Why Must There Be a God?

[_SteelHead]

The only one attributing it to a force beyond the laws of nature, is you.

[_spotlight]

But, per your example, computers do not make choices, they follow a prescribed program from which they cannot deviate.

The only point I was making is that a fork in the road is possible without a need for the supernatural. A program can be written to take an action in the temperature is above a certain setpoint, turn on an air conditioner. That is an example of an action determined by external inputs that are not a part of the program.

A computer cannot be presented with the input "2+2"and provide a response of "7" when the program states "4".

So? You cannot chose to stay awake for much more than a day. You certainly can't choose to stay awake for a week or a month. Your program doesn't allow for that output.

And yes, choice as described up thread does require the supernatural, because currently there is no natural explanation.

The supernatural is not the default position. You have to establish that position with positive evidence and proof. Like say for instance demonstrate that inside a working brain the laws of chemistry are being violated as the brain progresses from one state to the next.

Nope, still no problem when considering God, who by definition transcends nature....is supernatural

Again, besides not being the default position, you fail to define this in any meaningful way so as to address the issue raised. You throw out the equivalent of magic must be the answer and think you have it solved.

Then I suppose you should prove that the mind exists if you want to explore that. This discussion was about choice.

Which has a hard time existing without a mind.

That is a rather scientific trapping, the inability to stop filtering off is a limitation of that paradigm not the supernatural one.

Again with the undefined word. Simply throwing it out there doesn't do it. You have to define it and describe specifically how it solves the problem.

Not really. My argument is that the supernatural is possible and thus God is possible.

How is it possible? I missed that part. Where did you define what it even means? Where is your positive evidence?

You seem to be going down a rabbit hole on your own.

Me? Hardly. Neuroscientists? Perhaps.

[_Gray Ghost]

Don't say sunsets, and know that I am not an atheist. I just don't find your Superman God impressive.

It depends entirely on how you define God. If you're a pantheist, there is no question that God exists.

[_SteelHead]

In using a back propagating, re enforcing artificial neural network to perform a task, a certain degree of randomness is used during the training phase. For such an system 2+2 = 4 is learned through re enforcement, and until sufficiently trained 2+2 will produce varying results. Sub, your algorithm example is overly simplistic.

http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~peleg/papers/ ... hmetic.pdf

[_Amore]

It depends entirely on how you define God. If you're a pantheist, there is no question that God exists.

That is the question that is so often ignored - how is God defined?
It's actually quite comical how so many people - Atheist and Theist jump to such conclusions before clearly defining what they're so passionately discussing.
And most people subscribing to herd mentalities will not be able to answer you because they refer to their herd - which is usually illogically based on group thought that they never really questioned.
If you asked someone who thought and really considered their own personal definition of God - how they have experienced any intuitive/spiritual experiences - if honest, they will admit it is always an internal process.
Therefore, God can only be defined in subjective terms - each person according to their unique experiences.
"The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you."

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Don't say sunsets, and know that I am not an atheist. I just don't find your Superman God impressive.

It depends entirely on how you define God. If you're a pantheist, there is no question that God exists.

What do you mean?

Please expound, your statement makes no sense to me.

Pantheists don't necessarily believe in a deity that deserves a capitol G god title.

[_SteelHead]

How one defines god.......

ZARNIWOOP: But don't you see that people live or die on your word?

MAN: It's nothing to do with me, I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.

ZARNIWOOP: Ah! You say . . . the Lord! You believe in . . .

MAN: My cat. I call him the Lord. I am kind to him.

ZARNIWOOP: All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?

MAN: I don't. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. What else do you do? Please I am tired.

[_spotlight]

Neuroscience shows us that our unconscious precedes our conscious. Thoughts take time.

https://vimeo.com/60022479

More here.
https://adamsopticks.wordpress.com/2013 ... nders-uwe/

Translating the lesson of the rock ants back into neuronal activity, we might speculate that when faced with two possibilities – should I cross the road, or hold back? – two camps of neurones will fire (one for each possibility). The sources of neural excitement feeding into either one of these camps will be things like sense data (the sights and sounds of the road), estimates about my ability to cover the requisite distance in the time available to me, tacit memories of prior crossings (perhaps I was almost hit by a car last time and will proceed with above average levels of caution), and a sense of the time pressures facing me (perhaps I am late for work, and will throw caution to the wind). At some point, the largest or most excitable of the two camps will win out – with the threshold for victory determined by the level of urgency – and a decision will be made, resulting in action.

Notice, here, that I do not wish to exclude the effects of a person’s surroundings, or their past, or their imagined futures from the process of decision-making. I reject the notion that neuroscience attributes to the brain ‘some kind of independent causal role’. To be truly ‘independent’ of one’s surroundings in space and time runs counter to the very notion of causality itself! Causes must themselves always be the effect of something else. I would submit that the brain is an important set of gears in a larger deterministic machine (i.e. the universe) – it is no magical ‘source’ of decisions.

[_Franktalk]

spotlight,

The gears in my mind spun around and you won the jackpot. Just kidding. I don't believe in a deterministic mind. Just like the universe there is way more in the mind than can be seen.

Now please explain how a deterministic mind comes up with new ideas? Is there a random idea generator in the brain?

[_spotlight]

spotlight,
I don't believe in a deterministic mind. Just like the universe there is way more in the mind than can be seen.
Now please explain how a deterministic mind comes up with new ideas? Is there a random idea generator in the brain?

The mind consists at least in part of a neural net. This is what is trained when we learn something new. Like riding a bicycle or driving a car. Once we finish the process the neurons are largely trained and we handle these motor skills subconsciously just fine. That is why we see some people texting while driving etc. Now if your neural net was not deterministic you might end up turning left when you ought to turn right. Would that be good? Nope. So determinism is a necessary characteristic of nature in order to simply be able to learn enough to survive in the first place. It allows predictability.

The mind evolved. It makes models of our surroundings and of ourself within those surroundings. It tests itself against the outcomes and gains experiences over time. New ideas are part and parcel of that capacity to model the world.

If you are serious about the subject matter and not just trolling I would recommend the book "Self Comes to Mind" by Antonio Damasio. It's fairly inexpensive.