time, because you would be telling me that I don't understand my own views, rather like your response in 53, where you leap in and tell Seversky what he should be thinking.Bob O'H_{March 6, 2018
March
03
Mar
6
06
2018
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

Well Molson, since you find my mannerism intolerable, even 'embarrassing', and cannot help yourself but to repeatedly butt in and try to correct me on my manners, I've asked a administrator to adjudicate the matter between us. Perhaps you will win. If so, I will gladly leave and/or accept my being banned.bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Above someplace, someone wrote, "But that assumes, a-priori, that he [God] is good. But if he was evil from the start ...." Assuming for the sake of argument that some type of "God" is responsible for the creation of the universe as it is, I don't see why it is necessary that it would have a personal interest in our behavior, or judgments about whether our behavior met some standards of "good or evil": judgments about good and evil in respect to human behavior might not be a characteristic that would apply to it all. Even if such a God watches over the world, as opposed to just creating it, that God might be totally disinterested in the specific nature and behavior of various parts of the universe, including living things and including us. I think this possibility needs to be kept in mind.jdk_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

“I’ll ask one time, please quit pestering me with your moral posturing. Any more and I will take it as trolling.” Moral posturing? All I said was that you were being disingenuous. Would you like an example?
Why should I care that the particles of your brain made you make such an incoherent argument? Go figure.
Why don’t you actually respond to his comments rather than say that because he is an atheist, he can have no real thoughts? That is the height of disingenuous pomposity. If you want to label me a troll and run to the site owner and have me banned because it is easier than addressing my criticism, that is your choice. Alternately, you could simply treat others with the respect that you feel that you are entitled to.Molson Bleu_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Molson Bleu, moral posturing again??? and I guess me telling you to go soak your pompous head again would really be too much for you? :) I'll ask one time, please quit pestering me with your moral posturing. Any more and I will take it as trolling.bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Sev, you stated
I know you are not saying that consciousness, free will, morality, etc are illusions. Neither am I. If there are other a/mats who say they are then I disagree.
Please get it straight Sev, "the particles of your brain disagree". "You", your thoughts, all your actions, are the result of material particles. As much as "you" may think that "you" have chosen to have a certain opinion, it is all an illusion. The particles of your brain just so happened to find themselves in a particular state that gave you a certain opinion. You are at the complete mercy of whatever the particles decide to do (as if particles could 'decide') as to:
Being an a/mat does not necessarily mean you are bound to hold that consciousness, etc are illusions.
Yes it does, either matter is primary and consciousness is basically illusory in nature, or else mind is primary and matter is basically illusory in nature. Funny that in quantum mechanics you often here researchers mention 'illusory' when they talk about materialism. ,,,next post topic,,, Sev, You have no clue how matter might achieve self awareness. Pointing to 'brain states' does not answer the profound mystery of how consciousness arises in the least.
A MAP OF THE SOUL by Michael Egnor - June 29 2017 Excerpt: I’m a neuroscientist and professor of neurosurgery.,,, Our higher brain functions defy precise mapping onto brain tissue, because they are not generated by tissue, as our lower brain functions are. Materialism, the view that matter is all that exists, is the premise of much contemporary thinking about what a human being is. Yet evidence from the laboratory, operating room, and clinical experience points to a less fashionable conclusion: Human beings straddle the material and immaterial realms. We can do better science—and medicine—when we recognize that human beings have abilities that transcend reductionist material explanations. In this century of unprecedented advances in brain research, it’s remarkable that the deepest insights emerge from an ancient paradigm: Thomas Aquinas’s map of the soul. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/a-map-of-the-soul
Indeed, as the following paper makes abundantly clear, finding strict correlation of mind to brain states is all but impossible:
Discrepancy Between Cerebral Structure and Cognitive Functioning: A Review - 2017 Excerpt: The aforementioned student of mathematics had a global IQ of 130 and a verbal IQ of 140 at the age of 25 (Lorber, 1983), but had “virtually no brain” (Lewin 1980, p. 1232).,,, This student belonged to the group of patients that Lorber classified as having “extreme hydrocephalus,” meaning that more than 90% of their cranium appeared to be filled with cerebrospinal fluid (Lorber, 1983).,,, Apart from the above-mentioned student of mathematics, he described a woman with an extreme degree of hydrocephalus showing “virtually no cerebral mantle” who had an IQ of 118, a girl aged 5 who had an IQ of 123 despite extreme hydrocephalus, a 7-year-old boy with gross hydrocephalus and an IQ of 128, another young adult with gross hydrocephalus and a verbal IQ of 144, and a nurse and an English teacher who both led normal lives despite gross hydrocephalus.,,, Another interesting case is that of a 44-year-old woman with very gross hydrocephalus described by Masdeu (2008) and Masdeu et al. (2009). She had a global IQ of 98, worked as an administrator for a government agency, and spoke seven languages.,,, ,,, , people who grew up with only one hemisphere developed all the neuronal foundations needed for ordinary cognitive and most motor skills. Even so, it seems additionally surprising that one hemisphere can accomplish this after the other has been removed or was isolated anatomically and functionally from the rest of the brain, as it is the case of surgical hemispherectomy.,,, It is astonishing that many patients can lead an ordinary life after this drastic procedure, having only minor motor disabilities that result from mild hemiplegia.,,, McFie (1961) was astonished that “not only does it (one hemishere) perform motor and sensory functions for both sides of the body, it performs the associative and intellectual functions normally allocated to two hemispheres” (p. 248).,,, ,,, most patients, even adults, do not seem to lose their long-term memory such as episodic (autobiographic) memories.,,, Finally, we will present additional considerations about memory processing, especially in savants. In this respect, Kim Peek (1951–2009) was most remarkable in that he seemed to possess a perfect memory: he forgot nothing he ever read and remembered complete melodies, even if he heard them only once. Most remarkably, his brain showed considerable malformations that included a deformed cerebellum, abnormalities of the left hemisphere, and the complete lack of the corpus callosum, as well as the anterior and posterior commissures. In addition, much of the skull interior comprised empty areas that were filled with cerebrospinal fluid, as in hydrocephalic subjects (Treffert and Christensen, 2005). Nevertheless, he memorized more than 12,000 books, apparently verbatim, the contents of which amounted to an encyclopedic knowledge in multiple areas of interest. Typically, he would read a page in eight to ten seconds, and then turn to the next page. He even read two pages of smaller books such as paperbacks simultaneously, using one eye each for each page. Moreover, he had impressive calendar calculating abilities (Treffert, 2010). https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/12/Discrepancy-between-cerebral-structure-and-cognitive-functioning-JNMD.pdf
Moreover Sev, your claim that "we have never observed consciousness existing apart from the physical brain." is (as you have been told at least twice by me personally), just plain false. Near Death Experiences directly falsify your claim:
Near death, explained? - Mario Beauregard - Apr 21, 2012 Excerpt: The scientific NDE (Near Death Experience) studies performed over the past decades indicate that heightened mental functions can be experienced independently of the body at a time when brain activity is greatly impaired or seemingly absent (such as during cardiac arrest). Some of these studies demonstrate that blind people can have veridical perceptions during OBEs associated with an NDE. Other investigations show that NDEs often result in deep psychological and spiritual changes. These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies. NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
As to your last two supposed rebuttals, what can I say?,,, I supported my claims with empirical evidence and you just stated an opinion that you, since you have no free will, had no power in choosing in the first place. :) Why should I care that the particles of your brain made you make such an incoherent argument? Go figure.bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

“Bob (and weave) continues his disingenuous debating style.” Frankly, I can only see one person continuing a disingenuous debating style. And it is not Bob or Seversky. It really embarrasses me that we are on the same side of this debate. Bob and Seversky have been polite and have presented their views honestly, politely and effectively. I disagree with their arguments but, unlikely you, I don’t resort to ridicule and telling them what they think. And neither do they.Molson Bleu_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

CR Justification doesn’t help because reason always comes first. You use reason to choose between what you think are infallible sources, when to defer to them, how to interpret them, etc. So, who choses what is “evil”? You do. IOW, what is evil for me is not necessarily evil for Pol Pot. So we are back to comment #1. If there is no God then evil is without meaning hence doesn't exist. I do believe evil exists and neither you nor I get to define it. OTOH, if you do say evil gets to be defined by beholder and there is no accountability, well, that's what Pol Pot did.tribune7_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Sev: Being an a/mat does not necessarily mean you are bound to hold that consciousness, etc are illusions.
Why not?Origenes_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 38
Whereas atheists have no empirical support whatsoever for their belief that matter generates consciousness, ...
Yes, we do. We have a wealth of observations of the correlation between brain states and the observed conscious behavior of the individual. We have a host of observations of how damage to the brain caused by injury or disease can change the conscious behavior of the victim. We have experiments in which electrical or magnetic stimulation of the brain can elicit a range of conscious experiences in the subject. Finally, we have never observed consciousness existing apart from the physical brain.
I, on the other hand, as a Christian, can support my beliefs that #1, the immaterial mind interacts with the material brain...
You cannot demonstrate the existence of an immaterial mind so you cannot show there is anything to interact with the physical brain.
... and #2 that consciousness precedes material reality:
An absurd notion. As I've asked before, if material reality does not exist until observed by consciousness then what is consciousness observing in the first place?Seversky_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 11
Are you trying to outdo ‘Bob (and weave)’ in non-sequitur argumentation Seversky? Again, it is not I that is saying that consciousness (i.e. personhood), free will, and morality, are illusions (or a ‘model’ as you try to term consciousness),
I know you are not saying that consciousness, free will, morality, etc are illusions. Neither am I. If there are other a/mats who say they are then I disagree.
It is your own materialistic philosophy that insists that consciousness (i.e. personhood), free will, and morality, are illusions
That is the strawman fallacy. You are attacking something other than what I believe. Being an a/mat does not necessarily mean you are bound to hold that consciousness, etc are illusions.Seversky_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) states:
Keep up. We weren’t discussing materialism.
Bob (and weave), I don't know about you, but all through this thread I have been talking directly about atheistic materialism, and/or Darwinian evolution, and the presuppositions inherent therein. I have been VERY specific about that! Atheistic materialism, and/or Darwinian evolution, is exactly what I was talking about with Seversky when you jumped into the thread at comment 7 and specifically asked,,
why do you think Seversky is an illusion?
If you are not defending atheistic materialism, then you had no business whatsoever asking that question. For you not to specify how your philosophy differs from Seversky, and Darwinists in general, if at all, is misleading and pathetic. Another example of you being pathetic is this:
Me: And why should I care what the particles of your brain did? Bob (and weave): I’m going for “because Jesus told us to love our neighbour as ourselves”. Which, for what it’s worth, I reckon is pretty good advice.
Well golly gee whiz Bob, if you can see no 'moral' problem with an atheistic materialist 'borrowing' morality from Christianity, then I guess that certainly explains exactly why you do not find it morally troubling in the least that an atheistic materialist would also help themselves to free servings of consciousness, (i.e. personhood), and free will from Christian Theism. All without batting an eye. Like I said, your arguments are pathetic., and, in regards to that last comment you made, apparently shameless.bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Bob@ So, what are we discussing? Panpsychism?Origenes_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Origenes - Keep up. We weren't discussing materialism.Bob O'H_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H: I don’t see that atheism denies free will ...
Materialism offers determined, indetermined and emergent events. All three fail to ground free will. So, what is that you do not see?Origenes_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

ba77 @ 41 - what "empirical evidence" do these experts have that I am an illusion? Also, I don't see that atheism denies free will - I think such a denial would have to rest on more than just the non-existence of any gods.
And why should I care what the particles of your brain did?
I'm going for "because Jesus told us to love our neighbour as ourselves". Which, for what it's worth, I reckon is pretty good advice.Bob O'H_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

"Actually no he can’t because A) there is no time (as we know it) for him to change his mind B) There is no fact or occurence that would cause him to change his mind that he does not already know." But that assumes, a-priori, that he is good. But if he was evil from the start, why couldn't he proceed with us as he already has? "Again Claiming God coud be evil is like saying a ruler that determines what a foot is, is shorter than a foot." Yet we have no qualms about claiming that God is good. Would the same hold true for that? And, to reiterate, I am not suggesting that God is evil. This hypothetical is just a counter-point to Dr. Egnor's claim, which I think is flawed.Molson Bleu_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Bob (and weave),,, and your 'illusory' opinion is suppose to outweigh the empirical evidence and the opinion of leading experts how exactly? Moreover, since atheism denies the reality of free will, did you really choose your opinion or did the particles of your brain just give you the illusion that you chose your opinion? And why should I care what the particles of your brain did? And even if I did care, since according to atheism I have no free will, how could I possibly change my opinion? I'm a friggin complete victim of the particles of my brain according to your unsubstantiated opinion,, an opinion that you have by no power of your own! :)bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Molson @36 "Is it not possible that we perceive as being all good simply because to think otherwise scares the crap out of us? Although none of us believe that God is actually evil, is there anything that is stopping this from being fact? Being God, can’t he be anything that he wants to be?" Actually no he can't because A) there is no time (as we know it) for him to change his mind B) There is no fact or occurence that would cause him to change his mind that he does not already know. This is not even remotely a good point or argument. It merely assumes good and evil is something that finds its root in something outside of the authority that establishes it. Besides how would created beings come to hold a standard that is more right than God who in fact is what indues them with any sense of right and wrong? Unfortunately we no longer really grasp what the word God means when we talk of him. Its just a word with an assumed understood meaning when it often isn't understood at all. Again Claiming God coud be evil is like saying a ruler that determines what a foot is, is shorter than a foot.mikeenders_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) claims “my philosophy does not lead to the conclusion that I don’t really exist.” Really?? You better inform all the atheistic professors of that:
Why? They have different opinions. Should I ask you to confront rabbis about why Jesus is you lord?
Hey, I got an idea Bob, since you say atheism does not say that consciousness, (i.e. personhood), is an illusion,...
I've never said that, though. I only stated my beliefs, not those of other people. As far as I can tell, I exist (Cogito ergo sum and all that). I can't prove it, though, as it isn't a mathematical theorem. Sorry.Bob O'H_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Materialists, despite their belief that consciousness is 'emergent' from a material basis, simply have no evidence for that belief:
"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness." - Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7. “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.” Sebastian Seung - Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist - “Connectome”: "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." Roger Wolcott Sperry - Nobel neurophysiologist As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian "We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind." - Eugene Wigner - Nobel prize-winner – Quantum Symmetries "Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot." Nick Herbert - Contemporary physicist "No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." - Larry Dossey - Physician and author
Whereas atheists have no empirical support whatsoever for their belief that matter generates consciousness, I, on the other hand, as a Christian, can support my beliefs that #1, the immaterial mind interacts with the material brain, and #2 that consciousness precedes material reality: For example, in direct contradiction to the atheistic claim that our thoughts are merely the result of whatever state our material brain happens to be in, 'Brain Plasticity', the ability to alter the structure of the brain from a person's focused intention, has now been established by Jeffrey Schwartz, as well as among other researchers.
The Case for the Soul - InspiringPhilosophy - (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz's work) - Oct. 2014 - video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70 The Case for the Soul: Refuting Physicalist Objections - video Computers vs. Qualia, Libet and 'Free won't', Split Brain (unified attention of brain despite split hemispheres, as well, visual and motion information is shared between the two hemispheres despite the hemispheres being split), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB5TNrtu9Pk The Case for the Soul: Quantum Biology - (7:25 minute mark - Brain Plasticity and Mindfulness control of DNA expression) https://youtu.be/6_xEraQWvgM?t=446
Then there is also the well documented placebo effect in which a person’s beliefs have pronounced physiological effects on their body
How Your Thoughts Change Your Brain, Cells and Genes - Mar 24, 2017 Excerpt: Studies have shown that thoughts alone can improve vision, fitness, and strength. The placebo effect, as observed with fake operations and sham drugs, for example, works because of the power of thought. Expectancies and learned associations have been shown to change brain chemistry and circuitry which results in real physiological and cognitive outcomes, such as less fatigue, lower immune system reaction, elevated hormone levels, and reduced anxiety. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debbie-hampton/how-your-thoughts-change-your-brain-cells-and-genes_b_9516176.html
Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://youtu.be/t5qphmi8gYE
also see "Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind'
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) claims "my philosophy does not lead to the conclusion that I don’t really exist." Really?? You better inform all the atheistic professors of that:
"There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again. (…) So, the fiction of the enduring self is almost certainly a side effect of a highly effective way of keeping the human body out of harm’s way. It is a by-product of whatever selected for bodies—human and nonhuman—to take pains now that make things better for themselves later. For a long time now, Mother Nature has been filtering for bodies to postpone consumption in the present as investment for the body’s future. It looks a lot like planning. Even squirrels do it, storing nuts for the winter. Does this require each squirrel to have a single real enduring self through time? No. If not, then why take introspection’s word for it when it has a track record of being wrong about things like this, when the self just looks like part of the same illusions and is supposed to have features that physics tells us nothing real can have." - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 "Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.” Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s And in the following article, Dawkins himself admits that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true: Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
Hey, I got an idea Bob, since you say atheism does not say that consciousness, (i.e. personhood), is an illusion, and all the atheistic professors and authors say otherwise, why don't we run a test??? Prove to me empirically that you really exist as a real person and that your concept of personhood is not just an illusion that is being pawned off on you by the randomly colliding particles of your brain,,, :) Myself, I can empirically support my belief in a 'transcendent' soul and mind, but, you being a reductive materialist (i.e. Darwinist), that is not the type of evidence that you are looking for is it??? :)
Darwinism vs Biological Form – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

"There are reasonable sounding opposites for nearly all of these arguments. Example? God could be perfectly evil and still allow good. Why? Because, being perfectly evil, it would be necessary for us to know what we were missing when the tortured us for eternity. That says the opposite is true, in really, yet explains what we experience, “evil”, just as well. This is an example of an easily varied explanation." I don't often agree with an atheist, but you do make a very good point here. I read Dr. Egnor's piece and it feels more like word games used to support wishful thinking than a well thought out, logical exercise. Because we are God's creations, we trust him with regard to what is good and what is evil. But that says nothing about the nature of God himself. Is it not possible that we perceive as being all good simply because to think otherwise scares the crap out of us? Although none of us believe that God is actually evil, is there anything that is stopping this from being fact? Being God, can't he be anything that he wants to be?Molson Bleu_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Without light there are no shadows.john_a_designer_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Thus either Bob (and weave) has a serious reading comprehension issue or else, as is in all likelihood, he is being thoroughly disingenuous to the issue at hand (as is usual for internet atheists), that it is indeed his own atheistic philosophy that makes the claim the he, as a person, does not really exist.
Right. I've told you repeatedly that I don't think I'm an illusion. And your response ... to accuse me of lying. To reiterate: no, my philosophy does not lead to the conclusion that I don't really exist. And I think I might just possibly have more knowledge of what I think than you do.Bob O'H_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) continues his disingenuous debating style. He partially quotes me and leaves out the qualifier for the statement that it is indeed his atheistic philosophy that makes the claim,,, Context is everything,,,
Hmmmm, like the claim from materialists that the entire ‘concept’ of say a person named “Seversky’ must not necessarily exist as a real person but must instead be a neuronal illusion? Ross Douthat Is On Another Erroneous Rampage Against Secularism – Jerry Coyne – December 26, 2013 Excerpt: “many (but not all) of us accept the notion that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” Jerry Coyne – Professor of Evolutionary Biology – Atheist https://newrepublic.com/article/116047/ross-douthat-wrong-about-secularism-and-ethics The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor And to echo Ross Douthat’s question to Coyne, and exactly why should I or anyone else take what the illusion named ‘Seversky’ says about what is real and what is imaginary seriously? Illusions, by definition, are unreal to begin with!
Thus either Bob (and weave) has a serious reading comprehension issue or else, as is in all likelihood, he is being thoroughly disingenuous to the issue at hand (as is usual for internet atheists), that it is indeed his own atheistic philosophy that makes the claim the he, as a person, does not really exist. And to reiterate a obvious point in all this, that Bob (and weave) would take such exception to being thought of as an illusion is yet more proof that his atheistic materialism is false and even insane. Of supplemental note: The insanity inherent to atheism, especially the denial that real meaning and purpose exists for our lives, plays out in the 'real' world:
“ I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q&f=false “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false
bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 27 - it's you who wrote "... exactly why should I or anyone else take what the illusion named ‘Seversky’ says about what is real and what is imaginary seriously?" @ 8, and you've done this before. If you don't think people are illusions, then don't call them illusions. And my world view doesn't lead me to the conclusion that we are illusions, so don't claim please don't be so arrogant as to tell me what I think.Bob O'H_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

@Tribune Justification doesn't help because reason always comes first. You use reason to choose between what you think are infallible sources, when to defer to them, how to interpret them, etc. So, who choses what is "evil"? You do. We all do. And we do so via criticism of moral ideas. From this article at Nautilus
The fact is, there’s nothing infallible about “direct experience” either. Indeed, experience is never direct. It is a sort of virtual reality, created by our brains using sketchy and flawed sensory clues, given substance only by fallible expectations, explanations, and interpretations. Those can easily be more mistaken than the testimony of the passing hobo. If you doubt this, look at the work of psychologists Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons, and verify by direct experience the fallibility of your own direct experience. Furthermore, the idea that your reminiscences are infallible is also heresy by the very doctrine that you are faithful to. I’ll tell you what really happened. You witnessed a dress rehearsal. The real ex cathedra ceremony was on the following day. In order not to make the declaration a day early, they substituted for the real text (which was about some arcane theological issue, not gravity) a lorem-ipsum-type placeholder that they deemed so absurd that any serious listener would immediately realize that that’s what it was. And indeed, you did realize this; and as a result, you reinterpreted your “direct experience,” which was identical to that of witnessing an ex cathedra declaration, as not being one. Precisely by reasoning that the content of the declaration was absurd, you concluded that you didn’t have to believe it. Which is also what you would have done if you hadn’t believed the infallibility doctrine. You remain a believer, serious about giving your faith absolute priority over your own “unaided” reason (as reason is called in these contexts). But that very seriousness has forced you to decide first on the substance of the issue, using reason, and only then whether to defer to the infallible authority. This is neither fluke nor paradox. It is simply that if you take ideas seriously, there is no escape, even in dogma and faith, from the obligation to use reason and to give it priority over dogma, faith, and obedience.
critical rationalist_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Alex Vilenkin, who mathematically proved that all hypothetical inflationary universes must have also have had a beginning, commenting on Euler’s Identity, stated,,,
"It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty" Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One: (page 201)
As well, Richard Feynman called Euler’s Identity a ‘jewel’:
“Richard Feynman was a huge fan and called it a "jewel".” http://www.sciencedump.com/content/world%E2%80%99s-most-beautiful-equations
‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the fairly recent discovery of the Amplituhedron:
The Amplituhedron (mathematical beauty - 21:12 minute mark) - Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272
Paul Dirac, when pressed for a definition of mathematical beauty, reacted as such:
Dirac threw up his hands. Mathematical beauty, he said, ‘cannot be defined any more than beauty in art can be defined’ – though he added that it was something ‘people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating’. http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/beauty-is-truth-theres-a-false-equation/
And indeed, just as Dirac held, it is found when mathematicians are shown equations such as Euler's identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:
Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014 Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown "ugly" and "beautiful" equations while in a brain scanner at University College London. The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by "beautiful" maths.,,, One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: "A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain - the medial orbito-frontal cortex - like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music." http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26151062
But where this ‘sense of beauty’ in mathematics, that apparently has been so fruitful for science, breaks down is with string theory, (and m-theory):
The Admiral of the String Theory Wars - May 7, 2015 After a decade, Peter Woit still thinks string theory is a gory mess. Excerpt: Woit’s major complaint about the theory, then and now, is that it fails to make testable predictions, so it can’t be checked for errors—in other words, that it’s “not even wrong.”,,, Woit’s secondary grievance is aesthetic. He, like many physicists, perceives an intricate beauty in the math underlying successful physical theories like Einstein’s. In contrast, Woit says, string theory’s math is “a gory mess.” http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-admiral-of-the-string-theory-wars
What is astonishing, in this seemingly deep connection between math and beauty, is the fact that the ‘argument from beauty’ is in fact a Theistic argument:
Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God: Excerpt: Beauty,,, can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this `idea’ of beauty were not found in the mind in a more perfect form. http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/williams-aesthetic.shtml
Even Darwin himself conceded that 'beauty' was fatal to his theory:
“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” (Charles Darwin - 1859, 199)
Thus, if you believe that beauty exists then you should reject atheistic materialism as false. As for myself, I certainly believe that beauty exists
This Year's Best Science Photos Are So Good They're Basically Art - George Dvorsky - 3/06/17 http://gizmodo.com/this-years-best-science-photos-are-so-good-theyre-basic-1793004117
bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply