Philosophical Vegan Forum

"We know that brain structures correspond to conscious experiences, and we can change this experiences by changing the brain."
No you can't. There is no mechanism by which you can either identify or create a particular thought, idea or attitude objectively. Yes, there is some correlation between certain chemicals and emotions, but which is causing which?
Furthermore, brain damage can cause motor function impairment, but it doesn't change the person or personality. It may restrict the expression of it, but that is a different thing.

On nothing: its a definition and also reductionistic. Nothing can come from nothing. Please refute it without changing the definition of nothing. The universe has a beginning and thus requires a cause. Everything requires a cause other than itself. Ultimately there must be a primary cause that was uncreated and therefore infinite and outside time and space.

On 6 seconds: we know that our experience is actually processed in the brain and there are electrical impulses involved for that. Our perception is that our senses involve external stimuli, which are then transmitted to the brain. In the sixties I believe, it has been a while and sorry I am unable to give the reference, a study was done which showed that when applying an impulse directly into the area of the brain processing the sense of touch, it took up to six seconds longer to experience the feeling compared to touching the skin. They came to a conclusion that we essentially project our own reality, only to then take it in as objective.

On thoughts: it is about information. No new information can be created. In terms of thoughts, in a natural purely materialistic view, each thought would equate to a particular electrical impulse. This would need to be stored somewhere? How in such scenario, is it physically possible to conjure up imaginations, visions, ideas and even attitudes, emotions and so forth, that have up until then not been part of you? How can you imagine a spaceship, monster, beautiful landscape, without ever having seen it? That is impossible unless thoughts do not form part of us, but flow in from outside. One cannot create new information.

On aesthetics: taxonomy isn't a law, but only a way of describing, it proves nothing. The issue is one of design, choice, direction and causality. There are fundamental instructions that drive these processes, which require intelligence. The reason we can see harmony and why we can describe everything mathematically, is because there is complex information. This can not come from dead matter, as matter in itself doesn't create life or intelligence. Nor do the laws that describe it. Each change of a cell denotes a choice, each change in itself requires an external input or there would be no change.

On reproduction: please name one mammal that can reproduce on its own? Eg a bacteria self replicating is hardly proof of a single cell origin of all species. BTW each reproduction carries genetic material, which is passed to the next. These carry genetic instruction. We cannot pass on instruction that doesn't already form part of us. IOW mutation is regressive not progressive.

Furthermore on chance: a cell requires hundreds of organelles to function. These would all have had to come into existence at the same time for life to exist spontaneously. Also, the magnitude of chance to have the most simple form of protein chain come into existence is greater the magnitude of calculating the time going back to the Big Bang.

"Just study..." Is not an answer that explains the unexplainable.

I have posted a link to a YouTube video also, which is a bit lengthy, but an interesting collation of scientific arguments that contradict the pop science we are being fed today.

HiddenTruth wrote:"We know that brain structures correspond to conscious experiences, and we can change this experiences by changing the brain."
No you can't. There is no mechanism by which you can either identify or create a particular thought, idea or attitude objectively.

That's a strawman. He said you can change experiences by changing the brain, not that you can identify or create thoughts. Those are not the same. We know that damaging the brain will cause memory loss, that chemicals in the brain can lead to different emotional states (drugs, for example, have this effect), and so on. By changing the brain you change someone's personality, therefore there is no reason to believe that there is some sort of thinking agent outside of the brain.

Nothing can come from nothing. Please refute it without changing the definition of nothing. The universe has a beginning and thus requires a cause. Everything requires a cause other than itself. Ultimately there must be a primary cause that was uncreated and therefore infinite and outside time and space.

Please look up Lawrence Krauss's talk 'Something from nothing'. Also, even if the universe cannot come from nothing that is not proof for your god, it merely means we don't know how the universe began (yet).

In the sixties I believe, it has been a while and sorry I am unable to give the reference, a study was done which showed that when applying an impulse directly into the area of the brain processing the sense of touch, it took up to six seconds longer to experience the feeling compared to touching the skin. They came to a conclusion that we essentially project our own reality, only to then take it in as objective.

A study from 50 years ago you cannot link does not really prove anything.

That is impossible unless thoughts do not form part of us, but flow in from outside. One cannot create new information.

How did you determine these things? Can you prove it?

Furthermore on chance: a cell requires hundreds of organelles to function. These would all have had to come into existence at the same time for life to exist spontaneously. Also, the magnitude of chance to have the most simple form of protein chain come into existence is greater the magnitude of calculating the time going back to the Big Bang.

Chance is not relevant. If it is possible, therefore it could have been the cause. There are so many planets (10^22 is the estimate I believe?) that had so many years to develop life if possible (several billion years in the case of Earth) that the chance that something extremely unlikely happens is very high. Let's say life can form on 1 out of a billion planets, then there'd still be approximately 10.000 billion planets with life on them. Also, how did you determine that the chance of your god existing is higher? How did you determine that the existence of your god is possible at all?

HiddenTruth wrote:Just finished watching this vid, which does make a number of strong arguments and I'd like to see evidence based refutation if possible. http://youtu.be/ZS1x-6al2pE
It's a bit long but worthwhile.
It presents better than I myself can, why a deistic position is rational.

I thought your position was theism, not deism?

Why would any of us be interested in refuting a deistic position when the discussion is on theism?

That's like saying "The Earth is flat! Now here's a doughnut and a strong argument that it is delicious- please provide an evidence based refutation regarding the deliciousness of this doughnut, otherwise we will assume that both the view that doughnuts are delicious and that the Earth is flat are rational!"

The two have very nearly nothing in common.

Here are some other things I'm not interested in refuting in an argument with Christian theists:

Gnosticism
Buddhism
Vedism
Polytheism
Pantheism
Hedonism
Randianism
Satanism
Egoism
Pastafarianism

I could go on. The list of things that have little to nothing to do with Christian Theism is a very long one.

I consider deists, usually, to be fellow atheists. They do not believe in or worship a theistic god, and they don't engage in the immoral practices associated specifically with Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption.

If you're thinking about becoming a deist, that's great, and I wouldn't feel an overriding need to talk you out of it. There are just specific elements of Christianity that are morally problematic enough to demand derision.

HiddenTruth wrote:Just finished watching this vid, which does make a number of strong arguments and I'd like to see evidence based refutation if possible.

I'm not going to take apart a whole movie. I prefer to hear it from you, and if you aren't able to explain their arguments you should ask yourself whether you really believe what they are saying or just want it to be true. Making appeals to authority isn't helping this discussion.

HiddenTruth wrote:No you can't. There is no mechanism by which you can either identify or create a particular thought, idea or attitude objectively. Yes, there is some correlation between certain chemicals and emotions, but which is causing which?

Not some correlations, every subjective experience you have can be correlated to your brain. And I can demonstrate this by turning off your brain, let's see how many subjective experience is left... It's just a basic fact of neurology that you can turn on and off certain parts of the brain and thereby change your subjective experience. That's why some people around the world walk around with electrodes in their brain that stimulate certain nerves so that they don't have there hand constantly vibrating, or being in constant pain, etc.

We have brain scan technology to make sense of thoughts at some level. It isn't yet in the level of detail of exact thoughts, but we are getting closer. We are able to predict with 95% certainty whether someone believes a certain proposition or not, we can generate some blurry—but reasonably accurate—video material from dreams, etc.

HiddenTruth wrote:Furthermore, brain damage can cause motor function impairment, but it doesn't change the person or personality. It may restrict the expression of it, but that is a different thing.

So you think it's personality that doesn't change? There are many acquired brain injuries that do exactly that. You don't even have to have an ABI to have your personality changed; it changes continuously over a lifespan.

When you say it's only restricting the expression of it, I take it you're making the case for personality being immaterial. And then you have a lot of work ahead of you to prove your case. There is no evidence for that at all.

HiddenTruth wrote:On nothing: its a definition and also reductionistic. Nothing can come from nothing.

You're are making a statement here about reality that I've just proven to be false. Repeating it isn't going to help you.

HiddenTruth wrote:Please refute it without changing the definition of nothing.

Then define what you mean by nothing, in physics it clearly means something else. I did my best to explain what I meant with it. I think getting matter, energy and space from no matter, no energy and no space is already pretty spectacular.

HiddenTruth wrote:The universe has a beginning and thus requires a cause.

How do you know? You're just asserting this. A honest answer would be that you don't know.

HiddenTruth wrote:Everything requires a cause other than itself.

I already ripped this foundation apart. It's simple false.

HiddenTruth wrote:Ultimately there must be a primary cause that was uncreated and therefore infinite and outside time and space.

How do you know?

HiddenTruth wrote:On 6 seconds: we know that our experience is actually processed in the brain and there are electrical impulses involved for that.

Weren't you just saying the opposite?

HiddenTruth wrote:Our perception is that our senses involve external stimuli, which are then transmitted to the brain. In the sixties I believe, it has been a while and sorry I am unable to give the reference, a study was done which showed that when applying an impulse directly into the area of the brain processing the sense of touch, it took up to six seconds longer to experience the feeling compared to touching the skin. They came to a conclusion that we essentially project our own reality, only to then take it in as objective.

I only said that six seconds isn't the case for every experience we have, but it's generally known that our conscious experience comes rather late to the scene. But I don't know what you're trying to prove with it.

HiddenTruth wrote:On thoughts: it is about information. No new information can be created. In terms of thoughts, in a natural purely materialistic view, each thought would equate to a particular electrical impulse.

I'm not sure what you mean by information.

HiddenTruth wrote:This would need to be stored somewhere?

Energy? Or memories?

HiddenTruth wrote:How in such scenario, is it physically possible to conjure up imaginations, visions, ideas and even attitudes, emotions and so forth, that have up until then not been part of you?

Not have been part of you? You just mean that you haven't yet experienced it earlier? That's how the brain works, it's a machine that can process an enormous range of different thoughts and processes. Just like a computer is able to process an enormous range of computations and algorithms, while the basic mechanics aren't all that complicated.

HiddenTruth wrote:How can you imagine a spaceship, monster, beautiful landscape, without ever having seen it? That is impossible unless thoughts do not form part of us, but flow in from outside. One cannot create new information.

There are brain patterns that make it possible for us to image things and be creative. Don't see why you feel the need to say something unscientific as 'flow in from outside'. What outside?

HiddenTruth wrote:On aesthetics: taxonomy isn't a law, but only a way of describing, it proves nothing.

It looked like you were having some trouble to grasp the idea of species having no concrete barriers, that's why I explained it was only an taxonomic problem, not that of evolutionary biology.

HiddenTruth wrote:There are fundamental instructions that drive these processes, which require intelligence.

What? It's completely naturalistic. There is no instructive driver, guidance or any purpose behind it; there are only selection processes and genetic drift. It's called natural selection for a reason. The whole idea is that intelligence is not required. This is really basic understanding of evolutionary biology, and that's why I recommend studying the subject before asserting falsehoods.

HiddenTruth wrote:The reason we can see harmony and why we can describe everything mathematically, is because there is complex information.

Harmony? The universe is completely chaotic.

That it's possible to explain nature through mathematics isn't evidence for a designer. How would an undesigned universe look like? There is nothing to contrast it to, so how do you know it's designed? You actually have to demonstrate it's designed.

HiddenTruth wrote:This can not come from dead matter, as matter in itself doesn't create life or intelligence. Nor do the laws that describe it.

This statement doesn't make much sense. Life is a construction of matter.

And how did you come to the conclusion that life can't come into existence through natural laws and matter?

HiddenTruth wrote:Each change of a cell denotes a choice, each change in itself requires an external input or there would be no change.

A choice? External input? You're again showing your ignorance of the subject of evolutionary biology.

You start with random mutations that occur in genetic structures, this happens a lot when making copies. This creates diversity in life. When you have diversity, there is space for natural selection to act. Those that fit better in the natural circumstances, have a better chance for survival.

HiddenTruth wrote:On reproduction: please name one mammal that can reproduce on its own?

There weren't any mammals for a very long time in terms of the history of life, and sexual reproduction is also something that didn't happen a long time after life arose. We were are talking about abiogenesis, and talking in that context about sexual reproduction doesn't make much sense.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ry_of_life

HiddenTruth wrote:Eg a bacteria self replicating is hardly proof of a single cell origin of all species.

I gave an example of self-replicating organisms. You were stating that you need two different organisms to reproduce, and then I told you that you only need one. Cells and organisms are different things, and that's were you made the mistake. Self-replicating cells is making it even easier for me, since most are.

HiddenTruth wrote:BTW each reproduction carries genetic material, which is passed to the next. These carry genetic instruction. We cannot pass on instruction that doesn't already form part of us.

We can't? It's with mutations, which can be insertions or another form of creating new useful genetic information. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation# ... tion_types

HiddenTruth wrote:Furthermore on chance: a cell requires hundreds of organelles to function. These would all have had to come into existence at the same time for life to exist spontaneously.

No, why can't there be quite imperfect and more simplistic cells? Maybe you could even scale it further down, to self-replicating molecules.

HiddenTruth wrote:Also, the magnitude of chance to have the most simple form of protein chain come into existence is greater the magnitude of calculating the time going back to the Big Bang.

Protein chains as we know it today, which had lots of time to perfect itself. I think I already dealt with the probability question.

HiddenTruth wrote:"Just study..." Is not an answer that explains the unexplainable.

I stated this where you were showing your ignorance on the subject by claiming false things. I tried to explain most of your points, but some required some more attention. Instead of giving a biology or physics lesson, I recommended you to study the material yourself from professionals that can do a better job than me.

HiddenTruth wrote:I have posted a link to a YouTube video also, which is a bit lengthy, but an interesting collation of scientific arguments that contradict the pop science we are being fed today.

I quickly looked to some parts of it, but clicked it away after seeing the cosmological argument being presented. I got the impression that it's just regular theistic argumentation that has been refuted over and over again.

1) YES, it's reasonable well and reaffirmed my belief in Jesus Christ (former atheist here).

2) I do not belong in any Christian denomination! I refer them to "daughter of Babylon"; nowhere in the Bible indicate one must be attuned to certain religion; no, Christ asked us to believe in him - that's it (see #3 backed up with scriptural confirmation).

3) I believe in Jesus Christ due to archaeological and historical facts backed up by the scholars of era past. Evidence may be circumstantial at best, but it reinforces my belief in Jesus Christ which is more than sufficient according to John 3:16-18 (KJV), Acts 16:30-31 (KJV), and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV) and John 6:40 (KJV).

4) Using scholar integrity to reinforce the circumstantial evidence provided in the scripture as confirmed by the scholars in the time past.

5) If the scholars were able to confirm the miracles of Jesus (the ancient writings are currently locked up in the Vatican vaults - this infuriates me) and other widely-known events as recorded in the Bible, then it's more than sufficient to put my faith in Jesus Christ.

6) Atheist in various form.

omegaflare wrote: 3) I believe in Jesus Christ due to archaeological and historical facts backed up by the scholars of era past. Evidence may be circumstantial at best, but it reinforces my belief in Jesus Christ which is more than sufficient according to John 3:16-18 (KJV), Acts 16:30-31 (KJV), and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV) and John 6:40 (KJV).

Which historical and archaeological facts exactly?

omegaflare wrote:1) YES, it's reasonable well and reaffirmed my belief in Jesus Christ (former atheist here).

2) I do not belong in any Christian denomination! I refer them to "daughter of Babylon"; nowhere in the Bible indicate one must be attuned to certain religion; no, Christ asked us to believe in him - that's it (see #3 backed up with scriptural confirmation).

3) I believe in Jesus Christ due to archaeological and historical facts backed up by the scholars of era past. Evidence may be circumstantial at best, but it reinforces my belief in Jesus Christ which is more than sufficient according to John 3:16-18 (KJV), Acts 16:30-31 (KJV), and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV) and John 6:40 (KJV).

4) Using scholar integrity to reinforce the circumstantial evidence provided in the scripture as confirmed by the scholars in the time past.

5) If the scholars were able to confirm the miracles of Jesus (the ancient writings are currently locked up in the Vatican vaults - this infuriates me) and other widely-known events as recorded in the Bible, then it's more than sufficient to put my faith in Jesus Christ.

6) Atheist in various form.

Id be interested in having a discussion with you. Start up a thread and state why you now believe in a god, and you believe that Christianity is the one true religion.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:

omegaflare wrote:1) YES, it's reasonable well and reaffirmed my belief in Jesus Christ (former atheist here).

2) I do not belong in any Christian denomination! I refer them to "daughter of Babylon"; nowhere in the Bible indicate one must be attuned to certain religion; no, Christ asked us to believe in him - that's it (see #3 backed up with scriptural confirmation).

3) I believe in Jesus Christ due to archaeological and historical facts backed up by the scholars of era past. Evidence may be circumstantial at best, but it reinforces my belief in Jesus Christ which is more than sufficient according to John 3:16-18 (KJV), Acts 16:30-31 (KJV), and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV) and John 6:40 (KJV).

4) Using scholar integrity to reinforce the circumstantial evidence provided in the scripture as confirmed by the scholars in the time past.

5) If the scholars were able to confirm the miracles of Jesus (the ancient writings are currently locked up in the Vatican vaults - this infuriates me) and other widely-known events as recorded in the Bible, then it's more than sufficient to put my faith in Jesus Christ.

6) Atheist in various form.

Id be interested in having a discussion with you. Start up a thread and state why you now believe in a god, and you believe that Christianity is the one true religion.

Did you receive my email? Firstly, I would like to introduce how I was indoctrinated and abused by this so called "Seventh-Day Adventist" religion and why I do not believe they're a Christian. Secondly, I will introduce how I became a "weak-minded atheist" and what it ultimately led me to become a believer in Christ.

Which section in this forum is more appropriate to post? Let me know.

omegaflare wrote:Did you receive my email? Firstly, I would like to introduce how I was indoctrinated and abused by this so called "Seventh-Day Adventist" religion and why I do not believe they're a Christian. Secondly, I will introduce how I became a "weak-minded atheist" and what it ultimately led me to become a believer in Christ.

Which section in this forum is more appropriate to post? Let me know.

I would say the 'Atheist vs Theist Debates' is alright for that, since there might arise some discussion about the validity of your reasons in the last part of your story (assuming it's presented like evidence that is debatable).

omegaflare wrote: Did you receive my email? Firstly, I would like to introduce how I was indoctrinated and abused by this so called "Seventh-Day Adventist" religion and why I do not believe they're a Christian. Secondly, I will introduce how I became a "weak-minded atheist" and what it ultimately led me to become a believer in Christ.

Which section in this forum is more appropriate to post? Let me know.

I believe I have. Leave all future correspondence in the forum. You can post your thread in the Atheist Forums.