Posted by Karma Police on July 25, 19101 at 01:18:24:

In Reply to: Pfft. posted by John Tchoe on July 24, 19101 at 11:51:24:

Hello John, I hope you don't mind my intrusion.

If you do just ignore me :-)

::What about when someone wins the lottery? Sure, the odds are incredible that any one set of numbers will come up, but does it have any meaning? Does it imply some sort of intent?
It's just plain luck.
Why can we accept that, but not accept that the world as we see it today came out of blind chance?

You've just implicitly stated that reason itself is based on plain luck. You've undermined, by giving it almost impossible odds of validity, the very basis on which you argue. If the motion of atoms in our brains determine what we think, then what basis do we have for accepting that our brains are composed of atoms? In so many words you've just admitted that what you've said has virtually impossible odds of being true. Your position can only be maintained by a grand (and I mean grrrrrand) leap of faith.

::It may be that there is something behind all that we see, but if so, there's nothing besides wanting to see it to back it up.

My apologies, but I don't understand your point (that's what I get for jumping in on a conversation). Could you clarify this for me?

::I for one do not suppose that my wishes have any direct effect on the nature of the universe, so when I think about such things as human consciousness and the origins of the universe, keep my wishes out of it.

How can you? Our knowledge, according to you, is based on the way the cue ball hits the atom balls of our brains. Do you admit some sort of freedom in your theory of determinism? A slippery slope for you I would think. Or will you admit that your conclusion was determined by the way your particular atoms moved and my conclusion, though incompatible with and contrary to yours, is equally valid?

::As for your insect example, correct me if I'm wrong, but now we're talking about creationism, aren't we?

I'm not sure whether or not Noctillucent intended to imply that, but the way I see it is the only basis for trusting reason itself is to admit it comes from an Ultimate Reason. That Ultimate Reason must obviously be more like a person than a thing, therefore God (ultimate Reason) is personal.

::How do you know that they aren't spelling out a bunch of things in other languages which haven't been invented yet?

Does it make whether or not it means anything in another language? The point is, can you accept the message (in whatever language) from blind chance as true? Only if you appeal to impossible odds and take the leap.

::Besides, our brains are hard wired to seek faces in our visual perception. They've proven it with experiements where babies are drawn to shapes which resemble human faces than to otherwise similar shapes. Don't you think it's reasonable to suppose that whatever spiritual God you think is out there is just this, taken to a higher level?

Before you ask what is reasonable, can you maintain the validity of reason itself? Or will you leave us with a sickening (and by sickening I mean literally head spinning...causing nausea) brand of skepticism which can't even tell us what it just told us?

Jesse

Follow Ups:

• Here goes... John Tchoe 15:34:47 7/25/101 (1)
  • Re: Here goes... Karma Police 11:49:06 7/29/101 (0)

Post a Followup