God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

Hume said:
I do not have a problem. You're just a Christian moralist.
Click to expand...

No it's a problem all people who have self awareness share. And it's almost EXACTLY what much of this discussion as well as one other thread has been going over. It's actually kind of a brilliant summary!

We know from science that a lot of our "moral behaviors" of care for others etc. are instinctual in us as animals that live in groups. As other posters like @Cypress have noted, we also have big brains that have the ability to make choices COUNTER to our "programming". This is why we are unique in our need of "moral teachers" because we are one of the few animals that says "Yeah I know I _should_ help my fellow being but I also can conceive of a place where I might gain a temporary advantage if I DON'T help them"

We are unique in our ability to go against our instincts.
 
Daylight63 said:
No it's a problem all people who have self awareness share. And it's almost EXACTLY what much of this discussion as well as one other thread has been going over. It's actually kind of a brilliant summary!

We know from science that a lot of our "moral behaviors" of care for others etc. are instinctual in us as animals that live in groups. As other posters like @Cypress have noted, we also have big brains that have the ability to make choices COUNTER to our "programming". This is why we are unique in our need of "moral teachers" because we are one of the few animals that says "Yeah I know I _should_ help my fellow being but I also can conceive of a place where I might gain a temporary advantage if I DON'T help them"

We are unique in our ability to go against our instincts.
Click to expand...
That's you. You need some growing up to do.
 
Daylight63 said:
Nor would there necessarily be. Like "wetness" doesn't exist at the atomic level. But it emerges in ensembles.



Why not?



That's an excellent example: we don't know how the first DNA was formed and started functioning in a role of information carrier. But we know it would likely have happened purely through known physical things like chemical reactions.

Why can't thoughts and mental states not be the same thing? We know that brains exist and we know the only time we experience thoughts is when a physical brain exists. So it would stand to reason that the thoughts come from that.

Sure, there COULD be something more to mental states than the emergence of a property from a physical brain, but we don't really know anything about that. It doesn't even have a form sufficient to define it let alone a way to detect it so an objective observer would agree on what they are detecting.



I'll give it a shot.

The best example is "wetness". We all agree that things can be wet. But that doesn't exist at the molecular level. It doesn't exist at the atomic level.

But it is real.

It is an EMERGENT PROPERTY.

Thoughts don't exist at the quark or atomic level. They don't even exist at the molecule level. Thoughts probably don't even exist at the level of an individual neuron. They are an emergent property of an ensemble of neurons.
Click to expand...
reductionist. yes.

everything isn't physics.

you're attempting to create scientism.

we will not let you.
 
Hume said:
I genuinely do not know what you mean. Why do you desire to do something that is wrong?
Click to expand...
ok, data....
b248640e1f9f7d9a1f790e36a1533cd4--star-trek-data-yellow-eyes.jpg

:okjen:
 
Daylight63 said:
Sorry. I tend to use a lot of words. Not everyone is a "reader" I've found.



No. That's why I gave concrete examples like "wetness" and "temperature".



I agree. We do not. But that doesn't mean that any guess is equivalent to any other. We do have a lot of information on the origins of conciousness. It is an active area of study in neurobiology.
Click to expand...
bottom line?

physicists should not be in charge of everything, as you desire.

we reject your attempted regime of scientism.
 
Cypress said:
Scientism is a philosophy, it's not science.

Some of the biggest critics of scientism are scientists.
Click to expand...
and some of its biggest proponents are scientists.

government scientists.

fascist Nazi scientists like fauci and the WHO scientists with too much power.

yes.

harmless scientism.

and people who think physicists should be in charge of everything cuz science, which is quite ignorant.
 
Lao Tse said:
and some of its biggest proponents are scientists.

government scientists.

fascist Nazi scientists like fauci and the WHO scientists with too much power.

yes.

harmless scientism.
Click to expand...
It's usually armchair amateurs, those who have an affinity for strict physical materialism who have strong faith in the philosophy of scientism.
 
Cypress said:
It's usually armchair amateurs, those who have an affinity for strict physical materialism who have strong faith in the philosophy of scientism.
Click to expand...
yep.

idiot communist lucifer Karens, and people who put a sign in their yard saying they believe science.

il_fullxfull.2628055965_5khe.jpg
 
Hume said:
You struggle with your own actions coming from your intentions. Sign of immaturity.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand. I will attempt to explain it to you.

Everyone on earth at some point has had to choose between doing what they know is "right" vs what they "want" to do. Everyone. Including you.

This is the essence of being human.
 
Daylight63 said:
I think you misunderstand. I will attempt to explain it to you.

Everyone on earth at some point has had to choose between doing what they know is "right" vs what they "want" to do. Everyone. Including you.

This is the essence of being human.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. You are speaking for yourself.
A sign of immaturity. Your beliefs are not universals.
 
Hume said:
You misunderstand. You are speaking for yourself.
A sign of immaturity. Your beliefs are not universals.
Click to expand...

I know with absolutely perfect knowledge that you, too, have faced this very choice. In fact I see it happening every day on this forum. I just saw you make the choice when you posted that.

You are an incredibly smart person as I've seen from your posts. So you know what I'm talking about. But I cannot yet figure out what your larger point might be in making an absurd argument. I am looking forward to finding out what the point is in the fullness of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top