Are you including the philosophical arguments for God in this?

The cosmological argument.
The moral argument for God.
Aquinas's Five ways
The ontological argument
The argument from beauty
The argument from consciousness
The teleological argument — Andrew4Handel

They are arguments for deism, not God.

I think it is a straw man to present God in a way that seems easy to disbelieve like portraying God as the Flying Spaghetti monster which ridicules the notion of God so people forget about the more sophisticated arguments like causal role/explanatory Gaps. — Andrew4Handel

Which atheist is presenting God like that? The fsm isn't a version of God. The only way that I know what God is meant to be is by being told by those who believe in Him what they think He is. And I haven't been convinced by what any of them say. They are presenting God in ways that are relatively easy to disbelieve.

I can't present God in any way. I can only repeat what others have told me.

No Country For Old Men
— Bradskii
Hated the book so much I wouldn't watch the movie. — T Clark

I read the book last week. It was like reading the script. Hardly anything was changed and even some of the dialogue was verbatim. The film played out in my mind as I read it. Now reading anotherof Cormac's books - Blood Meridian.

And damn, I Jjust remembered The Thin Red Line. Has to be top ten.

In no particular order:

The French Connection: Hackman at his superb best
Lawrence Of Arabia: Epic
In Bruge: Brilliant casting and script
Snatch: A breath of fresh air
Godfather I and II: A masterpiece
Casablanca: Classic scene after scene
The Deer Hunter: I'd watch it every day.
No Country For Old Men: The Cohens' best (and so true to the book)
Pulp Fiction: Not a wasted minute.
Unforgiven: Thanks, Clint...

Honourable mentions:

Fargo
The Deer Hunter
Airplane
Goodfellas
Saving Private Ryan
Se7en
Spinal Tap
Brokeback Mountain
Chinatown
The Big Lebowski

we are the ones that failed the most historically, consistently pressured to "up our game". — Benj96

That implies that there is a winning strategy in evolution. There isn't. Nobody wins. It's either stay in the game...or lose.

If we had failed then you wouldn't be reading this.

My case stands. — Wayfarer

'Cept the prejudice bit. Otherwise we agree. Yay for blind physical laws!

We need to know we are doing good and we don't and possibly can't. If I judged people based on my own moral intuitions it would condemn a lot of human activities which is one reason we need to resolve moral disputes. — Andrew4Handel

Do no harm. You're half way there. The golden rule will take you most of the rest of the way. And reasonable arguments might help to reach a final decision on any dispute. If not, then so be it. No-one says there's a right answer to every question.

Secular humanism is unavoidably conditioned by underlying prejudices, such as the idea that life is a consequence of blind physical laws. — Wayfarer

How we got here has no impact whatsoever on determining a sense of morality from a secular viewpoint. And 'prejudices'? A position not based on reason? I think not.

And in any case, the very fact that the term is secular humanism should make it clear that we are discounting any divine imprimatur on moral positions. And if we are not here by divine fiat, then how else did we get here other than a consequence of disinterested physical laws?

You've two options for morality. Religiously based - hence we were created for a purpose. Or secular. In which case we weren't.

The only relevance of gods here is that they are attempts at explanations and to some extent causal explanations. — Andrew4Handel

I don't see that at all. Even if you say 'God did it' we'd still want to know how. As we have done with evolution. And the formation of stars and black holes. And planets. And continents and seas and mountain ranges. We know the process. If all we get to the question as to how God did it is a shrug of the shoulders or an appeal to some divine snap of the fingers then that's not an explanation at all. That's something being used instead of an explanation.

I've often heard Dawkins make comments to the effect that Darwinism is an awful social philosophy. What I haven't heard is any plausible suggestions for an alternative... — Wayfarer

Secular humanism. You've not heard of it as an alternative to religiously based morality?

"Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?'"

Based on this comment he appears to be asserting that evolution is the only way for life to come into existence. — Andrew4Handel

He's simply saying that we know how we got here. If you know of any other means other than the evolutionarty process, then let's hear it. But let's face it, it's the only game in town. Apart from a six day week's worth of creating.

I call it idealism because it claims that there is some sort of abstract entity in the universe independent of actual phenomena. — T Clark

Abstract entity? That's an odd way to describe physical laws. As in Newton's First for example. And yes, it's just a description. Of something that happens whether there is somebody there to see it or not. Whi h was the bone of contention.

That is where atheism teams up with evolution and the big bang to claim there is no longer any role for God in reality which I view as faulty and more of a faith position. — Andrew4Handel

In many years on Christian forums, I have never seen an atheist claim that. Although I have very often read Christians who claim that they do. And those Christians will be generally be YECs and/or creationists.

If someone wants to claim that a god was behind evolution and created the big bang, then fine. I'll call that god Nature and they can call it what they prefer.

However...If they insist that it was God AND He sent His son who was born to a virgin to save us, created mankind especially, answers prayers, will accept you into heaven or send you to hell, has installed an eternal soul into each of us etc etc then I'll discount that because of a lack of evidence.

I really don’t know what you’re concurring with. Believing laws (or objects) exist without people is not idealism. It’s the opposite of idealism. It’s realism. — Mikie

I agree.

He clearly has wanted people to accept his model of evolution and the negative ideas found in his books regardless of what else he has said. — Andrew4Handel

So how about this view?

"...we must understand what it means to be a gene machine, what it means to be programmed by genes, so that we are better equipped to escape, so that we are better equipped to use our big brains, use our conscience intelligence, to depart from the dictates of the selfish genes and to build for ourselves a new kind of life which as far as I am concerned the more un-Darwinian it is the better, because the Darwinian world in which our ancestors were selected is a very unpleasant world. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. And when we sit down together to argue out and discuss and decide upon how we want to run our societies, I think we should hold up Darwinism as an awful warning for how we should not organize our societies."

Dawkins himself, explaining in no uncertain terms, that your comment above is wrong. My guess is that you haven't read the book.

How is that idealism? You meant realism, yes? — Mikie

I'd concur. For example, a body will remain at rest or continue in motion at a constant speed until it is acted upon by some force. There had to be someone to actually point it out so Newton's First Law didn't exist as such until Newton existed. But all bodies remained at rest until acted on by some force whether he or anyone else existed to formulate that law.

Objects in the unobserved universe have no shape, color or individual appearance, because shape and appearance are created by minds — Charles Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order

This is categorically wrong. In thinking that red, for example, only exists if there is someone around who decides it's red. But we don't do that. What we decide is that objects that emit a wavelength around 700nm we shall describe to each other with a particular sound we can make with our vocal chords. And scratch a few runes on a suitable material to represent that sound. But whether anyone observes the colour of the object, it still emits wavelengths at that frequency.

The same applies if an object is spherical or has a given mass or size or has a specific temperature. Those facts are objective and aren't dependent on how we decide to describe them.

It's as nonsensical as saying that there aren't objectively 5 objects unless there is someone who can actually count them.

What is being called into question is the notion of the 'observer-independence' of the objective domain. — Wayfarer

Which is what I reject. I completely accept that what we see is not necessarily an accurate representation of objective reality. But that's internal to us. Maybe I see the necker cube turned towards me. Maybe you see it facing away. Maybe you see the snake and I see the stick. But if it IS a stick then it's a stick whatever you or I think about it. It's a stick if there's no-one to observe it.

The moon existed billions of years before anything like multicellular life existed. Let alone intelligent life. So for a few billion years there was an observer-independent objective reality a few thousand kays away. Size, mass, composition etc all objectively real.

So what happens to that objective reality when Man gradually emerged? What changes could there have been to that objective reality that we could propose?

Again, what you see and what I see may not be exactly the same. It may be important to one of us. It may be just a rock or maybe one of us thinks it has some control over animal behaviour. But what we personally observe has zero impact on the objective reality of whatever it is that we observe.

If you can't understand when an argument is refuted discussion is pointless. — Wayfarer

The argument is that a ceramic frog (or a train in the interview quoted) is objectively different to you as it would be to me because our senses interpret it in way that determines our individual evolutionary prospects.

I'd like to see some sort of support for that so I'd have something to to refute.

On the contrary, it might have huge impact. If you’re Buddhist, then it affects your conduct and your view of life, and if you’re not, then you might suffer for want of those same principles. — Wayfarer

It has nothing to do with my evolutionary prospects. Just as the ceramic frog and the drinks coaster also on the desk have nothing to do with them either. Not everything is evolutionary consequential. My senses aren't adjusting my perception of a wooden coaster to increase my chances of passing on my genetic information. Let's get real here.

But the entire philosophical question is about whether everything is determined by physical laws, or is not. That is the question at issue, so your response begs the question - it assumes the point at issue. — Wayfarer

I'm not assuming that physical laws exist. They do. And everything is determined by them. Why those laws exist as they do is an interesting question.

One version of this argument is The Evolutionary Argument against Reality, by Donald Hoffman - particularly apt because it is (purportedly) based on evolutionary theory. It actually ties in with some of what Robert Lanza says (although they're very different theorists.) — Wayfarer

In which he says:

'Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.'

There's a wooden Buddhah on my desk. Your mental representation of it will be exactly the same as as mine. And it has no impact on any action I am going to to make, so my senses aren't interested in adjusting my perception of it to offer a solution to the fitness consequences of it.

That certainly can happen when I see a stick in the grass and my senses shout 'snake!' I will actually believe that it's a snake. That's an evolutionary fail safe. But to extrapolate that to suggest that nothing is as we see it is truly bizarre.

For what it's worth, we know of one person who wrote a play called "Hamlet," but he was born in the 16th century. — T Clark

I was thinking of Dave Shakespeare. He wrote 'Hamlet II - The Quest For Vengence'.

That's only because you've stipulated the first set of characters, so it's no longer random. — Wayfarer

They're both randon. Monkeys are typing them. The chances of getting both sequences are identical. It's just that someone wanted those in advance. It's like people that say the universe is fine tuned for us. Well, it would be if we were the purpose of the universe.

The existence of time requires the establishment of duration between points in time. That is what is supplied by the mind. You're neglecting or overlooking the way in which your mind is actually involved in constructing what you call 'the objective universe', by imagining it as if you can see it from no point of view whatever. — Wayfarer

There's an objective universe. It exists and operates whether we are here or not. Rocks will still roll down hills at a constant rate. Galaxies and stars and planets will form. And then there's our perception of it all. Which is obviously relative. Our perception of time is an individual thing. But a clock will always tick at the same rate if we're in the same room. Take that clock to the distant moon where the rock is rolling down the hill and the time it takes will be the same whoever uses that clock to measure it. That never changes.

The problem with your view is how much it ascribes to chance. Ultimately, you say, stuff just happens, but that is actually not an argument or an explanation. — Wayfarer

I'm not using it as an explanation. And I'm not making an argument. It was Lanza making the argument that things with an infinitely small chance of happening won't happen. I was simply pointing out that they happen all the time. It's just that if you declare in advance how you want a random system to turn out then the chances are infinitely small that you'll be correct.

The chances of those monkeys typing 'usbn3$*: dki8$ dh' are exactly the same as typing 'My name is Ishmail'. If you wanted that first sequence of characters, then it would be as infinitely impossible as the second.

And things are not entirely random. There are physical laws that dictate the number of ways a system can evolve. Now we can argue about why those laws are there. But we shouldn't be surprised that that process of evolution (and not just from a biological viewpoint) results in changes in complexity. And guys that write Hamlet and Moby Dick.

I want to go where we haven't been before... — punos

Boldly of course.

As we're into video show-and-tell, here's a presentation by Robert Lanza on 'biocentrism'. I'm not sure how he is regarded in the mainstream - I suspect not highly - but I find his attitude philosophically superior to your common or garden varieties of materialism. — Wayfarer

I got to about 11 mins in and he's riffing on a variation of the '747 in a junkyard' proposal with his million monkeys typing Hamlet. And what are the odds! It could never happen! But maybe he should think about the chances that the universe randomly produced a galaxy which created a solar system with a planet a fixed distance from the sun and this planet randomly produced life and that life evolved to create humans. And what were the chances of some specific guy being born in 17th century England and writing out a play called Hamlet?

My guess is that the odds were infinitely more than the monkeys doing it. Yet that did happen. Why is he not astounded by that?

And time only exists because we exist? Bullshit. If a rock rolls down a hill then that's a change. Which is all time is. A measurement of change. It'll roll down the hill exactly the same way if the universe is completely lifeless or whether it is teeming with life. Now how we measure that change depends on us. Our perception of time depends on us. What we use to measure that change depends on us. But the existence of change - which is what time is, does not.

I feel you, i'm not afraid of death but the only reason a really want to live forever is to see it all happen before my eyes, to be a part of it through the whole ride. — punos

I remember asking a question a few years ago prompted by such a comment: Would you prefer to go backwards and follow your lineage right back to the very begining, or go foward to see where it goes.

Still can't make my mind up...

Consider now how human intelligence is beginning to manipulate genetic information. This ability affords us the possibility to move into a new kind of evolution that is more efficient, and purposeful, and also signifies to me the coming of age of our species. Any species that takes control of its own evolution becomes in my view an "adult" or mature species in the universe. — punos

Can't disagree with any of that. Especially when you say that we control our own evolutionary path now. There's an argument that there is no limit from here on in. A lot of what was sci fi when I was a kid is sci fact these days. The older I get the more frustrated I feel that I won't be around to see where we go.

They seem to be the two horns of a dilemma, don't they? I'm familiar with the dogma, but I still say it's a reasonable question, from the perspective of speculative philosophy. — Wayfarer

I'm an atheist, so there's no dilemma for me.

This is the first dictionary definition I found of belief. Strangely...

"An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. — Andrew4Handel

I'd go with that. But I might say 'without 100% certainty'. But you could certainly include evidence in that definition. In fact, it would be required. Even if it was as weak as 'a guy in a bar told me.'

The evidence can guide but might not decide.

There is also the Natural selection arguments for and against belief validity which relates to the other debate. Would we chose to have beliefs that are not advantageous? Some people do come to self eliminating beliefs. Survival of the fittest belief or survival of the most accurate belief? — Andrew4Handel

The evidence will help us make a decision. But you wanted to know whose beliefs are correct. If the belief is based on evidence then evidence should show us if it's correct.

I guess you can have beliefs that are personally disadvantageous. But if you hold a belief that is an evolutionary disadvantage then good luck, buddy. If you believe the lion won't attack if you walk past him, then I'll just wait here and watch you try first.

Well, we'd need to decide how we want it run.

Based on personal subjective preferences — Andrew4Handel

Well...yeah. We have to agree on what we want. If you want a socialist country and I want a capitalist one then we're goi g to be arguing for different things. But if we both want a capitalist society then what we believe will be the best way to achieve that will be determined by looking at the evidence that we have as regards previous attempts to acheive it.

Fair point. I guess the question I’m angling towards is that of whether evolution is directional in nature - whether it tends towards (for instance) creatures with higher degrees of intelligence. I understand that the mainstream view is ‘definitely not’. But then you can ask whether it is a question that is in scope for biology or science at all. What evidence could there be for either the affirmative or negative? It would seem to me to be more a matter of the starting assumptions. — Wayfarer

No direction. Unless you want to claim a divine purpose. Nature doesn't think 'Hmm, if this mammal was slightly smarter, then it would have a better chance of survival.' It doesn't think 'Hmm, if it was faster...'

It's a genetic roll of the dice. If you happen to be faster and that's an evolutionary advantage, then you'll survive longer and pass on your 'fast' genes. That's why gazelles are fast runners. All the slow gazelles were eaten. And I think it's a given that some sort of intelligence, or even basic awareness of some sort, is an evolutionary advantage. So those with that genetic difference will survive to pass on that difference.

And in some senses it becomes an arms race. Gazelles get faster, so the lions who aren't as fast starve. But the ones who are themselves faster yet again survive. So the gazelles need to up the speed again to survive.

But the question is how did you come to have the trait of being a good runner? How can something be selected for if it does into already exist. — Andrew4Handel

This is evolution 101. This is basic biology.

We are not clones. So my kids are not going to be exactly the same as me. They will be subtlety different. And my son might have a mutation in his genetic makeup that makes his VO2 max different to mine. Like he has a slightly different genome that makes him a slightly different height. All this is pretty obvious.

Now his VO2 max might be better than mine, so all other things being equal, he'll be a better runner. And his sister might have the same as me. So if we are running from a predator, all other things being equal, my son has a better chance of survival and passing on his VO2 max genes.

Have you checked out the best long distant runners on the planet? Almost all Ethiopians. All a result of genetics. Want a son in with a chance of winning the Boston Marathon? Marry an Ethiopian woman.

Did you forget my quote from Darwin himself earlier and if not how does it not invoke value and how do terms like "advantageous" and "fittest" not invoke value judgments? — Andrew4Handel

And I asked you if you wanted to start another thread on social Darwinism. Especially as it relates to eugenics. Or do you want to discuss his thread which is about the evolutionary process?

And the terms you just used are meaningless as regards value in an evolutionary sense. It's simply a function of the language we use. Nature doesn't care if you live or die. Surviving and becoming extinct are simply the two outcomes. There is no preference. There are no winners and losers. There are just those that are still in the game and those that are not. If all life became extinct because of the process and nature had some shoulders she'd shrug them. Saying that evolution implies value is like saying that gravity implies it. Hey, falling down is good!

Now you might have a preference. You might think that you have value. But that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. To repeat, the process doesn't care what happens to you. So there cannot be any value in the process. Only what you determine.

I do sometimes ponder why evolution didn't simply come to an end with blue-green algae. Heaven knows they proven their ability to survive for near a billion years. — Wayfarer

That's dangerously close to the old 'why are there still monkeys?' question.

That story does not explain why the surviving rabbit was able to run faster. It explains why it survived which is a trivial observation. — Andrew4Handel

I was a good runner back in the day. My son is better. My daughter not as good. If foxes were chasing the three of us, my daughter and her slightly slower genes would be removed from the gene pool. My son's wouldn't. So his children would have a tendency to be faster than my daughter's would have been.

Rinse and repeat.

'A variation in the gene MCT1 is associated with difficulties in moving lactate throughout the body and an earlier onset of muscular fatigue (2).

Risk of tendon and ligament injury, a major concern for runners, is also under genetic influence. A pair of genes that help make collagen proteins, COL1A1 and COL5A, play an instrumental role in strengthening tendons and ligaments. Variations in these genes are associated with risk of tendon and ligament injuries, such as ACL injuries, Achilles tendon injuries, shoulder dislocations and tennis elbow'.

https://www.toolboxgenomics.com/blog/born-to-run-how-your-genetics-can-impact-running-performance/

How we should run a country.

What I should have for tea.

Whether there should be a death penalty — Andrew4Handel

I believe I'm going to have another g and t in a few minutes. But that's preference, like what you have for tea. I think we should restrict ourselves to factual matters. That's why I suggested evidence.

Running a country? Well, we'd need to decide how we want it run. If we have a specific idea and we have evidence of what others have and have not done to accomplish what we want, we can base our beliefs on what might work on that evidence.

Death penalty? Yeah...tricky one. I'm winging this. But I'm going to put that down to a personal belief. The only evidence one could produce is some proof that the wrong person was executed, so therefore we shouldn't take the chance. But in some cases there'd be no doubt plus a confession. But for some who are against it for said personal beliefs, the evidence wouldn't be in dispute but would actually be irrelevant. And we'd have to agree that the evidence is correct and relevant