Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
My question is based on the assumption that you think humans are part of nature (in which case the question still stands). If, on the other hand, my assumption is incorrect then you are certainly misunderstood on many levels.

I am not familiar with the concept of “aboutness”. I never suggested the mind transcends itself, initially I said humans are a part of nature thus the mind doesn’t transcend nature because the mind is a part of humans which is a part of nature.

Upon given a new definition of Nature that does not include humans; I assumed the human thought can transcend nature because human thought is limitless.

These questions are new to me and I am still trying to figure them out myself. I have to ask what restrictions would be placed upon human thought if it did not transcend nature? In other words; what does transcending nature mean? Is it possible that human thoughts are a part of nature as well?



Ken

Then I suggest you look it up and try to answer the question.

I think I agree with Kurieuo's suggestion that the human body is physical and the mind is something else. As far as can the human mind transcend the physical/natural? It all depends upon what that means.

Byblos wrote:On purely a materialistic level, how can atoms "think about" other atoms that are external to them.

If by "atoms" you mean people, it happens all the time. People think of of other people and things that are external to them all the time.

Ken

Kenny wrote:I think I agree with Kurieuo's suggestion that the human body is physical and the mind is something else. As far as can the human mind transcend the physical/natural? It all depends upon what that means.

If not physical, then what?

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:On purely a materialistic level, how can atoms "think about" other atoms that are external to them.

If by "atoms" you mean people, it happens all the time. People think of of other people and things that are external to them all the time.

Yes of course, that's rather academic. The question is how (or rather why). But since you've already acknowledged the mind is non-physical (whatever that means to you), this may also be academic, we shall see.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think I agree with Kurieuo's suggestion that the human body is physical and the mind is something else. As far as can the human mind transcend the physical/natural? It all depends upon what that means.

If not physical, then what?

Mental.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:On purely a materialistic level, how can atoms "think about" other atoms that are external to them.

If by "atoms" you mean people, it happens all the time. People think of of other people and things that are external to them all the time.

Byblos wrote:Yes of course, that's rather academic. The question is how (or rather why). But since you've already acknowledged the mind is non-physical (whatever that means to you), this may also be academic, we shall see.

What are you asking here?

Ken

Just curious Kenny.

I'm not sure if I've ever asked, or you've ever told, whether you identify as more Atheist or Agnostic.

Would you say that seeing mental properties in addition to physical makes you more agnostic regarding God?

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think I agree with Kurieuo's suggestion that the human body is physical and the mind is something else. As far as can the human mind transcend the physical/natural? It all depends upon what that means.

If not physical, then what?

Mental.

And what is mental (in non-physical terms)?

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:On purely a materialistic level, how can atoms "think about" other atoms that are external to them.

If by "atoms" you mean people, it happens all the time. People think of of other people and things that are external to them all the time.

Byblos wrote:Yes of course, that's rather academic. The question is how (or rather why). But since you've already acknowledged the mind is non-physical (whatever that means to you), this may also be academic, we shall see.

What are you asking here?

Let's wait on that until you define mental.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think I agree with Kurieuo's suggestion that the human body is physical and the mind is something else. As far as can the human mind transcend the physical/natural? It all depends upon what that means.

If not physical, then what?

Mental.

And what is mental (in non-physical terms)?

Mental is anything pertaining to the mind. Thoughts, ideas, perceptions, etc.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Just curious Kenny.

I'm not sure if I've ever asked, or you've ever told, whether you identify as more Atheist or Agnostic.

Would you say that seeing mental properties in addition to physical makes you more agnostic regarding God?

No. I don 't see how the two are related.

K

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just curious Kenny.

I'm not sure if I've ever asked, or you've ever told, whether you identify as more Atheist or Agnostic.

Would you say that seeing mental properties in addition to physical makes you more agnostic regarding God?

No. I don 't see how the two are related.

K

Of course I was being too hopeful for you. But still, what do you identify as being -- Atheist, Agnostic?

I suspect you're still thinking things through regarding this issue (as you previously say). That is more than I could have hoped.

But, once you do... perhaps would agree with the Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel who writes in his book Mind and Cosmos:

The great advances in the physical and biological sciences were made possible by excluding the mind from the physical world. This has permitted a quantitative understanding of that world, expressed in timeless, mathematically formulated physical laws. But at some point it will be necessary to make a new start on a more comprehensive understanding that includes the mind.

And:

I disagree with the defenders of intelligent design in their assumption, one which they share with their opponents, that the only naturalistic alternative is a reductionist theory based on physical laws of the type with which we are familiar.

And then elsewhere:

If the appearance of conscious organisms in the world is due to principles of development that are not derived from the timeless laws of physics, that may be a reason for pessimism about purely chemical explanations of the origin of life as well.

I'd obviously hope that you move closer to the correct position of Theism and of Christ in particular.
But, one can dream for others can't they?

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think I agree with Kurieuo's suggestion that the human body is physical and the mind is something else. As far as can the human mind transcend the physical/natural? It all depends upon what that means.

If not physical, then what?

Mental.

And what is mental (in non-physical terms)?

Mental is anything pertaining to the mind. Thoughts, ideas, perceptions, etc.

Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other. And before you answer please do know that that is a non-trivial topic. In fact there has been much confusion about it ever since Descartes completely screwed it up (unless of course one subscribes to classical philosophy). Take your time but my advice is to look up some articles on the body/mind connection.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:...I am not sure if we can know absolute truth in this current existence, not saying it cannot be known but more saying it cannot be known quite yet, maybe haha??? Or maybe we just cannot know if we have absolute truth, your thoughts are appreciated.

Dan, are you absolutely certain of this?
-
-
-

Kurieuo wrote: But still, what do you identify as being -- Atheist, Agnostic?

I see Atheist as a person who does not believe in God, an Agnostic as a person who claims there is no way of knowing. Atheist about belief, agnostic about what you know.

Kurieuo wrote: I'd obviously hope that you move closer to the correct position of Theism and of Christ in particular.
But, one can dream for others can't they?

I would never try to take away your dreams my friend!

K

opps

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other.

I see the mental (non-physical/non-material) as a product of the person (physical/material)

Ken

B. W. wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:...I am not sure if we can know absolute truth in this current existence, not saying it cannot be known but more saying it cannot be known quite yet, maybe haha??? Or maybe we just cannot know if we have absolute truth, your thoughts are appreciated.

Dan, are you absolutely certain of this?
-
-
-

I eventually came to the conclusion (with Jac's help) that it is possible to not know all the facts in any given situation, so while absolute truth can be known, we may not be able to ascertain all the facts about a situation and therefore we may or may not know absolute truth about a particular situation. Like for example, the creation, we cannot possibly know all the facts surrounding Genesis and the creation events, there are so many unknowns that it would be impossible to claim absolute truth in this instance, we just do not have enough data to make a conclusive decision, sure we can have beliefs about it, but that is not proof.

Well at least that's where I think I was at from memory, I can't be certain of the facts.

Kurieuo wrote:

Proinsias wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:No, many often equivocate on this definition without thinking it through.
It's not really a good definition of nature at all because it just assumes that humans aren't a part of nature, but it doesn't explain why.
My exchanges with Kenny here are about the why? -- whether humans do in fact transcend nature and what that means.

This, in my opinion, gets to the core of the value of religion. In the acceptance of eternal life in Christ, in the liberation from samara, in the union of Brahman/Atman. The theme is persistence beyond the natural rhythm of life and death.

Yes, I get what you're saying...

But really, religion only has value if true rather than some fantasy.
As Paul wrote (forgive the scripture as I know you're not Christian, but it seems relevant nonetheless):

• "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:16-19)

If I'm wrong, then I'd prefer to know it.

This is one reason why I've approached the questions the other way around, assuming nature and then trying to account for these apparently transcendental qualities that we possess (consciousness, intelligence, morality and the like).

In a practical sense religions of persistence after the death of the body have a profound influence on how we live in the moment and in how we approach death. If the dead are not raised Paul's writings have still had a massive impact on human behaviour this side of the grave.

---
The higher primates exhibit conciousness, intelligence, morality and the like. They are not qualities that 'we' exclusively posses, are they?