"Too profound"

Originally posted by chaney3
The brain was created by intelligent design. The fact that most call this 'intelligence' God causes much conflict.

Not true at all. There is almost no conflict over what to call such an intelligence.

Putting religion aside, it would be nice if atheists at least agreed with a 'creator', even if this creator is too profound to understand.
Except the belief that the brain was created by intelligent design is religion - so you haven't put it aside. You have asserted a religious belief then want other people who lack that belief to agree with you - but you are not willing to make any form of argument to back up your belief. Yes, it would be nice if everyone else agreed with us, but that doesn't happen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is a terrible argument. There is a difference between 'tangible' and 'material'.
Science measures things that are observable. Observable means information comes from it to us. If God is unobservable, then we can know nothing about him, whether by science or otherwise. If he is observable then he can be studied by science.
Science is not so much in t ...[text shortened]... ing / disproving business, and more in the 'what can we find out, and how sure are we' business.

observable is measurable is tangible is separate and hence cannot be the whole (god)
Not such a terrible argument, just not fleshed out enough.
If things cannot be seen it is hard to do repeatable experiments hence it is not science.
It's like the material is the tip (in a way) of the 'whole', which , as can be observed out there or in here, is mostly empty

Originally posted by twhitehead
The very fact that you and I come up with different results on logical questions proves beyond any doubt that human brains in general are not always logically correct. You cannot deny this (rationally).
Therefore, your claim that you trust your brain because you believe it was designed to be logically correct is nonsensical because we have solid proof th ...[text shortened]... ent, or it has been kept secret. The chances that you know about it but they don't is minuscule.

Just an observation here, but to say he 'loses' is hardly in a spiritual vein.
I know the Christians practice the same sort of oneupmanship, but that just shows the same sort of ignorance.
It's not a race or a game. Spirituality is life long development of ones finer faculties, which become like muscle memory (like any other type of practice).

I'm trying to get at something here and using your post to demonstrate it. I hope you don't mind.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The fact that we can come up with different results may be attributed to our free will. In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothing more than the summation of chemicals and brain wiring, how do you justify having both free will and rationality? How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of n ...[text shortened]... which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

The universe is paradoxical (at least)..?

Originally posted by chaney3
The brain was created by intelligent design. The fact that most call this 'intelligence' God causes much conflict.

Putting religion aside, it would be nice if atheists at least agreed with a 'creator', even if this creator is too profound to understand.

But then they wouldn't be atheists

Originally posted by chaney3
What is your point?

My point is that "too deep to understand" may stop inquiry into the workings of the putative wonders of God's creation as much as it stops the inquiries of the nonbeliever, prematurely to where it might otherwise reach. Rather than positing an inscrutable God of the gaps, the nontheistic scientist can reasonably be asked to keep disputes over creation out of the laboratory and science curriculum.

Edit: with the same commitment from the believer.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
observable is measurable is tangible is separate and hence cannot be the whole (god)

I am not certain what you are saying here. But in general, I would agree we cannot know everything, because not everything is observable. But it must be clear that this applies to all knowledge scientific or otherwise. We cannot know anything for which no information is available. That is a fact.

If things cannot be seen it is hard to do repeatable experiments hence it is not science.
It is not anything but religious mumbo jumbo nonsense if you are making claims about things for which no information is available (cannot be seen).

It's like the material is the tip (in a way) of the 'whole', which , as can be observed out there or in here, is mostly empty
But we can know nothing of anything but the tip. We can only know about that for which we have information. If there is more to it, we will never know. Its as good as non-existent.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Just an observation here, but to say he 'loses' is hardly in a spiritual vein.

I am not the 'spiritual vein' kind of guy, (nor, incidentally is he).

I'm trying to get at something here and using your post to demonstrate it. I hope you don't mind.
Well it was poorly thought out given that the post in question wasn't about spirituality. The post was about the ridiculously poor argument being made by a poster whose chosen nickname is 'Fetchmyjunk'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whatever you attribute it to, it proves beyond a doubt that the human brain does not reliably reach the correct logical conclusion every time. Therefore your claim that you trust your brain because you believe it was designed to reach logical conclusions is nonsense and you know it.

[b]In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothi ...[text shortened]... free thought and logical inference?
The same way a computer does. Its really not that hard.[/b]

There are two options:

1. The brain was designed to think logical thoughts.
2. The brain was not designed to think logical thoughts.

If you believe option 1 is true, it follows logically that you should be able to trust your thoughts to some degree or at least during the times when the brain is used for the purpose for which it was designed.

If you believe option 2 to be true, you can never trust your thoughts.

By the way, a computer can only do what it is programmed to do, by an intelligent programmer. 😛

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not certain what you are saying here. But in general, I would agree we cannot know everything, because not everything is observable. But it must be clear that this applies to all knowledge scientific or otherwise. We cannot know anything for which no information is available. That is a fact.

[b]If things cannot be seen it is hard to do repeatable ...[text shortened]... ch we have information. If there is more to it, we will never know. Its as good as non-existent.

In general I am not disputing the scientific process.

But seeing (with eyes) is almost like being blind.
I feel so much emotion, I can feel my brain tying to rationalize it in terms of what I understand (seeing is believing) and I find so many invisible, yet such important "things". Logic. Thought. Contemplation. Meditation. etc.

We cannot know things which are unobservable? Is that what you are saying?
Cause, without trying to be a smarty,I would say that which is seen is often not understood . not at all.

Medicine is finally catching up to addressing psychological problems having dealt with physical ones for centuries.
Buddhism and such ideas say that the underlying problem of "suchness" does not stem from the physical but rather the other way around.
The physical stems from the Immaterial.
Now for me this has yet to pass beyond a good idea, I will admit. But it is an idea that simply will not go away (for me anyway)

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not the 'spiritual vein' kind of guy, (nor, incidentally is he).

[b]I'm trying to get at something here and using your post to demonstrate it. I hope you don't mind.
Well it was poorly thought out given that the post in question wasn't about spirituality. The post was about the ridiculously poor argument being made by a poster whose chosen nickname is 'Fetchmyjunk'.[/b]

but this is Spirituality,no? Are there not even any guidelines here?

How about love or compassion? Do these things ring a bell and tell you anything about the nature of Spirituality, about Wholism?

Fetchmyjunk can ... fetchmyjunk.
He does not respond to me. and I do believe we have to AT least try to meet each other halfway to understand anything. Or is that idea also not worth contemplation?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
There are two options:

1. The brain was designed to think logical thoughts.
2. The brain was not designed to think logical thoughts.

If you believe option 1 is true, it follows logically that you should be able to trust your thoughts to some degree or at least during the times when the brain is used for the purpose for which it was designed.

Either you are hereby admitting that you are not using your brain for the purpose for which it was designed, or the brain was not designed to think logical thoughts.
Which is it going to be?

If you believe option 2 to be true, you can never trust your thoughts.
I believe option 2, as I have stated multiple times. And I never trust my thoughts based on the argument that it was designed to think logical thoughts. I trust my thoughts based on my knowledge and experience with regards to them, just as I do with everything else.
I do not trust my car because I think it was designed to be super safe. I trust my car through long experience with it.

By the way, a computer can only do what it is programmed to do, by an intelligent programmer. 😛
But it does do it. You asked how it does it as if you thought it was impossible.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
In general I am not disputing the scientific process.

But seeing (with eyes) is almost like being blind.

But you are. You are falsely claiming that the scientific process requires seeing with eyes. It does not. You will never see gravity with eyes. You will never see nuclear reactions with eyes. You will never see the inside of the sun with eyes. All can be studies with science.

I feel so much emotion, I can feel my brain tying to rationalize it in terms of what I understand (seeing is believing) and I find so many invisible, yet such important "things". Logic. Thought. Contemplation. Meditation. etc.
And all this either involves information about the thing being thought of, or it does not. If it does not, then the thing being thought of might as well not exist and your thoughts about it are meaningless and almost certainly wrong.

We cannot know things which are unobservable? Is that what you are saying?
Yes, that is what I said, in very plain English, with the caveat that 'observable' means we get information from it, not that we see it with our own eyes.

Cause, without trying to be a smarty,I would say that which is seen is often not understood . not at all.
I never said that we can know everything about things which are observable or that we get things right. You are taking the opposite of what I said then trying to make out that I said it when it is blatantly clear that I didn't. Giving you talk about 'spirituality' a few posts ago this dishonesty seems unreasonable.

Medicine is finally catching up to addressing psychological problems having dealt with physical ones for centuries.
Medicine has dealt with both for centuries and remains far from perfect at either.

Buddhism and such ideas say that the underlying problem of "suchness" does not stem from the physical but rather the other way around.
Bhuddhism is wrong. (or at least your interpretation of it.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are. You are falsely claiming that the scientific process requires seeing with eyes. It does not. You will never see gravity with eyes. You will never see nuclear reactions with eyes. You will never see the inside of the sun with eyes. All can be studies with science.

[b]I feel so much emotion, I can feel my brain tying to rationalize it in ter ...[text shortened]... rather the other way around.
Bhuddhism is wrong. (or at least your interpretation of it.)[/b]

Stubborn till the end. The best of all Buddhist students.

(Observable means to see generally, but I do understand that it also means that which can be measured. I'm just trying to simplify this part of the argument)

My thoughts about my spirituality are meaningful to me. The fact that you think that may be "almost certainly wrong" does not really phase me. If anything the "almost" gives me scope for further analysis.

I see you as the archetypal logician on here and, as always, I am always pleased that you respond. People like you and Proper Knob are a fine bouncing board of reality for me. Thank you again.

To you...and to everyone else-without googling- answer this: Buddha's quote "Walk as lonely as a ....." ?

Interested in Buddhism? I am. Seems a lot of others are too.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not certain what you are saying here. But in general, I would agree we cannot know everything, because not everything is observable. But it must be clear that this applies to all knowledge scientific or otherwise. We cannot know anything for which no information is available. That is a fact.

[b]If things cannot be seen it is hard to do repeatable ...[text shortened]... ch we have information. If there is more to it, we will never know. Its as good as non-existent.

"I am not certain what you are saying here"

Simple as chips bro.

You cannot define a "God" without including all, including the observer , and their bias, when discussing science/god.

The Christians regurlarly discuss "God" as being a separate entitiy from creation. I see this as getting off on the wrong foot from the start.

Understand?