hahaha3hahaha wrote:@ Chang. Yes, fair enough, as BBS said above there really is no test for comparison. This is an opinion of mine, I cannot give you empirical evidence that a mind created by God has a betetr grip on reality than a mind stemmed from non-life and non-rationality, a mind that's really, a cosmic accident.
The way I see it is this: if I want a plate of nachos, I'm gonna consult a chef about it, not get some matter and energy and hope that in 13 billion years the end product will be just as good.
@ BBS. Where did these aliens come from? You are over complicating a very, very, very simple premise (that Chang actually got his head around and conceded about 4 posts ago), so I can only assume you are just playing games. I will give it to you VERY plain and simply, once more.
Human life is not eternal, human life has a beginning. Evolution traces that beginning to billions of years ago, when life first began- starting with single-celled bacteria, then over a slow process advancing in species til we eventually end up with homo sapiens. Even if the first life form on earth was planted there as an experiment by aliens, as is your premise, the alien life was not eternal, it also had a beginning (unless you're suddenly telling me you are actually a theist?).
There are limits for striving toward truth. Some hypotheses are better than others in explaining things. Some are entirely useless (e.g. religious texts)--in this context. Sometimes, the soundness of hypotheses can not yet be determined. Instead of dealing with that, you'll take your leaps of faith. This is problematic because it doesn't generate new knowledge. It fails to push us toward truth, and instead promotes stagnation.
My position doesn't solely rest on the aliens because it is only an example of a possible explanation, so the remainder of your above response becomes irrelevant. Rearranging your position to then discuss First Life--beyond the humans--makes your Bible irrelevant (since it deals with humans; not First Life), so are you rejecting your Bible to hold your newly arranged position? That's troublesome. (My point here is to point out the limits of theology, i.e. knowledge derived from holy books; in short, it's oftentimes inapplicable in determining the soundness of various hypotheses. It can't even consistently adhere to the tools of science and philosophy--e.g. logic, without making itself irrelevant).
hahaha3hahaha wrote: So basically when we deduce all life back to it's starting point, it's beginning, if there is no God, then that life came from non-life, and it came from non-rationality. there is no amount of scientific jargon that you can cough up to dance around this. It's very simple.
I've already addressed this, so we're still waiting for you to develop something new. If you're having difficulty understanding the 'scientific jargon', then ask.
(A)
Even if we accept everything within your question, it doesn't resolve further implications. Again, if all humans have their minds deriving from God, then people's interpretations of the Bible and of 'god' would still differ. The absolutely true interpretation remains impossible. The absolutely true interpretation toward Reality remains (perhaps forever) ambiguous. You're back to concluding with agnosticism, deism (some superior being/creator/'god'--definition unknown--is out there), or agnostic atheism (deism? maybe. Theism?--i.e. particular Gods, no/highly unlikely given numerous reasons already mentioned).
---note: Theists cannot accept this if they sincerely believe that faith reveals truth---from each of their particularly, special books, of course.
(B)
(1) sounds like nonsense because all you can do is rely on circular reasoning whenever you appeal to your Bible to show that your position is 'true'--or at the very least should be considered. It shouldn't be considered because it's based on fallacious reasoning (circular reasoning). Therefore, it gets discarded. Ultimately, we're again back to deism, agnosticism, or atheist agnosticism.
---note: Theists can't get around this problem.
If you were a deist who talked about 'god'-derived brains, then I'd say, we don't know (and neither should the deist) because the soundness cannot be determined. The cause could've been alien happy meal garbage too. Who knows, but here we are with our brains, so let's move on to more practical matters in this world.
Since you're a theist, I'll simply point out the problems (and limits) of your position, but in order to become a deist you have to drop a strict definition of god (e.g .the judeo-christian definition); otherwise, you run into all the problems of theists. That's pretty much what you're still dealing with at the moment.
