>to intelligent too be an athiest

File: toosmart1.jpg (429KB, 1589x646px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1589x646px

>>2447654
>too intelligent to bother

>uses the wrong forms of "too" and "to"
I'm thoroughly convinced that religious-fags are brain-dead morons

>>2447690
I'm thoroughly convinced you're a newfag

>>2447690
That's racits.

File: 1483772018521.png (337KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1144x888px

>>2447690
Heh nothin' personal, brainlet

>>2447654
atheism and any religion cannot be fully proven, why not actually be intelligent, be agnostic, and admit that we simply just cannot prove any belief currently

>>2447781
Why not be a rational human being when presented with two equally unlikely choices pick the one that provides a better outcome? If I offer you two boxes, one has nothing in it and another might have a million dollars but it might also have nothing, why not pick the box that might provide a benefit? That's just rational human behavior.

>>2447690
>tfw to new too get memes

>>2447797
it's not simply "two boxes", there are many, many religions to choose from and atheism seemingly has no end prize or goal other than living unlike religion

instead of trying to choose the best one out many, why not conduct general research which may prove or disprove a certain thing some beliefs agree on: such as gravitational waves are non-existent

>>2447797
>Pascal´s wager meme.

>>2447797
They are not "equally unlikely", belief in God is a byproduct of human imagination applied to a hypothetical and meaningless concept. It's 0% possible that the concept of God actually exist.

>>2448069
Then again we could say God has a 100% chance of existing

>>2448084
You can say anything.

>>2448089
True. Words don't change the fact that God exists.

>>2447654
&Humanities strikes again

>tfw two intelligent to belief in god but i wish god existed

>>2448107
Words are the only way we could communicate this existence to each other, unless one can be confident in some personal unspoken dialogue between oneself and whatever deity.

>>2448069
>It's 0% possible that the concept of God actually exist.
when will /sci/ fucks get out of here? If you reject everything that's not "muh reality" you end up saying that morality and the law doesn't exist

>>2448153
Language is a gift from God

>>2448392
Not him, but you are wrong. Morality and the law can be based on reality and simple cause and effect or to achieve a goal for society in reality. Morals and laws don't have to come from a divine or supernatural source.

>>2448403
Objective morals do. Otherwise your ethical framework has zero bearing on anyone else unless they agree to it, it's all subjective.

>>2448412
>Objective morals do
And if objective morality actually existed, the world would look very different. It is all subjective, it's just that some are more convincing than others (either through merit or through force.)

>>2448417
They do, you just face the consequences of flouting objective morality after you die.

>>2448412

There are no objective morals known to us. Even going by religion, other religions have other moral systems and your arguments to justify said morals are the same as theirs: my god said so. An unprovable claim and as subjective as the secular morals and laws you call "subjective" as if that changes anything.
Being subjective does not imply a free for all unless someone agrees. A person can disagree with drug laws, but he is still bound to it and if caught breaking said law gets a punishment.

Just because the law is not objective does not mean we cannot use our own reasoning to come up with pragmatic laws or morals.

>>2448423
>after you die.
No evidence for such a thing exists. You could just as easily say that people get to enjoy living immorally in this life as a result of the objective morality they practiced before they were born.

how do atheists explain the origin of life. do they think that single cell organisms just formed out of water or what

>>2448431
Do you need 'evidence'? As scientists love to say "The nice thing about facts is that they're true regardless if you believe them or not". We all get judged on our actions when we die, everyone knows it deep inside, some people just choose to ignore their intuition because they think scientific facts are more trustworthy than their own inner feelings, which is wrong.

>>2448440
Nobody knows how life originated. The difference is atheists don't pretend to know.

>>2448440
An obscene level of luck. Same reason they 'explain' why the universe is fine tuned to allow life "Hey it just worked out that way, ok maaaaan?"

They're not the brightest individuals

>>2448442
To expand on this, the best idea we have is that there were a lot of chemical shenanigans going on with earth as it cooled down after first forming, and hydrocarbons and proteins that exhibit life-like behavior just happened to form, proteins which due to their chemistry attracted atoms and molecules to themselves in a pattern which replicated their own pattern, and things just got out of hand from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

>>2448447

>strawmanning this hard

>a universe made up of 99.999...% vacuum on top of all the uninhabitable planets is finely tuned for life because one planet that we know of (Earth) has life

If the universe is finely tuned for life, let's shoot you into space, or send you to any of the other planets in this solar system and see you survive.

>>2448447
There could be an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to be in one of the ones that's just ordered enough to support life. After all, we wouldn't be in one of the ones that isn't.

>>2448440
Your cells are basically bags of water surrounded by something called phospholipids. Basically, they're a two sided molecule: one half is electrically attracted to water, the other is electrically repelled by it. If you dump these very simple molecules into water, they self-organize into spheres, because the attracted portions point out to water while the repelled portions point to each other instead to get away from it.

That's a simplified account, but it's that same basic idea repeated over and over. Large amounts of simple things all interacting at the same time produce much more complex behavior, and when these complex behaviors combine you get new building blocks for new interactions.

Of course, people like >>2448447
will try to say this is "luck." How fortunate it is that our cells just happen to be made out of phospholipids, which just happen to organize into packages in water? But this is looking at it backwards. The only reason we have cells in the first place is because phospholipids organize the way they do.

>>2448190
*reads this emanation*
*ascends to the one*

>>2448441
>Do you need 'evidence'?
Yes. If it's a fact, it can be investigated.

>>2448465
How fortunate it is that phospholipids have just the right properties for cells to be created, I wonder why that is, eh?

>>2448459
>Claims I'm strawmanning
>Uses a strawman himself
Nice one. God only created life on Earth, that's the reason the universe is finely tuned for life but only we're here. Argue with that and you'll need to answer the Fermi Paradox

science is discursive
it cant tell you anything about god

>>2448465
>>2448461
These combine to point out a fundamental flaw in the "it's so unlikely!" argument. If it didn't happen, we wouldn't exist to think about it. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't have happened. We're not observers who would exist anyway, and it isn't convenient that we get to be alive, we're the direct result of it happening. Lightning will strike the same place twice eventually given enough time, and it's a big fucking universe out there.

>>2448480
>Reductio ad absurdum 100 %

>>2448480
Again, you have it backwards. Phospholipids do not exist so cells can be created, cells can be created because there exists a molecule with particular properties. Were it not phospholipids, it would likely be another molecule with a hydrophillic and hydrophobic end, and if not then perhaps the "life" analogue in that reality would be more like viruses, with protein coats rather than cells.

>>2448480

But to say the universe is finely tuned for life is false. We happen to be in the temperate zone of one star. Life being on Earth says nothing about the universe. In fact, the universe seems inhospitable as fuck from what we have seen.

As for Fermi's paradox, I don't have to explain it. That would be like me asking you to answer Zeno's paradox. It is irrelevant because nobody knows yet. If we ever do.

>>2448494
>Again, you have it backwards
You do. Molecules only have certain properties because they were created that way by God for specific purposes.

>>2448480
>Argue with that and you'll need to answer the Fermi Paradox
Not all that complicated, really. The amount of time we would have been "visible" to alien civilizations based on the radiation we are admitting has been extremely short compared to the age of the universe, and our ability to detect the potential radiation of alien life has been around for even less time. Depending on how technology changes, we may become "invisible" again fairly soon. More recent than all of that is the ability to detect earthlike planets with liquid water. If alien life is out there, it could very easily be extremely difficult to find both in space and time.

>>2448489
If it didn't happen, we wouldn't exist to think about Roundabout argument. The fact it happened doesn't detract from wondering about how likely it was in the first place. If I win the lottery 3 times in a row it would be retarded to dismiss it by saying "In any universe where I have more than 150 million dollars I must have won the lottery 3 times, therefore the fact I won it three times isn't that amazing because I own 150 million dollars"

All the anthropic principle says is that it's not surprising to see values that support life since we're here, if they weren't that way we shouldn't be. It doesn't say anything about the absolute staggering improbability of it being that way when there seems to be no logical reason the universe should balance on a razors edge to be able to create us, like we know it does now.

File: 1443728901732.png (20KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x500px

>>2447654
>(You)

>>2448455
>>2448465
that doesn't infer life. amino acids or molecules binding together doesn't just animate their aggregate

>>2448403
>Morality and the law can be based on reality
mmmm nope. According to people like you, nothing that can't be touched or perceived is not real. Therefore, morality and the law can't be based on reality because they're not real. It's all subjective and it's so lovely to watch you naturalistic fucks trying to argue otherwise.

There's an objective set of moral rules. You can either accept that or not.

>>2448502
You're just looking at the tip of the iceberg if all your mind jumps to is the orbit of Earth around the Sun. Yes, it is very good that the Earth lies in an orbit that allows water to exist in a liquid state, but billions of planets have an orbit like that, that isn't actually all that improbable. You haven't even scratched the surface of the ridiculous, ludicrous improbable ways our universe has conspired to have JUST the right properties that it allows stars, galaxies, worlds and atoms to form, to within a tolerance of 1%

The cosmological constant is a good one. A number tuned to 120 decimal places and if it was even slightly different there would be no life. 10^82 is the number of atoms in the universe. This number is tuned to 10^-120

Compared to that the idea that the Earths orbit is 'improbable' is very quaint

>>2448426
>There are no objective morals known to us
killing a fellow human being and stealing are seen as wrong by everyone. There can be attenuating circumstances but they're seen as wrong.

They come from an objective set of morals.

>>2448520
this is only convenient if you assume there is only one universe

>>2448442
>the difference is that atheists don't pretend to know
They do, though.

>>2448518
I'm aware. Phospholipids organizing into a single layer isn't a true cell membrane. But it's a building block, which allows for more complex behavior. For example, RNA self-catalyzes its own replication in a way DNA doesn't, for example. What happens when phospholipids organize around self-replicating RNA, which was itself initially formed in the reducing environment of the early earth, etc.?

You may have heard of the man who dug his way through a mountain over decades and decades of work. No individual day brought the mountain down, but small, consistent steps allowed the task to be achieved. Consider each of the things I am talking about as small, simple steps, and know that they built on each other over the course of millions and millions of years. And it was these small, seemingly simple steps that were actually the most important to live emerging, and actually much more significant and time consuming than for example the difference between all animals and all plants.

>>2448522
That is true. Which is why multiverse theory is becoming more and more popular. The idea that this universe just naturally formed in this specific way is long gone. The only way to reconcile it is to assume that we live in an infinite multiverse, at which point probability is a non-issue, it becomes certainty.

But if are are the only universe, there is only a single conclusion that can be drawn. This universe was created.

>>2448461
>there could be an infinite number of universes
something that can't be inductively or deductively reasoned. At least God can be inductively reasoned.

The only reason the "infinite multiverse" meme gained popularity was because the other possibility was outright admitting the existence of God. Can't have God as a rational explanation when naturalism and scientism is in vogue.

File: 1487318921709.gif (981KB, 245x155px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 245x155px

>>2448519

>it's another religious person that does not understand science episode

>>2448470
>yes, if it's a fact it can be investigated
How do 1 + 1 equal 2? And don't try to argue it from an argument from linguistics.

>>2448521
But the definition of human being and stealing was incredibly flexible. We interpret them as a set of objective morals, but when you actually look at people's actions they were less extenuating circumstances and more just accepted facts of life. Additionally, murder and theft are generally mal-adaptive from a societal perspective, (which is why war and looting took so long to be recognized as wrong, because it's only bad when you do it to the in-group) and stem from pragmatic human survival in groups rather than some eternal objective morality.

>>2448533
I understand science. I'm studying biology. Morality and rationality can't be looked at from a naturalistic worldview. Same with the question of God.

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Francis Bacon

>>2448531
>something that can't be inductively or deductively reasoned.
There is evidence of the influence of other universes due to the unevenness of our universe's expansion, as recorded in the cosmic background radiation. Additionally, it isn't that far fetched considering how the scope of the "known world" has ballooned. Turns out our civilization wasn't unique, then our planet wasn't unique, then our sun/solar system wasn't unique, then our galaxy wasn't unique. Why should our universe be unique, especially now that we have reason to believe otherwise?

>>2448534
Someone already did it for me, looks like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

File: 1487663178316.png (29KB, 523x515px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 523x515px

>>2447654

>God made us intelligent enough to know there's a meaning to life, but not intelligent enough to know what it is.

>>2448540

But you can understand them from a naturalistic perspective. We know our brains have consciousness so we can reason. Let's take murder. I don't have to have a decree from a supernatural realm to see it as bad (or good). I can say "hey, when we let people murder with impunity, my life and the life of others around me sucks ass. Maybe we can lock them away somewhere to solve this issue".

That did not require a god or any other supernatural force. And empathy is explained by neuroscience and how our brains evolved and function. You can easily discern morals and create laws by normal means. Are they objective? No, but I answered that criticism earlier in the thread.

>>2448536
you're only explaining the atenuating circumstances that I already talked about. In any healthy society/civilization, anyone that took another's man life was punished. And this comes from fucking Babilonia. Cultures as distant as aztecs and egyptians had a moral code that difered in multiple rules but it had the same esential fundamentals.

Respect your elders is also one of those.

>>2448545
>Additionally, it isn't that far fetched considering how the scope of the "known world" has ballooned.

That isn't relevant to the question of life and how finely atuned our universe is to the formation of life in our Earth. The multiverse theory is only popular as pop-sci. Stephen Hawking admitted that God's existence is consistent with our discoveries in physics.

>>2448549
so you couldn't formulate an argument by yourself as to why 1 + 1 = 2 and just accept it because you believe in it. Congratulations: you have faith in Math.

>>2448557
you're looking at the issue from a extremely simplistic worldview or either don't get it.

> I don't have to have a decree from a supernatural realm to see it as bad (or good). I can say "hey, when we let people murder with impunity, my life and the life of others around me sucks ass. Maybe we can lock them away somewhere to solve this issue".

Why don't others murder with impunity? Why do others get to the same thought process? Why do others understand that their life sucks ass because of someone murdering each other with impunity?

If according to you, everything there's to it is "nature", then why aren't we atuned to murder and theft the same way multiple species do (might makes right)?

>>2448552
Your meaning in life is to pick something and hold onto it so that your life doesn't feel like a waste, whether it be a nation, belief or end goal.

>>2448558

Not him, but at least having faith in math can be tested. He can test his faith and see the proof. He can rely on math to work and function and create and sustain technology, let him make accurate predictions, allow him to count money, etc. Math has actual utility that can be tested repeatedly. Care to give me a test to show god's utility?

>>2448567
>He can test his faith and see the proof
That mathematics are useful to science doesn't exclude that you're making a leap of faith to accept axioms.

>Care to give me a test to show God's utility?
5 fucking thousand years of civilization based around God or some kind of belief. The most popular one at the moment is science.

Why? You already explained it. People can see the results, they say "Hey, this is nice. I don't understand it at fucking all, but is nice".

>>2448562

We were attuned to it. In some places of the world it is still lawless, or people dwell in slums and live their lives, etc. We are humans so in general we all share the trait to want to survive, personally and as a species. Hence why we are social animals and developed traits useful to said socialization. Whether that is empathy, caring for kids, whatever. These are not divine things, they are the result of our minds. You can even see other social species like dogs, other primates, etc., having very basic moral systems. It is a natural thing. And like any other natural thing, there will be variation to some degree which is why human morality varies, on top of our much more complex minds capable of thinking outside of pure instinct. If you were a biologist you would know this. So, either you're a terrible biologist or full of shit.

>>2448558
>you're only explaining the atenuating circumstances that I already talked about.
Here's the problem. If the rule itself was objective and unchanging, why do the extenuating circumstances change so drastically over the civilizations? What was the punishment for returning home victorious from a war?Cultures as distant as aztecs and egyptians had a moral code that difered in multiple rules but it had the same esential fundamentals.
So, in other words, every one of them were one particular species of human? And it's supposed to be surprising that there are similarities to the moral codes of humans that evolved specifically to live in social structures?

>The multiverse theory is only popular as pop-sci.
Again, the cosmic microwave background radiation records light from relatively near the Big Bang. One thing studying it shows that the initial expansion of the universe was uneven, which requires explanation. One such explanation, completely separate from the fine-tuning argument, is that the inflation of our universe was affected by the inflation of others. It's just that the plausibility of multiple universes also deals nicely with the fine tuning argument, in addition to its main function.
>God's existence is consistent with our discoveries in physics.
Yes, because an omnipotent God could very easily construct a Last Thursday universe and there would be no physics-based way to know one way or the other.

>Congratulations: you have faith in Math.
I do operations with math on a daily basis. So do you. If 1+1 did not equal 2, then, for example, what would we make of the differences between unicycles and bicycles? We can observe that they act differently. What should we do with those observations?

>>2448578

It isn't a leap of faith to accept axioms in math when they actually work. It's like saying I take it on faith that gravity works. When I can see it working, it really isn't a leap of faith.

But thanks for admitting that religion is all about what feels good and not reality.

>>2448447
better than religious cucks "god just work that way man"

>>2448583
1. Lawless doesn't mean moral-less. You can hear it from any conversation.
"How would you like if anyone did the same to you"
2. You're only looking at it from the "killing" angle. Empathy, protecting the weak, reciprocating good actions are seen as the right thing by everyone.

>Dogs and primates have very basic moral systems
Instinctual behavior doesn't equal morals. You're full of shit.

>>2448593
so your explanation is "lol, evolution". Ok.

>>2448595
>but thanks for admitting religion is all about what feels good and not reality
Your definition of reality is so fucking naturalistic it hurts.

Reality is encompased by everything that we can feel (even if we cannot see it). You can use the numbers although they're not real. There's no real numbers running around having kids and eating each other.

god is just a concept of how ancient people perceived the world and tried to answer some big question with the limited knowledge they owned
prove me wrong, you can't

>>2448604

>numbers aren't real
>animals having morals is instinct but not people
>reality is what we feel

Okay, so a troll and not a biologist then. Had me going for awhile.

>>2448604
>so your explanation is "lol, evolution".
Yes, actually.

>>2448392
Is it possible to create things by imagining them?

>>2448392
it couldn't be more simply
>the reality/universe must be created somehow
>it must be god then
it's all what you cling on to
also seem like you religious cuck can't even think for yourself and need a big bad to tell you what to do, like a fucking manchild

File: clip+(2017-02-21+at+03.59.55).jpg (289KB, 1024x1008px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1024x1008px

>>2448392
they don't though

>>2448392
>If you reject everything that's not "muh reality" you end up saying that morality and the law doesn't exist
But those are human constructs while god is actually claimed to exist as something beyond humanity.

I'm conflicted about this issue because I think that people will believe something based on several factors:
how intelligent they are (able to comprehend complex or interconnected topics)
how convincing the belief is (does it make sense)
social consequences (good or bad side effects of behaviors of people)

So ultimately what you will believe is a function of your biology, your credibility, the ideas in your society, and your situation among others.

File: 1486915716069.png (285KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1000x800px

>>2447690
>>2447690
>>2447690

>>2448658
The conflict is that people expect random strangers to be convinced of the same things that they themselves find convincing, without any regard to why they themselves were convinced of the belief.
That's where the conflict comes from, what may seem obviously true to one person will not seem true to someone else, in fact the circumstances may very well make them convinced of an opposite belief.
But it's the incredulity that is dangerous, when instead of realizing that your belief is not convincing to this person, you instead call that other person stupid or evil for not believing in your belief.
Because like it or not it's still considered impolite in our society to question people's deeply held beliefs.

When will you atheist admit that you lack fundamental ideas of the good?

>>2448685
I'll bite, explain it >too me.

>>2448713
Means bro, means

>>2448685
>the good

Oh man, are you practicing your ghost stories for Halloween already?

>>2448440
Define life.

>>2448674
I like this post. Now the issue is SHOULD people question others deeply held beliefs? I'd say no because who gives a shit if anyone believes in religion, it makes them happy.

>that thread that made you realize christcucks are the real fedoras

>>2448630
I've been in your position. It's lovely how your entire ideology originates from arrogance. You people are so furious that there could be something bigger and infinitely more powerful than you out there.

>>2448613
>le humans are animals so we're not special XDDDD meme
Yeah, duuude. Every other animal has consciousness and self-awareness. Fuck off, atheist idiot.

>>2448945
>That thread where you realize 99.99% of atheists are scientific pseuds and Christians can logically outwit them any day of the week

>>2447654
>>2447674
>>2447773
This meme is getting more and more ridiculous, but it still cracks me up everytime.

One of the plights of our time is the fedora that ignores all scientific literature arguing in favor of the existence of god, such a person will deliberately ignore both old and new publications and will argue in front of laypeople how they should do science while he protects himself from having to perform any science purely on special pleading.

File: 1485409232914.png (87KB, 1160x759px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1160x759px

>>2448999
>to intelligent to meme

>>2447654
Why not just put God in the graveyard with all ththe other deities already, damn.

>>2448990
Just because the people that hold position A aren't able to argue their position convincingly doesn't mean that position A is wrong, and vise versa.

>>2448990
>when the biais hits too hard

File: 1+1=2 proof.png (43KB, 800x333px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 800x333px

Good, time worthy thread here lads.

File: 1466103315441.png (191KB, 270x268px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 270x268px

>>2448392
>If you reject everything that's not "muh reality" you end up saying that morality and the law doesn't exist
>this is the state of /his/
&humanities should be purged from this board

>>2447781
>atheism can't be proven

This shit needs to stop. There is nothing to prove within atheism. It isn't a belief, it is a lack of one. You're implying that being a pure agnostic means that you're exactly 50% sure a deity exists and 50% sure that one doesn't exist. Most agnostics are also atheists, they just don't like the word. All it means is that you're not convinced that a deity exists. It doesn't have to 100% conviction.

>>2448105
Tool is the only thing that can still make me feel.

I don't understand why atheists just don't instantly go around raping children and killing people, since they are without morals and must be evil then.

>>2450670
Because they're pussies that only got away from religion to be free to do shit that was considered evil. If rape was decriminalized, atheists would be the first ones to start raping people.

File: holy toad.png (9KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 420x420px

>>2448190
>Bogtrix
Oh haha shit, you got me

>>2447654
just be an nihilist

>>2447690
i remember my first time on the internet

>>2448412
Objective morals do not and cannot exist. For something to be objective it must be true regardless of the opinion or intent of those subject to it. If you were to remove subjectivity from the equation, then you can only be left with what is objective.

Laws and morals only exist because we human beings have subjective experience and we have subjective desires and ideals for how we want that experience to be. Without subjectivity, there are no laws or morals. Therefore, laws and morals must be subjective and cannot be objective.

>>2447654

Good. So you believe in the Basilisk.

File: eyygurl.jpg (87KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 960x720px

>>2448412
Here's a quick rundown.
1.When setting up morality, you first needs to subjectively choose a context by which action can be judged by.

2. Once you have chosen the context, like "God's word", then whatever God chooses to label as good will be objectively good.

3. If you disagree with that context and favor something like "An individual's actions and how they affect another being's well-being, harm being bad and help being good", then hurting someone is objectively bad and helping them is good forever on.

File: wojak_intelligent_brainjar.jpg (174KB, 1000x929px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1000x929px

>>2448999
>2 intelligent 2 nene

File: 1441377158874.jpg (10KB, 216x255px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 216x255px

tfw set theory reveals to you the impossibility of a perfect being since there's no upper limit to rigorously defined magnitudes

>>2452743
That seems to ignore classical Natural Law, which forms it's understanding purely from examination of natural goals. Final causality is a difficult thing to support explicitly in the current west but the sheer existence of this framework dismisses your idea, no?

>>2452853
This is just a roundabout way of trying to reject objectivity in morality.

>>2452870
How could that criticize a classical theist understanding of God? That only seems relatable to Personalism to me.

>>2453267
>examination of natural goals
"Goals" do not naturally exist. A speck of dust floating through the primordial solar system does not have the "goal" of attracting another speck of dust to eventually form planets, they do so because gravity exists. "Goal" is a concept useful within human understanding to categorize specific types of behavior, but it is just that, ultimately a subjective human concept superimposed onto the natural world.

Now, someone is going to quote a specific part of this post out of context and say "oh, so a bear doesn't have the goal of gathering enough food to hibernate through winter then, so I guess they just starve" or something to that effect. This misses the fundamental argument I am actually making here. From a human perespective, it is useful to categorize the specific behaviour of the bear as motivated to collect food, based on our understanding of how and why life works the way it does, and we can compare this goal of gathering food to the salmon's goal of returning to its spawning waters. But externally, the self-peretuating set of molecules that constitutes what humans call "bears" simply self-perpetuate in the manner they have historically. The "goal" of life is not to self-perpetuate, it simply acts according to the same principles that caused the dust particles to accrete into planets.

>>2452743
>For something to be objective it must be true regardless of the opinion or intent of those subject to it
Which is true because morality is from God. It is true regardless of your opinion regarding God, His existence or anything else.

>>2453297
>"Goals" do not naturally exist. A speck of dust floating through the primordial solar system does not have the "goal" of attracting another speck of dust to eventually form planets, they do so because gravity exists. "Goal" is a concept useful within human understanding to categorize specific types of behavior, but it is just that, ultimately a subjective human concept superimposed onto the natural world.

All you have done is tried to redirect where goal-directness is. You've dismissed it everywhere in the universe but with the human mind without giving explanation to why that one part of the universe has goal-directedness and nothing else does.
Various forms of matter do, in fact, have things they can do, hence why things don't react the same to forces. If we are to even understand gravity as a force.

>>2453315
Depends how God and His will are understood, honestly.

>>2453326
>You've dismissed it everywhere in the universe but with the human mind without giving explanation to why that one part of the universe has goal-directedness and nothing else does.
The human mind is currently the only known substrate that is currently known to process advanced concepts like goals, though compelling arguments can be made for certain other mammals, specific varieties of birds an octopi. If they can or cannot is not known, but the reason humans can is because of the development of the neocortex.

>Various forms of matter do, in fact, have things they can do,
Yes, but this in no way implies they have a goal to act this way. For example, we consistently use the expression that particles "try" to lower their energy level, because goals and motivation are intuitively understood by humans. But this is of course not accurate. It isn't that particles "try" to reduce their levels of energy, it is that states of high energy are unstable, and tend to transition into then remain in lower energy states because of said instability.

>>2453346
you're trying to use science into a purely philosophical debate. Think for a second what you're doing.

Not to mention that the unnecessary trivia lesson doesn't matter for the rest of your post or for any of the discussion. You just had the need to add naturalism to your post because it made you feel better.

>>2453354
What a shitty objection to be honest man

>>2453362
I'm not him, I'm not going to engage your argument because I'm not following it. Just pointing out that adding your purely naturalistic intepretation of the origin of the human mind doesn't matter for this debate and there was absolutely no reason to add it.

>>2453364
Are you triggered by "naturalism"?
He's addressing and defining the term "goal" which is directly relevant.

>>2453354
>you're trying to use science into a purely philosophical debate
Philosophers frequently point out that science is merely an extension of philosophy when refuting scientism. But if this is true, then it isn't at all odd to "inject" science into a philosophical debate, or at least any more odd than injecting Thomism.

It also isn't a trivia lesson. It is a specific response to the question of why the concept of goal has emerged in human minds and not elsewhere, especially given the fact that human minds are made of the same fundamental components as the dust particles that produced planets that did not have the concept of goals.

File: 1487280030584.jpg (19KB, 540x489px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 540x489px

>>2453346
>The human mind is currently the only known substrate that is currently known to process advanced concepts like goals, though compelling arguments can be made for certain other mammals, specific varieties of birds an octopi. If they can or cannot is not known, but the reason humans can is because of the development of the neocortex.

I'm not sure why you think consciousness need be linked so strongly to purpose and goals. It doesn't at all and most elements that need be intentional of the brain are not conscious at all, such as the processing of information.

>Yes, but this in no way implies they have a goal to act this way.

u wot
For A to be an efficient cause of B would mean by its definition that causing B is the final cause of A rather than causing C or D. And of course this is speaking of A's generally and not a specific example of A.

>>2453395
>I'm not sure why you think consciousness need be linked so strongly to purpose and goals.
It doesn't. "Purpose" and "goals" are two examples of complex concepts that currently we can only confirm exist in the context of human brains (though arguments can be made for the already-mentioned other candidates.) Those are by no means the only concepts relevant to the human mind. But it would also be a mistake to confuse intuitive human understanding with actual physical mechanisms.

>by its definition
Yes, by definition. Definitions and concepts that (likely) exist exclusively within a human semantic framework. Again, the particle does not have the goal or intent of returning to a lower state of energy, but particles do return to said lower energy state because the higher srates are unstable and disrupt themselves one way or another.

>>2453410
>"Purpose" and "goals" are two examples of complex concepts that currently we can only confirm exist in the context of human brains (though arguments can be made for the already-mentioned other candidates.)

I'm not sure how anything I said >>2453395 is wrong or impossible to grasp elsewhere. Particularly my A to B example. That seems plenty simple and accurate. And apparently final causality in the mind is not at all "confirmed" given the state of the consciousness debate.

Now I'm curious though: conceptually how would you grasp goal-directedness without consciousness and not lean on precisely the understanding I give? How I'm expressing the term is exactly what it has meant since early academia.

Granted the sciences can help us understand what the efficient causes of things are, you're not at all refuting final causality by selectively be skeptical of any claim of finality but the mind.

>>2453444
>wrong or impossible to grasp elsewhere.
Very simply, because we lack the evidence of them being grasped elsewhere. We can make comparisons towards the behaviour of other agents that seem analogous to the grasping of "goals" as a concept, but currently to make any further conclusion is to engage in personification without evidence.

>That seems plenty simple and accurate.
Extremely so, but within the specific framework of two humans with a roughly comparable semantic framework communicating through language, not in terms of a low-level objective external reality. Again, the concepts human minds use are extremely useful, especially in communication, but they must not be confused with reality itself. It would be like assuming circles are not possible because pi cannot be fully calculated as it is irrational.
>conceptually how would you grasp goal-directedness without consciousness and not lean on precisely the understanding I give?
Goal directedness only exists in human minds because only humans have the brain structure necessary to entertain the concept of a goal. I may have confused what you meant by "linked" in >>2453395 though. Goals are linked to human conciousness, not the other way around.

>It doesn't at all and most elements that need be intentional of the brain are not conscious at all, such as the processing of information.
No individual element is concious, because conciousness is a property of the ssystem. A wheel is not a car, an engine is not a car, etc., it is only when all the elements are combined in a specific way that the behaviour /property emerges.

>you're not at all refuting final causality by selectively be skeptical of any claim of finality but the mind.
The mind isn't final. It is the opposite of final, trying to impose structures and concepts specific to itself onto reality with varying degrees of success.

File: images(2).jpg (46KB, 694x442px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 694x442px

>>2448604
>There's no real numbers

Wildberger pls go back to >>>/sci/

File: Eruption Up North.jpg (133KB, 964x709px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 964x709px

>>2453475
>Very simply, because we lack the evidence of them being grasped elsewhere. We can make comparisons towards the behaviour of other agents that seem analogous to the grasping of "goals" as a concept, but currently to make any further conclusion is to engage in personification without evidence.


But there is no anthropomorphism unless you misunderstand the terms as applied to consciousness. Goal-directedness is literally the working of one thing towards something beyond itself. A children's example of this is the heart to pump blood. Nothing of this assumes the heart is something with agency but rather that the heart (A) inherently brings about specific results (causes B) rather than some random bullshit (rather than C and D). Efficiency is found all throughout nature and no one in academia new and old deny it. The failure is in denying finality, as efficient causation presupposes final causation. This is not a problem of a lack of evidence whatsoever.


>Again, the concepts human minds use are extremely useful, especially in communication, but...

Obviously so but the point of contention is whether it is reality, obviously. These kinds of comments of yours just beg the question.

>Goals are linked to...

Which doesn't hold to how goals have been understood in academia ever. This is much like saying to a physicist, "gravity is a logical construct formed needlessly" to which the scientist can only loop you back to academia and say "no it isn't at all".

>No individual element is concious...

Well I'm not about to try to assume the consciousness debate is settled with you but I will say that this doesn't really refute anything I said at all and, in fact, works against your claim. You say goals are linked to consciousness but then outright ignore how I'm speaking of non-conscious elements of the mind have intentionality.


>The mind isn't final.

I was shorthanding how you understand mental intent to exist. Sorry to confuse.

>>2453516
"Goal" absolutely implies intent. The way you describe the heart, it would much more accurately be described as pumping blood is its "purpose," and a less-loaded description would describe pumping blood as its "function" within the specific context of a body.

>but the point of contention is whether it is reality, obviously.
Yes, and my argument is that it isn't reality, it is a specific interpretation of reality with strengths and weaknesses. If you would prefer more traditionally philosophical terms, the universe exists as noumena, and phenomena within human understanding are superimposed over noumena, but they should not be confused.

>"gravity is a logical construct formed needlessly"
They could quite easily say this in the context of the search for the Grand Unified Theory, actually, same as the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force were combined into the more fundamental electroweak force upon further inspection, despite historical separation. But this is off-topic.

>ignore how I'm speaking of non-conscious elements of the mind have intentionality.
The problem is that I do not see any evidence of intentionality in the examples you describe. They have behaviour, but if we describe behaviour as intentionality inherently then we conclude that a rock intends to fall down a steep hill, rather than the stee hill providing a context within which the rock may lower its energy level, as a rock a high elevation is more unstable than one at low elevation due to gravity.

>>2453542
I'm very sorry, man, I need to head to work. I will get back to you though.

>>2453622
Of course. Don't apologize, real world concerns are clearly more important than internet arguments. I look forward to reading your thoughts when you have the time to compose them.

>>2448393
that he gave parrots too

>>2448607
We still have limited knowledge. Just because we can view the universe and kinda figure out how the physics work doesn't mean we're even close to figuring out 0.1% of the final truth of the universe. You people are stupid. I'm not even religious but even Stephen Hawking claimed modern scientific understanding doesn't disprove a belief in God.

>>2454536
oh please you're just using the same old argument "if it's not proven to be 100% wrong it may still be right"
if we only know like 0.1% of the final truth for now then the chance for the concept of god to be right must be almost zero. Because the old men who came up with it had like fuck all evidences and knowledge.

Try Daoism

>>2447690
BEING THIS NEW

>>2454663
They saw Jesus Christ risen from the dead with their own eyes. That is pretty good evidence.

>>2456005
No, I was there, they made it up

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYhtW-K90zY

File: 1486296734104.png (150KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 500x500px

>>2456865
>Sam Harris and Dick Dorkins

>>2450639
> All it means is that you're not convinced that a deity exists. It doesn't have to 100% conviction.
You have faith in the naturalistic universe of David Hume. By definition, atheism is a belief about the metaphysical nature of our universe

>>2456865
Watch Dawkins debate with John Lennox or Rowan Williams if you want something that isn't a circlejerk

File: 1464564055103.gif (494KB, 387x305px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 387x305px

>>2452870
I'll prove that God exists with set theory.

Let G be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If G is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. This contradiction irrefutably proves God's existence.