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

of related note to this transcendent world of mathematics: Of interest to theoretical mathematics that are fruitful to the progress of science, it is said that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, were born out of the mathematicians 'sense of beauty'. Paul Dirac is said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:
Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty - video (28:12 minute mark - prediction of the 'anti-electron') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40
As the preceding video highlighted, Paul Dirac was rather adamant that beauty was integral to finding truth through math:
‘it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’ Paul Dirac
Albert Einstein was also a big fan of beauty in math. Einstein stated:
Truth not equal to Beauty - Philip Ball – May 2014 Excerpt: ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’ - Albert Einstein http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/beauty-is-truth-theres-a-false-equation/
In regards to General Relativity, mathematical physicist Clifford Will and others also claim that it is beautiful
“Fiddling with general relativity, he believes, would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony. “General relativity is so unbelievably beautiful and simple – it’s in some ways the most perfect gravitational theory that you could possibly imagine,” he says. All of the alternatives he’s seen so far are “horrendously ugly by comparison”.” https://uncommondescent.com/physics/general-relativity-still-beautiful-ahead-of-its-time/ Einstein’s Masterpiece - Michael W. Begun – Fall 2015 Excerpt: General relativity has served as a paragon of a scientific theory, and generations of physicists have hailed its sublimity. Ernest Rutherford, for instance: “the theory of relativity by Einstein ... cannot but be regarded as a magnificent work of art.” Wolfgang Pauli: “it will always remain the pattern of a theory of consummate beauty of the mathematical structure.” Sean Carroll: “General relativity is the most beautiful physical theory ever invented.” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/einsteins-masterpiece
bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

The argument from evil is an attempt to show that there is no all-loving God. The argument is not about there being no God at all.Origenes_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Bob, do you have a reading comprehension issue? Once again, it is not I that is saying that consciousness (i.e. personhood), free will, and morality, are illusions, It is your own materialistic philosophy that insists that consciousness (i.e. personhood), free will, and morality, are illusions. And again, the more you fight against what your own atheistic philosophy dictates, the more you testify to the fact that it is false (and insane). Moreover, if atheists were consistent with what their atheistic materialism actually entails, then they would also adamantly claim that mathematics itself is illusory, since it, like consciousness, free will and morality, also has no material basis,.
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video Excerpt: "Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond the material realm exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of self-refuting." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA
bornagain77_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

THis is always fun stuff because the parsing game begins. If you notice Egnor parses the universe as being separate from humans and their minds when they are as part of it as a galaxy and all of its stars. Is the universe conscious? Why obviously. I am conscoius but I don't claim my fingers are. That part of me that is conscious makes the claim stand. then our materialist commenters start parsing human concept from material reality - but all things being material a concept is a material system. CR adds to the parsing game trying to seperate Evil and good from a standard begging God could be evil which is just a trojan for a totally fallacious argument that assumes its own comclusion - that evil or good stands outside of an authority. Note - God could no more be evil than a ruler that determines what a foot is could be less or more than a foot. Good news for CR is that he's apparently totally uaware of the circularity he's employing. its always with the sleight of a magician's hand that atheist and materialists beg themselves out of addressing issues of morality, evil or even emotion. As if they can categorize it to something outside of materialism when they claim nothing is outside of it. I don't know that Evil PROVES there is a God but I find it oddly ID based that our sense of morality conjured up by the material in our minds just happens to match ( or dare I say it? be finely tuned) with health and other benefits to the rest of my body, my world and all those living in it. the argument that concepts of the mind let the materialists off of explaining them by beggin they are not real and material is a magic trick I no longer buy.mikeenders_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 8 - if you don't think that Seversky is an illusion, then stop saying he is! And also please stop telling me what I think. You don't know, and a lot of what you write is plain wrong.Bob O'H_{March 5, 2018
March
03
Mar
5
05
2018
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

The ultimate good cannot be evil.john_a_designer_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

“It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’ The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland
Hmmm, sounds a lot like what is happening now in China and the former Soviet Union:
Study: Rising Religious Tide in China Overwhelms Atheist Doctrine Excerpt: One of the last great efforts at state-sponsored atheism is a failure. And not just any kind of failure. China has enforced its anti-religion policy through decades of repression, coercion and persecution, but the lack of success is spectacular, according to a major new study. No more than 15 percent of adults in the world's most populous country are "real atheists." 85 percent of the Chinese either hold some religious beliefs or practice some kind of religion, according to the Chinese Spiritual Life Survey. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/study-rising-religious-ti_b_811665.html Christians Now Outnumber Communists in China - 12/29/14 Excerpt: Though the Chinese Communist Party is the largest explicitly atheist organization in the world, with 85 million official members, it is now overshadowed by an estimated 100 million Christians in China.,,, “By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/29/christians-now-outnumber-communists-in-china/ Pew: Here’s How Badly Soviet Atheism Failed in Europe In 18 nations across Central and Eastern Europe, religion is now essential to national identity. (massive study based on face-to-face interviews with 25,000 adults in 18 countries} Jeremy Weber - 5/10/2017 Excerpt: “The comeback of religion in a region once dominated by atheist regimes is striking,” states Pew in its latest report. Today, only 14 percent of the region’s population identify as atheists, agnostics, or “nones.” By comparison, 57 percent identify as Orthodox, and another 18 percent as Catholics. http://www.christianitytoday.com/images/76841.png?h=717&w=380 http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2017/may/pew-atheism-failed-central-eastern-europe-orthodox-identity.html
Of related note: The reports of the death of Christianity in America are, much like Mark Twain's death, greatly exaggerated
New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger - Jan. 2018 Excerpt: New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that. Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis.” http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/
bornagain77_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

The pitfall is still immovably there Dick:
This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God - Jan, 2018 Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good. Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world. In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God. The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all. As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.” http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/03/theologian-answer-new-atheists-claims-existence-evil-disproves-gods/
bornagain77_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

CR, You miss the point. Cruelty, indifference to suffering, hate etc. are realities. What makes them evil?tribune7_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

The problem with Egnor's argument is that the atheist could simply substitute "suffering" for "evil" and avoid the pitfall of an atheist using moral terminology.Dick_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Funny how atheists deny that evil (i.e. morality) even exists on the one hand, and then on the other hand always pretend that they know morality better than God does because they say God would never allow evil to exist. Don't believe me? Richard Dawkins himself is a raging moralist who thinks he knows morality better than God:
Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Might I suggest that God knows a lot more about morality, i.e. good and evil, than the atheist does? Especially since he used evil against itself on the Cross in order to bring redemption to man,,, which I hold to be supremely good
The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker - April 2009 Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, "Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine." What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan. With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-problem-of-evil
bornagain77_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

I wonder what would happen if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit and actually hadn't sinned? How would they have known what good and evil is? Would there be evil at all? I guess the perfect "Christian God" of the many at UD would've had to found another way to trick them into committing evil otherwise they would be like God or the would be God, as per Dr. Egnor's theory: "Evil exists because the created universe is not God, but His creation, so it must of necessity fall short of God, who is perfectly Good. After all, if the universe were perfectly good, without evil, it would just be God. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/cosmic-fine-tuning-and-the-problem-of-evil/J-Mac_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

@tribune7
And you still have to come to a conclusion.
The Christian God, as an explanation of "evil" and "good" in the world, is a bad explanation because it is easily varied. Again, it could just as well be that God is actually perfectly evil. And, being perfectly evil, he has no choice but to allow us to experience the good we will be missing when we are tortured for eternity. Otherwise he wouldn't be perfectly evil. Right? What's worse? An eternity of torture without knowing good your missing or an eternity of torture knowing what good you could be having and experiencing instead? That explains "evil" and "good" we experience in the world just as well, yet suggests the exact opposite his happening in reality. They are both bad explanations because they can be easily varied.
Because it is impossible to refute. Give it a shot.
See above.critical rationalist_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

CR And the opposite is true, in that you can always think of an argument for something, as well. And you still have to come to a conclusion. So, how do you know your explanation for “evil” is the right one? Because it is impossible to refute. Give it a shot.tribune7_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

ET @ 13, excellent point. and since Sev champions the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution, and since the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution is now proven to be false by advances in 'quantum biology', I really don't think that Sev should ever be referring to biology in any way, shape, or form, to try to make his case for atheism since, as far as biology is concerned, he is now shown to not even be on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand biological organisms in the first place.
Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y
Biological 'form' is also excellent for falsifying the reductive materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution:
Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
bornagain77_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

@tribune7
With enough imagination you can always think of an argument against something.
And the opposite is true, in that you can always think of an argument for something, as well. That's my point. Thanks for making for me. We start out with a conjecture, which we develop using our imagination. Then we come up with ways to test those guesses in hope of finding and discarding errors they contain. So, how do you know your explanation for "evil" is the right one? How could we go about finding errors in it? We can always think of criticisms of our ideas. And we continue to do so long after they are developed. And, as I pointed out, your explanation is easily varied. That is you can modify it significant without impacting its ability to explain "evil". Being easily varied is the hallmark of an bad explanation.critical rationalist_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

We have good evidence that the way we see the world is that image-forming light enters our eyes and is transduced into electrical signals passed along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain. There it is processed to form the visual image we see in front of us. Similar processes for converting external stimuli into electrical signals transmitted to the brain occur in our other sensory channels.
And we have good reasons to say all of that is the result of intelligent design We don't have any reason, besides personal bias, to say that non-telic processes did it. There isn't even a way to test such a claim.ET_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 9: "If, on the other hand, you believe that there are others like you out there, how do you know that your understanding and explanations of external reality are better than theirs?" This, of course, is the question that everyone must ask him or herself. Surely you know that BA77 has already asked it of himself and he remains a theist. You presumably have asked it of yourself and you remain an atheist. "Are you interested in testing one against the other or are you only interested in finding confirmation of your own presuppositions?" I would presume that both you and BA77 are interesting in testing the reasonableness of your worldviews. Nevertheless, the divide between you exists, not because either of you refuses to test your worldview but because some things are beyond testing empirically. Some things ultimately come down to faith. BA77 has faith that theism is true. You have faith that atheism is true. Neither can be proved empirically.Truth Will Set You Free_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

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), It is your own materialistic philosophy that insists that consciousness (i.e. personhood), free will, and morality, are illusions. And again, the more you fight against what your own atheistic philosophy dictates, i.e. that you are an illusion, the more you testify to the fact that it is false (and insane).
“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
Of related note: As to (re)establishing the Agent Causality of God back to physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, it is good to see how Quantum Mechanics has now validated certain aspects of “Mind”, (particularly validated the aspects of ‘the experience of “the now”‘ of the mind that Albert Einstein himself once claimed would never be a part of experimental physics and also validated the aspect of free will which Einstein claimed did not really exist but was only an illusion:
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
bornagain77_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

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. CR, you are arguing like a second grader on the playground. With enough imagination you can always think of an argument against something. The reality, though, is that you have to put your chips on something. Natural science is a very silly way to determine what that something is.tribune7_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 6
Seversky states:
The existence of a concept or the word for that concept does not necessarily mean that the thing referred to must exist as something other than a concept.
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?
We have good evidence that the way we see the world is that image-forming light enters our eyes and is transduced into electrical signals passed along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain. There it is processed to form the visual image we see in front of us. Similar processes for converting external stimuli into electrical signals transmitted to the brain occur in our other sensory channels. All that data is integrated to form the HD, stereoscopic, full color model complete with touch, taste and smell which is what we use to navigate the external reality we assume the model represents. And this is a partial model or representation of what is out there, good in some respects, not so good in others, but not the whole thing. The are birds of prey whose visual acuity is far greater than ours. I have read that if we could see in the dark as well as owls, we could read a newspaper in pitch darkness by the light of a single candle set a mile away. Dogs and cats have a far better sense of smell than we do and they and other animals can hear sounds that are completely inaudible to us. Some creatures can "see" by infra-red radiation or by ultra-violet wavelengths that are beyond the range of our senses. My question to you is, if there is some other, more direct extra-sensory way of perceiving external reality, what is the point of this immensely complex sensory apparatus and the very expensive processing capacity that converts that data into what you and I are experiencing now? If you think we are able to do without it then there is a simple experiment we can perform where a volunteer is placed in a sensory-deprivation tank and challenged to provide information about objects brought into the same room. How do you think they would do? Coming back to the question of our conscious experience of self we can say that, if we are using the model of external reality to navigate around it, then it must also include a representation of ourselves and how we are orientated with respect to the external world. It is but a short step from there to see that information about our internal physical states could be used to create a representation or model of ourselves as a physical beings within the greater model. The hard problem is explaining how our undeniable sense of individual self emerges. Is our conscious model or representation of external reality and self an illusion? Only if there is no external reality to be modeled. Otherwise, it is a model or map and they are not illusions but abstractions of what is being modeled or mapped.
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!
If you really think that I am an illusion then you are under no obligation to take anything I say seriously. If you take the solipsistic position that you are the only conscious entity then why are you talking to yourself? If, on the other hand, you believe that there are others like you out there, how do you know that your understanding and explanations of external reality are better than theirs? Are you interested in testing one against the other or are you only interested in finding confirmation of your own presuppositions?Seversky_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Hmmm Bob (and weave) O'Hara, as was gone over with you in detail before,,, https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-mclatchie-vs-keith-fox-has-id-stood-the-test-of-time/#comment-652410 ,,,it is not I that think that you or Seversky are illusions, it is your own 'chosen' materialistic philosophy that insists that consciousness (i.e. personhood), free will, and morality, are illusions. That you yourself do not think you are an illusion is in itself a testament to the fact that atheistic materialism is false. In fact, the more you insist that your consciousness, free will, and morality are not illusions, and that you are indeed a real person with real meaning and purpose in your life, then the more you in fact testify to the fact that your own atheistic worldview is clearly false (and insane). I certainly don't think that you and Seversky are illusions. It is an insanity, out of many insanities, that arises strictly from your own atheistic materialism. But don't feel bad Bob that you have been so badly suckered by your own atheistic worldview. The false presupposition that material reality takes precedence over conscious reality is fairly common, even among Christians. The fact that it is a fairly common false presupposition on the part of many people in general is revealed by the 'shock' that people feel when they first learn that quantum mechanics reveals that external 'material' reality does not exist without conscious observation. In fact, the confusion between what is actually real (consciousness) and what is actually illusory (materialism) is so great that quantum mechanics falsified a materialistic model that is actually named 'realism'. Which is basically a materialistic model of the world in which it is held that material reality exist apart from consciousness in general, and conscious observation in particular. Thus, by naming the materialistic model 'realism' in the first place, the confusion between what is actually real (i.e. consciousness) and what is actually illusory (i.e. materialism) is shown to run fairly deep in the human psyche.
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html An experimental test of non-local realism – 2007 Simon Gröblacher, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Caslav Brukner, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer &; Anton Zeilinger Abstract: Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of ‘realism’—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell’s theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of ‘spooky’ actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-UO81HmO4
Though it may be shocking to first learn that 'reality' does not exist without conscious observation in particular (and consciousness in general),,, the fact of the matter is that plain old fashioned logic dictates that 'reality' must simply be this way or else all reason is lost,,
"In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931
Of supplemental note:
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 "I think the idea of (materialists) saying that consciousness is an illusion doesn’t really work because the very notion of an illusion presupposes consciousness. There are no illusions unless there is a conscious experience or (a conscious person) for whom there is an illusion." Evan Thompson, Philosopher - author of Waking, Dreaming, Being
bornagain77_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

ba77 - why do you think Seversky is an illusion?Bob O'H_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Seversky states:
The existence of a concept or the word for that concept does not necessarily mean that the thing referred to must exist as something other than a concept.
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!bornagain77_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

The existence of a concept or the word for that concept does not necessarily mean that the thing referred to must exist as something other than a concept. Middle Earth does not necessarily exist just because Tolkien named and described such a place. So what do we mean by "God" and "goodness" and what reason do we have for thinking that they exist as more than fictions?Seversky_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
07:48 AM
7
07
48
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.critical rationalist_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

That’s and interesting conjecture. How might we go about finding errors it might contain and discarding them?critical rationalist_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

God is pure goodness itself. Something exists that is not God. Therefore, some degree of evil has to exist.buffalo_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

That evil exists shows that there is a God. As per the atheists, the cruelty and hate defined by Judeo-Christian ethos would most certainly remain there just is nothing to authoritatively define them as, well, evil.tribune7_{March 4, 2018
March
03
Mar
4
04
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply