Being able to stay calm in situations that most people do not, doesn't mean anything other than they can stay calm in situations where most people do not. I can do the same thing. Humans and other animals have emotional reactions to specific stimuli in varying degrees. Some humans freak out over tiny things, like leaving their house (agoraphobia) and others don't react emotionally much at all (sociopaths).

Whether or not free-will exists comes partly down to how you define it, and what you consider to be "you", the self. Even if you're a deterministic process, you're still making decisions based on who you are. You are simply doing what it is in your nature to do.

If we find out that our neurology is affected by some amount of indeterminism, that can influence decision making, all that means is that part of our identity is affected by randomness.

There's not a whole lot to argue about in terms of sensory perception. Our brain only receives electrical signals. The occipital lobe builds the visual field, a 3D model, via electric signals it received. There is some nerve tissue in the area of the eye that may do some pre-processing.

We cannot determine where this input comes with 100% certainty. That is, unfalsifiable concepts like the brain in the vat, such as The Matrix type of scenario cannot be ruled out with test/experiment.

However, something is generating input that creates a very detailed model that we can navigate. I think most of us go about our day believing it's a 3D model of an outside physical world that all of us are navigating. Fair enough, we have no reason to behave otherwise.

But if it is a simulation, then... well something would have had to construct it and generate a very rich world regardless. In the end whether there are 3D dimensions, 11 dimensions (M-Theory), or 2 dimensions (The Holographic Principle), we're engaging in a rich and complex environment.

In the beginning there was simply a self-replicating process. There is not a whole lot to say about the details, because we still do not know how abiogenesis occurred. The formation and evolution of the first lifeforms is still unknown to us.

However it occurred in some way, and an object began to self-replicate. It didn't have a desire to live or think about self-preservation, it didn't even have a brain. It was just something that self-replicated via natural chemical reactions.

This self-replicating thing was a process. Many processes occur on planets that have a beginning and an end, like a storm or ice crystals forming and melting. But this process was able to keep on going via a replication process. Perhaps it continued doing this for days, months, years, or longer before anything else happened. But at some point, since there is only a finite amount of energy input into the system, it would not be able to continue to expand.

Since we don't currently know what exactly happened, this self-replicating process may have hit that boundary. Some random change(s) in the process occurred that were beneficial. It may have made the resulting replicators replicate more efficiently and started to more aggressively take up the energy, and the original self-replicators weren't able to keep up and were starved of energy.

But do keep in mind, that we have to be careful of the "pathetic fallacy". When I say "competing" that does not mean they were consciously trying to compete. And when I saw "aggressively taking up energy", that doesn't mean they experienced what we call aggression. It's like if someone says the "seas are calm" or the "wind is violent", that doesn't mean the seas actually feel the emotion of calm or wind is trying to be violent. We use this kind of emotional language all of the time to talk about things that do not necessarily feel emotion.

Nobody knows when lifeforms, these self-replicating chemical objects, experienced the feeling of "wanting to live". We do not know how physical matter generates experiences, to begin with. We do not know when lifeforms first had any "experiences" at all or became what we consider "conscious". We may use words that suggest emotion to describe such things, but that is just how we speak.

I didn't get what the article was trying to argue for or against. Perception seems pretty straight forward to me. The visual field is a great example. Light hits your cone and rod receptors, is converted into electrical signals, and is processed by the occipital lobe where a 3D model is generated to represent the outside world.

The 3D model or visual field is the map, not the territory. And the difference between the 3D model and the territory is a bit like a cartoon. Much of the details are removed. We don't see the individual atoms or cells that make up our bodies. We don't see all the lifeforms living on the skin. We see a very simplified model.

Also, our visual field uses color-experience to represent reflected electromagnetic radiation. However, our 3D model does not represent it one-to-one. The checker shadow illusion is a great example of this, so is the dress meme that some people saw as blue and others saw as gold.

A properly working visual field, illusions, and dreams are all experiences generated by the brain. As far as most of us believe, one of them represents the outside world. But it cannot be proved. The brain in the vat hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

That's how I see it. Things we measure are properties. Energy is a property. Width, depth, and height are spatial properties. They don't exist on their own, things are not made out of width, depth, and height.

"In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object"

This is the definition I would give. While energy is conserved, the amount of energy capable of doing work is not conserved. It is decreasing. More and more of it becomes heat and the difference in temperature between systems in the universe we live in is approaching equilibrium. Once the universe reaches thermal equilibrium, energy will no longer flow. Assuming nothing else happens to it first.

At least that is how I understand it.

It's not entirely easy to define what science is. To be a scientific theory, it's said you need 3 things: predictive power, falsifiability (i.e. can be proven wrong), and explanatory power. In theoretical science, such as string theory, you're trying to attain these things.

The God of the Gaps doesn't have any of these 3 properties. And no one seems to know how to go about it in a way to achieve these 3 properties. So far it's just pointing out what has not been scientifically explained, and invoking God as some glue.

A great way to learn about science is the history of scientific theories. Classical mechanics, general relativity, big bang, and evolution all made many precise predictions about the world, which were confirmed many times over many years. These predictions helped lead the way for more scientists to either replace the theories or revise the theories.

What do you do with "God did it"? As a science, which aims to have predictive and explanatory power, where does it get you? How does a scientist spend 40 hours every week working on this theory, other than pointing out what we cannot currently explain?

Sure. You can say God created evolution (i.e. theistic evolution). You could also say that God helps evolution along (i.e. guided evolution). But these ideas are just God of the Gaps. They don't really explain anything, they just move God into pockets of what is still unknown. Simply pointing to something we don't know and plugging God in, doesn't constitute as a science.

Oh, it's even worse than this; indeterminism hasn't even been demonstrated in microscopic systems — InPitzotl

That's true. I typically think about the Copenhagen interpretation. But some prefer the Many-Worlds interpretation, I think they tend to be programmers. Richard Feynman seemed keen on the one with time traveling both ways, I don't recall the name, multiple histories or something like that.

The more-at-stake aspect can be seen two ways — InPitzotl

There is definitely more to consider when thinking of the implications of how we see and deal with people. There is definitely that. As far as we know the brain behaves like a deterministic system. Whatever we call free-will, it's likely that the only choices we make are determined by our nature, which is intuitive if you think about it. We do exactly what it is in our nature to do, and never otherwise. Nature as in, our exact state.

A problem that we can run into with the idea of moral responsibility and thus law, is that some people get off easier if it is determined that they could not have chosen otherwise because of their condition, such as someone that is severely mentally ill. But if we're deterministic, then that is the case for everyone, so those decisions would have to consider more than what they currently do.

There is a possibility for indeterminism. It has never been demonstrated in a macroscopic system. But even if it was, we have no control over that either. So it doesn't solve that particular issue.

People define free-will in different ways. And so they argue about different things. But it really goes back to the concept of "you". You like others, will say you have a body, you have a brain, you have... maybe a spirit or soul... two arms and two legs. Who is "you"? The idea of there being a "you" and the continuation of self is intertwined with all definitions of free-will.

These are a few definitions I've considered.

Definitions

• Free-will is being able to have chosen differently.
• Free-will is being able to make choices that are not the product of causal chains; indeterministic.
• Free-will is being able to make choices that God doesn't want you to choose; freedom.
• Free-will is being able to choose freely. Choose what you want to choose; freedom.

Bottom line…I personally have never met a person who uses the word atheist as a descriptor (or part of a descriptor) who does not either “believe” (guess, estimate, suppose) that there are no gods… — Frank Apisa

I doubt there are gods. I think it's more likely an overactive theory of mind.
'Theory of mind' could help explain belief in God

Malice, you must have heard the joke about the two religious dudes who got so happy that they ate each other's shit. — god must be atheist

I can honestly say I have not.

God was more a fearsome and punishing God than a loving God, before our bellies were full, most children lived to adulthood, and our life expectancy doubled. — Athena

It's interesting how his personality seems to change over time. He was a being that killed first born sons and flooded the world. Now he's helping people win football games.

I heard someone say "science is a wholly-owned subsidiary of materialism" — TheMadFool

There really isn't a concept of materialism in science. It's more of what you can observe and replicate, to ensure only quality objective data gets added to the pool of data that other people have to work with. They try very hard to go beyond the senses, that's why they develop tools to explore the world (e.g. radio astronomy and gravitational waves).

if that's true, it appears to be, then the immaterial world, if such exists, is open to other approaches like religion, philosophy, etc. — TheMadFool

Sure. But also, it doesn't infer that approaches outside of science are any good at it (or bad at it). Science has a way of objectively testing how good it is at something. It's falsifiable, and as such, has predictive power. Philosophy, as I understand it, has some testability in that much of it follows the rules of logic. But so does science, it just has the added benefit of collecting data through tools and experiments, so that you have more to observations to infer from.

The most widely-accepted meaning of existence is that which can be perceived through the senses or instruments. This view of existence, that only the physical exists, is relatively new as evidenced by the fact that religion is older than science. — TheMadFool

From a scientific standpoint, I don't hold this view. Scientific methods don't deny the existence of non-physical things. If you cannot perceive something via your senses or instruments, then it's typically hard to dictate to everyone else that they exist. Religion is often fine with dictating reality to everyone else, even when there is no evidence.

There is an issue with the mind. You cannot detect it via senses or instruments. The best you have is inferring that other humans have minds because you have a mind. But science doesn't dictate that the mind doesn't exist on the grounds of it not being physical.

It simply has limited tools to investigate. We have limited tools to investigate. But it's a part of neurology. Scientists study the brain, such as structures and defects, and correlate it to how people say they feel. For example, they've found that people with a smaller than average hippocampus report feeling depression more.

it's possible that there's more to this universe than just that which is perceivable through the senses and their extensions, instruments. After all who's to say that we're in possession of the full complement of senses; maybe there's a sense that we're missing, a sense that allows us to perceive the immaterial. — TheMadFool

I agree. That's why science doesn't dictate that things we cannot perceive don't exist, that's why there is work being done on string theory and the multiverse. It works with what we can falsify or hope to make falsifiable. Beyond that, we are left to our own personal observations/experiences to explore anything else. We just cannot expect those things to convince anyone else other than ourselves.

The question ended up being: Which is the more sensible, more useful definition of the designator “atheist”… — Frank Apisa

I am fine with your preferred definition. A long time ago I tried to think of terminology that would capture more of the beliefs on this matter.

Gnostic Theist
Believes you CAN know and it does exist.

Gnostic Atheist
Believes you CAN know and it does NOT exist.

Agnostic
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced.

Agnostic Theist
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced, but thinks it's likely or has faith.

Agnostic Atheist
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced, but thinks it's unlikely or has faith.

Undecided
Not sure if you can know.

Without Belief
Does not have a belief (e.g. newborn baby).

You really should have known by the title of the thread that you’d get nowhere, although Ill concede that the level of dishonesty and bad faith responses youre getting is fairly astonishing — DingoJones

True. I've watched, read and participated in a lot of these debates. There is definitely a pattern, but it often gets the gears in my head moving. I was also surprised by the responses, I am glad someone else noticed.

I'm shocked !! Are you saying you have no answers to these questions? — 3017amen

You must be trolling this thread. Nobody is this obtuse.

But abstract's have no Darwinion advantages do they ? Help me understand that empirically if you are able... — 3017amen

There is nothing in evolution that says you should only be biologically capable of learning new things that are immediately beneficial for your survival. You might as just use people reading comic books as evidence against evolution, I don't know why you're stuck on this particular thing. — Malice

You're just going in circles now. I responded to this already. Do you have a counter-argument?

So then why does math have survival value when it's not needed? — 3017amen

You mean why does it have survival value if you cannot dodge coconuts with it. It has value in other ways, such as war and farming.

And after you answer that, I'm still waiting for clarification on the Metaphysical questions LOL — 3017amen

I already told you my view. What else do you want to know?

I'm not arguing anything. I've been asking you Darwinian questions, as well as Metaphysical one's , both of which you cannot seem to provide clarification for... . — 3017amen

I've answered both questions. And math not being suitable for dodging coconuts doesn't need clarification. It's bizzare that you even ask.

Great! And so, why would you try it, when it's not needed to avoid the hypothetical falling object? — 3017amen

It was a joke.

What is your argument?

I'm just asking for clarification, again: So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? You said it, I didn't. — 3017amen

you cannot use math to dodge an already falling coconut — Malice

You can try it though.

We're not talking about experience are we? — 3017amen

Wonderment is something you experience. I consider thoughts, emotions, and perceptions experiences. I don't know how they're generated.

You seem to be on to something there. So, are you saying that if one were to run calcs prior to avoiding a falling object, that they would likely perish? — 3017amen

Can you just state your full argument, instead of having this constant back and forth?

You don't, because you cannot use math to dodge an already falling coconut. Now, if you want to make good use of a catapult in a war, then you'd be on to something.

Why do we have two ways to avoid falling objects — 3017amen

Because legs a versatile and space is 3-dimensional. You can step back, lunge forward, or dodge to the side.

Explain the metaphysical features of consciousness, namely our sense of wonderment. — 3017amen

What explanation are you looking for? No one knows how the brain produces experiences.

There is no need too, it doesn't contract natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, mutation or epigenetics. This has already sufficiently been explained to you.

There is nothing in evolution that says you should only be biologically capable of learning new things that are immediately beneficial for your survival. You might as just use people reading comic books as evidence against evolution, I don't know why you're stuck on this particular thing.

An effect must have a cause, and a beginning must have a Starter, hence the BB must have had a First Cause — Gnomon

What caused the first cause? Does the multiverse qualify as a first cause? Or does only a god qualify as a first cause?

Your ego is making a fool out of you. If you actually want to understand the theory of evolution, then you need to spend a lot more time reading about it and learning. The argument that it's impossible for a brain to evolve, that is capable of eventually figuring out math among other things is impossible because you don't need math to dodge coconuts is sad.

Okay I'm winning at 5 to nothing... maybe this question is easier :razz:

Why do we have two ways in avoiding falling objects in the jungle? — 3017amen

StarsFromMemory already gave you some insight on this matter, but you refuse to learn new information that contradicts this poorly thought out argument that you keep cluttering the thread with.

Do you consider yourself an atheist? — CeleRate

It's a term I identified more with when I was younger. I like to think of myself as an explorer. But I do consider myself an atheist in terms of not being convinced there is a god, especially a personal god.

How would you determine that there is a difference between the two examples? If, for example, a good friend told you that they were giving away all their money to Exxon because they sincerely believe that doing so is God's will, would you simply acknowledge the news because you have "no reason to accept/deny it"? — CeleRate

When talking about a god as a creator of the universe, it's very far removed from us and there just really isn't much information to go by.

But when people start talking to supernatural beings or doing their will, it's closer to home, and we have information available to us.

We already know there have been hundreds or thousands of these types of beliefs throughout history. And they contradict each other, which means at least most of them are wrong.

On top of that, we can apply Occam's Razor and better explain it as delusions if they're hearing voices. If they think God gave them a sign, the better explanation is that the brain is finding meaning where there is none. The brain is hardwired to find connections between things, so much so, that it often leads to superstition. They've even found this behavior in pigeons.

There are competing explanations that have more evidence/support and so I choose them.

Then the question is, on what basis do you accept a given claim? — CeleRate

When it comes to contingent truths, I accept claims that can be falsified but are supported by evidence. For example, if I was working on a murder case and the evidence pointed to Bob Joe as the killer, then I would accept that. But if Bob Joe told me The Devil used his magic powers to frame him, I wouldn't accept that. Can I disprove it? No, but he cannot prove it, and so I have no reason to believe it.

Do you accept claims of an existent God because you cannot refute them? — CeleRate

No, because it cannot be proved/disproved, so I have no reason to accept/deny it.

do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that? — CeleRate

No, but if someone really did believe this, I would severely doubt it on the grounds that it's most likely a delusion since that is far more likely.

Inserting an intelligent agent as a creator doesn't solve anything. Peoples idea of evidence for ID is the God of the Gaps. It's mostly perpetuated by Christians who want to get some semblance of their god into science classes.

It would be (b) then. It makes more sense to me to just say unfalsifiable since it cannot be demonstrated whether or not a creator of some sort lurks out there somewhere.

I think it's possible that somewhere down the line, say The Big Bang or further back, there could be a creator of some kind. I have no reason to believe there is, and as such, I don't, but I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove or disprove it any more than I can prove or disprove that your invisible bunny Harry exists.

"I care when someone tells me (and insists, that I AM AN ATHEIST...simply because of a definition which came into being because of an error...and with which I do not agree."

Haha, I am sorry you are so upset about it? That must suck.

Personally, I am all for everyone learning a constructed language as an international language, instead of choosing a natural language. There is a ton of issue with the language we speak, this is just one tiny thing in an ocean of problems.

When you say "unverifiable", how are you differentiating it from "unfalsifiable"? When I say unfalsifiable, I mean that it's currently not testable. There is nothing you can do to falsify the claim that "God is the prime-mover". Because every time you explain something without God, you can just move God further into the background, and say God engineered it.

It means that a creator is not falsifiable, which is why The God of the Gaps tactic is used so often.

For instance, when Newton came up with gravity, his theory was incomplete and couldn't deal with more than two objects. He invoked God to explain this gap in knowledge. Later on, someone else solved it with perturbation theory.

People also used to think divine forces were responsible for the Heavens above. But when scientists starting explaining what we see in the sky with physical laws, God was then moved to another gap in knowledge and said to have engineered this system.

In the theory of evolution, some people explain gaps in knowledge with what is called guided evolution, wherein God fills in the gaps, such as he did with Newton.

Even if you explain every single aspect of evolution, someone can just say God engineered evolution itself (I belive this is called theistic evolution). No matter how much you explain, someone can just say "God did it". That's why unfalsifiable claims are not accepted as science. You can always just make something up that no one can disprove.

There are three properties of a scientific theory that are often mentioned.

• Predictive Power
• Falsifiable (this is intertwined with predictive power)
• Explanatory power