Of course humans are unique. All animal species are unique.
It’s true that no other animal species has the combination of speech, intelligence, manipulation, tool use, and sociality that we have. But all those characteristics are clearly present in rudimentary form in other animal species, just not nearly as developed as in humans.
Lots of other animals have “hands”, lots of other animals use simple tools, lots of other animals use sounds and body language to communicate simple ideas, lots of other animals can solve problems and learn, lots of other animals live in complex social groups.
So if chimps evolved to stand upright, use tools a lot more than they do now, communicate much more via vocalization, and changed their mating/social habits, they’d be humans, and this is pretty much the story of how humans came to be.
There are plenty of humans with developmental disabilities that have trouble communicating, or have trouble solving problems, or have trouble learning. But these people are recognizably human. And it is my contention that if you spent a lot of time working with chimpanzees or gorillas, you’d become convinced they share that same spark of “humanity” with Homo sapiens, if not to the same degree. Heck, spend any amount of time around dogs, and you can recognize them as fellow creatures of the same order as ourselves, although of a different type.
Further to what What Exit posted… Every species has unique characteristics-- otherwise it wouldn’t be a species. And none of the uniqueness of our species needs some supernatural explanation to understnad. If you believe in a soul, fine. That’s a belief based on faith, and there’s little be argued about. But if you bring that belief into a discussion about specific behavioral characteristics of H. spaiens, then you’re crossing the line from faith into science.
We can see from the fossil record how we evolved, physically, from what was essentially an upright ape (and I use “ape” in the colloquial sense to mean non-human apes). 2.5M years ago our ancestors had brains the size of a chimps, and if that species were alive today, you’d see it in a zoo, not on a street. The fossil record, sparse as it is, still gives us a good understanding of how our unique human behaviors evolved gradually over time, too. There are long periods of “stagnation” and then rapid changes, but that’s the way evolution often works. There is nothing that requires a supernatural process to have taken place-- that’s an add-on that really tells us nothing about the natural processes that made us what we are.
That is a good question, and one that I have been trying to figure out for quite a while. Not sure there is an answer, especially one that operates in the hypothetical. As I said, however, this is not my BASIS for belief in god by any means…it is just one way in which I see the effects of god in the world around me.
In a sense, I guess you can say we are both blind…in the way that all of us are, when talking about the inner thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of another person. You can’t imagine what goes on inside me, and likewise, I can’t imagine what goes on inside you. This is why discussions of “is there a god?” tend to go around in circles.
Of course, ultimately you are right…nothing that I have said is any kind of proof that god exists whatsoever, and I would never claim that it is. I did not mean for it to be some kind of evidence, but merely an explanation of my POV on the subject.
I agree with all of what you say. The thing is, I am not really talking about what would normally be referred to as “behaviors,” I don’t think. I think what it really boils down to is my belief that humans have free will. Each species of course has its own unique characteristics, each has its own set of behaviors. But no other species decides for themselves what those behaviors will be, or understands why they the behaviors exist. It is the free will and the ability to understand free will that is different.
And after reading the discussion of free will in GD, I will leave it at that!
I agree. But it has implications for the nonphysical. If we have scientific explanations for things that contradict theological explanations, then there is less evidence for a god than if scientific explanations were in perfect concordance with the theological explanations.
Ah, I think I see the problem. I’m not claiming that science can detect a god doing something. Science can of course only detect physical events; if they are through the hand of a god cannot be known. What I am claiming is that science can detect physical events which can be used as evidence for or against a god. Not that a scientist could put god under the microscope.
I disagree. If through science we find that there is no evolution, that the Earth is thousands of years old, and that a flood covered the Earth for a particular period of time, you don’t think that’s more pro-evidence for the Christian God than if science finds there is, it’s older, and there wasn’t (respectively)?
Uhm, yes. That’s the whole point of the thing; a god that created an ECU and there being no ECU aren’t compatible. Hence there being no ECU being evidence against a god.
Oh, and it’s not an either/or. There could well be an ECU without there being a god.
Alright, it’s two seperate claims, then. They seem to follow to me.
Why? The whole point of (one of the) claims is that " a god created the universe, which is EC".
I think you have a far too strict view of this. We can’t study god with a telescope, and we can’t study germs through faith. But we can use logic to tie the two together.
Hooray for snark, eh? You’re the one who said both were valid, not I, so please don’t act as though you’re on the high road here.
OK. Over in the “free will” debate in GD, was saying that free will = consciousness. I don’t mean “free will” in the sense at **Diogenes **was defining it there, but in the sense that you were using-- being able to make choices. The “consciousness” part comes in when we understand how those choices affect us, other people, and the future. We don’t really know what chimps are thinking, but as smart as they are, it’s unlikely they are thinking: Hmmm, I’ll put off having a baby for awhile until I raise this one I have right now. They do appear to have a “theory of mind”, though, which seems to be rather rare in the animinal kingdon (an ability to see how another individual might see something, not just how you see it).
Actually, I did not ask you when, but *if *it occurred at a precise time. It seems that you are saying that God gives each human a soul individually, and that the soul is not inherently a part of the reproductive process. Is that right?
Honestly, that simply isn’t possible. A scientific finding cannot contradict a religious finding any more than a legal finding can contradict a logical finding. A modus ponens is a modus ponens even if fifty lawyers say it ain’t.
Then how does he know it’s a god? Why not an ineffably tiny elf? Or just a plain ghost?
No. It’s evidence of Biblical accuracy, but the Bible could still be right about geology and origins and wrong about Jesus.
But wait, that’s different. And a different kind of fallacy (denial of the antecedant). It all depends on how you word it. For example:
Right: If God exists, then He created an ECU. The U is not EC. Therefore, God does not exist.
Wrong: If there is an ECU, then God created it. The U is not EC. Therefore, God did not create it.
Then we should reword your conclusion. It should be simply ~G, rather than ~G v ~ECU. ~G follows from G -> ECU and ~ECU. In that way, you tie your premise of God’s alleged creation to His existence. But that whole business has never bothered me anyway. Whether or not God created the universe, it serves His purpose all the same.
Here’s the breakdown on that:
Rules of Modus Ponens: A implies B. A is true. Therefore, B is true. (A -> B; A; ::B)
Fallacy of Affirmation of the Consequent: A implies B. B is true. Therefore, A is true. (A -> B; B; ::A)
Rule of Modus Tollens: A implies B. B is not true. Therefore, A is not true. (A -> B; ~B; ::~A)
Fallacy of Denial of the Antecedant: A implies B. A is not true. Therefore, B is not true. (A -> B; ~A; ::~B)
Yes, but the god claim is not scientific. How do you formulate a falsifiable hypothesis about something that cannot be physically detected? You can detect only effects, and as I said, they can be from anything. The anything is just unknown. It would be unscientific to ascribe the anything to something metaphysical. Otherwise, the claim that angels make gravity work by pulling harder from large masses would be scientific.
That I agree with, and is what I’ve been saying all along.
I’m sorry it came across to you that way. I meant no snark. I honestly meant that I’m willing to think in terms other than abstract proposition logic. There are all sorts of logical systems out there. Reason isn’t the only one. I very much enjoy this discussion with you, and consider you to be my intellectual peer.
I’ll say one thing for this conversation - i’m having to learn a lot of latin.
He doesn’t.
Ah. I believe I get where we’re at odds, here.
Let me restate my position; we assume that we know things about God’s interactions on the physical plane. Through science, we may find evidence that appears to support or contradict our ideas of how we think that God interacts. While we can use this evidence as a reason to believe or disbelieve in God, we cannot use it to say whether God exists or not, or whether he interacts with the physical in some other way; only that our ideas of those interactions may have another cause.
Is that any better, or still problematic?
That’s a good point. But few religious people (that I’ve seen, anyway) have stated the situation as an “If the universe exists in this way, God created it”, but instead along the lines of “God created the universe, he created it like this”.
Logically so. And for people who don’t believe in an ECU (theists or athiests) it’s pretty much an unimportant subject.
I think we’re defining our terms differently. If an ECU implies God, and there is no ECU, then to say there is no God is certainly silly. However, if we say that an ECU implies an ECU-creating-God, and there is no ECU, then there can be no ECU-creating-God. That brings us back to Modus Tollens, since we have A as God and B as ECU instead of the other way around. If A implies B, and B is not true, then A is not true. It depends, of course, on God being an ECU-creating-God, which could of course be incorrect.
This is true, but I think my restatement above sorts this out. We can’t detect God, but we can detect interactions, and these interactions may have falsifiability. Like you say, we can’t provide evidence for God existing or not by finding that the universe is non-EC, but we can find evidence that the universe is non-EC. Through logic we can then say, not that God is unlikely to exist, but that an EC-creating-God is unlikely to exist.
Well, i’m sorry I didn’t recognise it, then. Poor reading skills on my part.
I’m afraid i’m a suspicious, cynical bastard by nature, and to me this could be either genuine niceties or very deadpan sarcasm. If the former, I apologise, if the latter, you’re a twat*.
Why am I not surprised that a bunch of people who take the existence of ‘god’ as a given are going to extreme lengths to say what I’ve been told for 22 years. It’s the same statement over and over again, and unlike any other illogical, irrational claim of that nature (ghosts, zeus, xenu, astrology, etc) those who pull out claims of ‘god’ are taken seriously where someone who claimed ghosts or unicorns exist would not be.
Persecution of atheists is what I grew up with - people claiming that I tortured cats and dogs and the repeated accusations by teachers and guidance counselors that I was a drug addicted satan-worshipper.
This isn’t what I’d call persecution, this is just the institutionalized bias of those who grew up in a country that has ‘in god we trust’ printed on the money. ‘in god we trust’?
No, no we don’t all trust in silly little myths. Nor are we bad people for thinking those myths are myths. Belief in ‘god’ is just as absurd as belief in xenu!
catsix, there are many Christians who believe that “In God We Trust” should not be on our money and that “under God” should never have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance. We do not persecute atheists and we discourage others from doing so. We support fully the separation of Church and State. We respect your right to ridicule our beliefs and we don’t ridicule yours as long as you are honest and straight forward.
Are you unaware of this or do you choose to ignore it or not address it? Is it our beliefs in the metaphysical that provoke you or is it the abuse that you have endured at the hands of some who take a more meddlesome view of what Christianity should be?
None of this is intended to be critical of your posts.
The fact remains that it is there. That there is a national exclusion from ‘we’ when it comes to those who do not believe in the myth of god.
The institutional bias is there. I didn’t say it was persecution, I said it was bias.
Your beliefs are seen as the default by western society, even though they are every bit as irrational as the idea of xenu or that zeus lives on Mt. Olympus. Even the History Channel has shows on which discuss the lives of the mythical figures in the bible alongside real historical figures who actually existed.
For no logical reason and on no evidence-based foundation your beliefs are treated as facts. That’s clearly bias.
No doubt there is bias against atheists. That must be why some enjoy venting in here.
In a society where belief in God is by far the predominant belief I think your comparison here is off. Growing up surrounded by belief in the Judeo Christian God in this culture I don’t think it’s irrational to accept that belief any more than it was irrational for those raised in ancient Roman culture to believe in Zeus. Your comparison falls short every time you make it. It may be a belief by association or assimilation or indoctrination but it is not irrational.
As already discussed , this statement is incorrect. Subjective evidence is valid evidence for the individual who experienced it.** Liberal ** expressed it correctly and succinctly.
You see the bias in your neighbors eye, etc etc.
We’ve seen this arguement over and over and dealt with it. If you don’t get what’s been explained to you and all you can do is repeat this mantra it’s not only incorrect but also a big yawn.
If God can’t be proven to you specifically then that qualifies as no evidence for anyone else. Is that about it?
The faulty thinking is that only demonstratable objective evidence qualifies as valid evidence. It simply isn’t true. Each person weighs and interprets their own subjective experiences. You, me, everyone. That subjective evidence is weighed along with the objective.
The mistake comes when people think others must come to the same conclusions they do.
I think that the problem lies in how subjective evidence is not considered valid in other respects besides the belief in god. I know when I first heard about David Berkowitz I didn’t think “Well shit, maybe the dog was possessed and talking to him. He certainly seems convinced, and that’s good enough for me.”
