I followed the rest, but the problem here is that we’re talking as far as I can see about an unfalsifiable concept, and whilst I see no objective evidence for a soul, I think as long as the concept is unfalsifiable it is epistemologically unsound to make assertions about it.
I think primarily this is a problem with wording, so I have no problem with claiming that the overwhelming objective evidence suggests that our consciousness is an emergent property of our physical brain, and when it dies that consciousness disappears every single time. Now if theists and religious apologists want to imagine this is a coincidence that’s up to them, but I find that absurd.
Most importantly there is no objective evidence for any deity, or for a soul, or for anything supernatural. That fact alone is sufficient for me to disbelieve such claims. I need not go further and give apologists ammunition, by making claims that I cannot support with objective evidence.
Oh, and welcome to AR.
Well, there is no objective evidence that we will survive the death of our brain in any meaningful way, I’d not go so far as to make a contrary claim, as again this seems like an unfalsifiable concept, so as with all unfalsifiable concepts I must remain disbelieving and agnostic.
I can now see why you are so reluctant to answer straight questions with straight answers. Anyone who does not understand that there are unprovable truths is very unlikely to provide stimulating conversation.
I shan’t even feign surprise you have justified your unsupported oxymoron with a circular reasoning fallacy, or that you’ve ignored my candid and concise response, while lying that I haven’t given a straight answer.
Then I will go straight back to my simple question, that you certainly did not answered: On what basis are you asserting these unknowns are true?
I have to ask now, were you previously ratspit? Your bizarre rationale is too similar not to ask.
While you’re here please clarify can science in any way play any part in explaining the origin of the universe?
The evidence is that the universe is rationally intelligible. Science shows that the universe is rationally intelligible, cause and effect, testable theories. We can predict the future state of some system when we know an initial state and the laws that relate the actors in the model.
All the evidence is that things happen for reasons, why should the existence of the universe be made an exception to this, the most established law we have in science?
Of course you’re confused, that’s because you are conflating “explanation” with “scientific explanation” a common mistake many atheists make. I’ve told you several times now, you don’t seem to be paying attention.
There is an explanation for the presence of the universe, it is a supernatural explanation as opposed to a naturalistic, scientific, mechanistic explanation.
Please explain HOW in detail, you believe your deity created the universe? If you can’t do this, then please stop disingenuously labelling it as an explanation.
Please explain HOW in detail, you believe your deity created the universe? If you can’t do this, then please stop disingenuously labelling it as an explanation.
Such a question is warranted for scientific explanations. They are after all theories, structured around premises and known laws and seeking to derive new testable predictions, scientific explanations are reductionist - describing things in terms of other constituent things.
But a supernatural explanation is not reductionist, it is not mechanistic. God will’s not because he has to, not because he is a machine compelled to obey mindless laws. One cannot reduce will, fancy, whim so how can one breakdown a decision originating from will?
If I say “I feel like tidying my electronics book shelf” can one “explain” that decision? Perhaps sometimes we do have a reason but often we do not, we act from whim, desire this is what is meant by we are created in God’s image, we too have will and can act on whim rather than rules.
Now, please explain HOW in detail, you believe your deity created the universe using this supernatural cause?
You can’t call it an explanation, then admit you cannot explain it at all. well not without the claim appearing either dishonest or incredibly idiotic.
I answered this in another thread. Asking for “detail” makes sense for scientific, mechanistic explanations like “If we do X then Y and then Z we’ll get an outcome W”. That’s fine for scientific explanations because by definition they are reductionist, mechanistic.
But for non mechanistic, non causal explanations like decisions made by whim, there is no breakdown, not step by step rule following, it is the epitome of unrestrained choice, thought, whim.
Consider “I painted that wall that color because I felt like it” that has no breakdown, that can’t be explained in detail, there is no detail, I felt like it.
You responded, you offered no explanation. If there is a supernatural EXPLANATION for the origin of the universe **as you claimed. ** Then explain it, if you cannot then it demonstrably is not an explanation.
Then explain it please, or have tth integrity to refer to it as a subjective belief, and not an explanation.
