Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Mrjason on Yesterday at 04:31:03 PM »

The question is, how does naturalistic evolution provide a reliable proposition that naturalism is true. Naturalistic evolution does not select for truth value, it selects for survivability.

I agree. Evolution is purely objective. This being the case the objective value, survivability, is the subjective truth value.


It is oblivious to whether an adaptive behavior is true or not meaning that if the behavior was true,


Surely if it is oblivious it is neutral.

it was true only because of random chance and there is low probability that random chance selects behavior that is true. Therefore, naturalistic evolution could have selected for behaviors that are false even though they may enhance survivability.

Probability is a factor in deciding truth, but not the overriding one.

Probability is used to decide reasonableness; as in 'how reasonable is it to believe that fairies live in my garden' or 'how reasonable is it to believe that Peru is a country'

Evidence and probability and the probability that the evidence is correct is vital in making a reasonable assumption. 

The result is that we cannot ground rationality in naturalistic evolution and thus the belief that naturalism is true is defeated.  If all that exists is nature then our reasoning abilities came to be by evolutionary processes….and for a naturalist this process has no mechanism for producing mental behavior that can identify and select for  truth.

Why is it not possible that we evolved a mechanism for identifying truth? Surely truth is a subjective concept?
I will put it out here that there is no objective truth.
52
Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion / Re: does promiscuity cause suffering?
« Last post by Azdgari on Yesterday at 04:26:06 PM »
Marriage causes suffering.  Parenthood causes suffering.  Love causes suffering.  School causes suffering.

Or, we could look at the specific chain of cause-and-effect that leads to suffering in each of these cases and offer a little nuance.
53
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Azdgari on Yesterday at 03:58:49 PM »
The aim of Plantinga's argument is to demonstrate that if naturalism is evidenced by evolution then a belief in naturalism is irrational. He then goes on to use that as an argument for the existence of God based on the belief that the existence of true beliefs can be rationally grounded in God. You can remove the argument as evidence of God aspect and still be left having to deal with the conclusion that naturalism is irrational.

What does "rational" mean here?  Is rationality something that can be verified in the here-and-now?
54
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by 12 Monkeys on Yesterday at 03:55:59 PM »
Does God exist?  Please explain.

Nope.  Reality does not appear to include an entity with the characteristics generally attributed to the entity that carries the label of the arrangement of letters 'g-o-d'.

Counter-questions:
Before you were born, did you exist?  In the time period between your death and subsequent resurrection, do you exist?  In the time period between Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection, did Jesus exist?

I do not believe so.  That's for all three.
Do you think you could explain?

Well as far as personal experience, I don't recall existing before that.  There is no scientific evidence that's been discovered that supports the idea, although with science you never know what might be dicovered tomorrow.  Beyond that I have what the Bible teaches.  When a man dies, he returns to the ground.  His spirit (life force) returns to the true God.
so why is there eternal punishment? Serious question ....also why does Jesus need to return to earth in the case you describe
55
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by wheels5894 on Yesterday at 03:54:01 PM »
The scientific method works!  If it didn't we couldn't talk like this and we would all be dead of diseases against which science has immunised us!
56
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Yesterday at 03:45:35 PM »
Yet, Biblestudent, is that the whole argument that Plantiga sets up is based on his estimation that evolution could provide us with reliable cognition. He claims that evolution cannot do with well and thus claims that this low change means that naturalism is unreliable. Yet the problem is no so much that he just guesses this 'low' as much as it is impossible to tell this. See we have two possibilities, given that we have reliable cognition (I assume you agree BIblestudent.) The choices are -

1. The Nature and evolution has provided us with reliable cognition

2. A god has watched evolution  and added his magic to give us reliable cognition.

For the life of me I cannot see how we distinguish between the two without appealing to a holy book or our claim that gods don't exist. There appears to be no way to do this...unless....

Now I wonder... if 1, is right we ought to be able to see evidence for evolution and not evidence of a god. If 2. is right, we ought to be able to see evidence of a god and evidence of evolution is less important. Well, evidence of evolution is vast and growing. the scientific community has accepted evolution as a theory - an explanation for all the species on earth so that is properly shown.

So... god.... is there one? Well, we can;t claim the main part of the Plantiga argument without one, so surely this isn't hard, is it? Well, the Plantinga argument goes on from the idea that the chances of rational cognition being low if only evolution is the cause allows Plantinga to go on and show god must exist due to our rational congntion. So if god exists it's all sorted?

No way! If one has to run with an argument to the end to prove something required at the beginning that is what I call cheating[1]. The first hurdle for this argument is to show that evolution can't produce reliable cognition not to just claim that the chances are low. So we need some evidence of there being a god who can do anything before we can claim that god is needed and to date I have not seen anything.

Can anyone help out with some evidence for god?
 1. I bet here is some high-fallutin' name for it!

Think of it this way. If belief in naturalism is irrational then it may mean that the criteria for evidence of God changes.

Here is something else for you to consider. Yes, the scientific community may agree that the evidence for evolution is growing based on scientific evidence. Yet, how do you demonstrate the validity of the scientific method based on the scientific method? If all of the facts about reality comes from the application of the scientific method, how do you know that what you believe about the scientific method is true?

57
Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion / Re: does promiscuity cause suffering?
« Last post by Mrjason on Yesterday at 03:28:12 PM »
I think it does.  I have my own subjective experience but I know I need more than that.  I don't know how to prove my hypothesis.  All I can do is tell why I have this intuition.  I am open to suggestions to prove or disprove the hypothesis.  If I understand a hypothesis, there's a null hypothesis.  In this case that would be that promiscuity does not cause suffering. 

To prove a hypothesis you need a claim and empirical evidence to back your claim.

You claim:



I intend to prove my hypothesis by using the side effects of childhood sex abuse.  That covers a wide spectrum from a massage, inappropriate touch, to incest.

http://www.counseling.org/docs/disaster-and-trauma_sexual-abuse/long-term-effects-of-childhood-sexual-abuse.pdf?sfvrsn=2


Many survivors experience sexual difficulties. The long-term effects of the abuse that the survivor experiences, such as, depression and dissociative patterns, affect the survivors sexual functioning. Maltz (2001a, as cited in Maltz, 2002) gives a list of the top ten sexual symptoms that often result from experiences of sexual abuse: “avoiding, fearing, or lacking interest in sex; approaching sex as an obligation; experiencing negative feelings such as anger, disgust, or guilt with touch; having difficulty becoming aroused or feeling sensation; feeling emotionally distant or not present during sex; experiencing intrusive or disturbing sexual thoughts and images; engaging in compulsive or inappropriate sexual behaviors; experiencing difficulty establishing or maintaining an intimate relationship; experiencing vaginal pain or orgasmic difficulties (women); and experiencing erectile, ejaculatory, or orgasmic difficulties (men; p. 323). A study done on the prevalence and predictors of sexual dysfunction in the Untied States revealed that victims of sexual abuse experience sexual problems more than the general population. They found that male victims of childhood sexual abuse were more likely to experience erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and low sexual desire, and they found that women were more likely to have arousal disorders (Laumann, Piel, & Rosen, 1999).  It is important to point out that although research has shown there to be significant relationships between long-term effect variables and childhood sexual abuse, each victim’s responses and experiences will not be the same. Although it is often viewed as a traumatic experience, there is no single symptom among all survivors and it is important for clinicians to focus on the individual needs of the client.

The text in bold implies to me that promiscuity =compulsive behavior is a side effect of sexual abuse. (this definition is found in article 1) It includes difficulty maintaining an intimate relationship.

This does not support your claim. - correlation does not imply causation.

The latter part of that fact is my proof, I think :) , that promiscuity does cause suffering.  I will try to support that claim with this article about rejection and how it affects people with low self esteems, a side effect of early childhood neglect/abuse as listed by the previous article. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~agyurak/gyurak_ayduk_PS_2007.pdf  We see here rejection triggers the fight or flight response. 

From here we can paint this picture of a person with LSE participating in promiscuous behaviors.  That person not being able to maintain that relationship which triggers the reward/pleasure response from the brain.  The failure of the relation, rejection, triggers the fight or flight response which does cause suffering.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response

What you're doing here is applying research in a different subject area erroneously.

Does sexual abuse lead to promiscuity? Or does it lead to other things i.e. feelings of guilt, shame etc that may lead to other behaviors?


I'm running out of time for research today.  I will be looking for evidence for a correlation between the fight or flight response to murder, domestic violence and suicidal thoughts, that may or may not be acted upon but indeed are suffering to the person experiencing them.

One last thought:  Music and the arts to me are an expression of one the kinds of suffering, a broken heart, broken ego, I'm considering.  Another kind I will briefly expose is poverty.  I'm talking about Africa in particular but it can also apply to any area with poverty to different degrees.  Their children are born into suffering by means of hunger and thirst, the bear necessities of life.  They would not exist to suffer if not for sex.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Reproduction can and does exist independently of the arts, poverty, material needs etc.
Reproduction is an evolution thing. Its the best way for chemicals to do their chemical thing, and ultimately physics to do its physics thing.
58
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by velkyn on Yesterday at 03:10:43 PM »
You can give your basic understanding of the arguement.  As it stands, it seems you cannot since you have been given the opportunity.  If you have indeed explained what you meant by a adaptation being "true" or "false", you should have no problem in pointing me to the post you did this in.
I provided an illustration of how false adaptations can be formed. You omitted it from your response and offered no commentary as to why it did or did not represent an illustration of the argument. Prior to that, I offered this explanation:
Quote
The question is, how does naturalistic evolution provide a reliable proposition that naturalism is true. Naturalistic evolution does not select for truth value, it selects for survivability.  It is oblivious to whether an adaptive behavior is true or not meaning that if the behavior was true, it was true only because of random chance and there is low probability that random chance selects behavior that is true. Therefore, naturalistic evolution could have selected for behaviors that are false even though they may enhance survivability. The result is that we cannot ground rationality in naturalistic evolution and thus the belief that naturalism is true is defeated.  If all that exists is nature then our reasoning abilities came to be by evolutionary processes….and for a naturalist this process has no mechanism for producing mental behavior that can identify and select for  truth.

What have I omitted, BS?  Where is this illustration and why did you not include it here if I omitted it?  In this context, how are you defining "true" e.g. which of these definitions are you using: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true?  And how are you defining "false" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/false?  I think this will help me understand what you are trying to say when you claim behaviors and adaptations are false or true. 
Also, you have yet to answer this question "
BS, what evidence would you need to believe in any one of the other gods that humans claim is as real as yours?"
Quote
A more coherent and thorough representation of reality.

This is meaningless, since you have yet to show that your beliefs are coherent and are a thorough representations of reality.  You cannot even convince other Christians of this. To accept that you want "more", we need a baseline.  What would demonstrate a more coherent and thorough representation of reality?  Please also demonstrate how your beliefs are more coherent and thorough than the beliefs of another theist. 
59
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by wheels5894 on Yesterday at 03:00:52 PM »
Yet, Biblestudent, is that the whole argument that Plantiga sets up is based on his estimation that evolution could provide us with reliable cognition. He claims that evolution cannot do with well and thus claims that this low change means that naturalism is unreliable. Yet the problem is no so much that he just guesses this 'low' as much as it is impossible to tell this. See we have two possibilities, given that we have reliable cognition (I assume you agree BIblestudent.) The choices are -

1. The Nature and evolution has provided us with reliable cognition

2. A god has watched evolution  and added his magic to give us reliable cognition.

For the life of me I cannot see how we distinguish between the two without appealing to a holy book or our claim that gods don't exist. There appears to be no way to do this...unless....

Now I wonder... if 1, is right we ought to be able to see evidence for evolution and not evidence of a god. If 2. is right, we ought to be able to see evidence of a god and evidence of evolution is less important. Well, evidence of evolution is vast and growing. the scientific community has accepted evolution as a theory - an explanation for all the species on earth so that is properly shown.

So... god.... is there one? Well, we can;t claim the main part of the Plantiga argument without one, so surely this isn't hard, is it? Well, the Plantinga argument goes on from the idea that the chances of rational cognition being low if only evolution is the cause allows Plantinga to go on and show god must exist due to our rational congntion. So if god exists it's all sorted?

No way! If one has to run with an argument to the end to prove something required at the beginning that is what I call cheating[1]. The first hurdle for this argument is to show that evolution can't produce reliable cognition not to just claim that the chances are low. So we need some evidence of there being a god who can do anything before we can claim that god is needed and to date I have not seen anything.

Can anyone help out with some evidence for god?
 1. I bet here is some high-fallutin' name for it!
60
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Yesterday at 02:43:10 PM »
You can give your basic understanding of the arguement.  As it stands, it seems you cannot since you have been given the opportunity.  If you have indeed explained what you meant by a adaptation being "true" or "false", you should have no problem in pointing me to the post you did this in.

I provided an illustration of how false adaptations can be formed. You omitted it from your response and offered no commentary as to why it did or did not represent an illustration of the argument. Prior to that, I offered this explanation:
Quote
The question is, how does naturalistic evolution provide a reliable proposition that naturalism is true. Naturalistic evolution does not select for truth value, it selects for survivability.  It is oblivious to whether an adaptive behavior is true or not meaning that if the behavior was true, it was true only because of random chance and there is low probability that random chance selects behavior that is true. Therefore, naturalistic evolution could have selected for behaviors that are false even though they may enhance survivability. The result is that we cannot ground rationality in naturalistic evolution and thus the belief that naturalism is true is defeated.  If all that exists is nature then our reasoning abilities came to be by evolutionary processes….and for a naturalist this process has no mechanism for producing mental behavior that can identify and select for  truth.


Also, you have yet to answer this question "
BS, what evidence would you need to believe in any one of the other gods that humans claim is as real as yours?"

A more coherent and thorough representation of reality.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10