The problem knowledge poses to atheism

[MrFungus420]

Humans have nothing BUT free will until you demonstrate otherwise.

Free will and atheism are not compatible.

No. Belief in a god and atheism are not compatible.

Free will, as an emergent property of the brain, poses no more problem for atheism than does anything else that is unrelated to belief in a god.

If you believe there is an immaterial force which can choose to move our bodies in a certain way, then it's very easy to believe that we humans are not the only ones with this power.

Ok...what's the problem? I see a dog choose to lie down on a blanket rather than on a couch. The dog used the exact same immaterial force to make its body move.

God also has the power to choose to move bodies in a certain way, though on a much larger scale.

Where is God's brain that has the emergent property that we call "free will"? Where is God's body that is able to be moved by this free-will?

Because now you have gone beyond brain>>>neurons>>>muscles to a super-powerful, immaterial being that can do things magically.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is a semantic dispute which I generally avoid. If their movement is not random, and it is not coordinated then it is due to a predictable law.

128773478691263236.jpg

[Clinton Huxley]

If we ask both Excel and a human being to write the words: "To whom much is given, much is expected," the human, provided he is in sound mind, will ALWAYS outperform Excel

Microsoft Office therefore God?

Have I fallen into a parallel universe?

[Bella Fortuna]

If we ask both Excel and a human being to write the words: "To whom much is given, much is expected," the human, provided he is in sound mind, will ALWAYS outperform Excel

Microsoft Office therefore God?

Have I fallen into a parallel universe?

Clearly the product is mis-named, then. Therefore, god.

[Coito ergo sum]

Things operating without a mind need not be "random."

This is a semantic dispute which I generally avoid. If their movement is not random, and it is not coordinated then it is due to a predictable law.

It's not a semantic dispute. Random does not mean "by nature - without conscious direction."

The universe is governed by predictable laws.

The planets aren't behaving randomly. I was pointing out your conflation of something being "undirected" with "random." It doesn't matter if the planets don't achieve a result, they are not behaving randomly.

Ok, I admit that the planets are not moving at random

Good. That's important. If you accept that they are moving, but not at random, then you can accept that the planets can come to as they are and where they are without the need of a conscious mind or an entity directing their movements.

Also - there has been a result achieved - the formation of the solar system as it is today.

Whether the eight planets revolving around the sun is a result is another semantic dispute.

Your \whole OP was an exercise in "semantic dispute."

What's not a semantic dispute is that the planets are as they are now, and they were different in the past. They came to be as they are undirected, but not at random.

In any case, maybe the 8 planets revolving around the sun is a result but is certainly a much different result when an enzyme catalizes a reaction and makes that chemical reaction happen 10,000 times more quicker. Eight objects forming eight ellipses isn't much of result. I can't right now define the difference between the enzyme result and the planets result but I'll define it eventually.

The eight planets are not all there is in the solar system, and they are far more complex than mere eight objects forming ellipses. But, the complexity of the process is largely unimportant. The reality is that the solar system is as it is now, and it was different in the past, and it came to be as it is now nonrandomly, but without direction.

Energy is not just the "degree to which particles move." Energy and matter are interchangeable - E=MC2. Matter can be transformed into energy and energy into matter. There is thermal energy, electromagnetic energy - different kinds of energy. It's not a mere property of matter. Properties of matter are that matter takes up space and has mass, and its physical properties like density, chemistry, and shape/size, etc. Energy is not a "property of matter."

Maybe energy is not a property, but I stand by the wiki definition that energy is the ability to do work, essentially the movement of particles. If there is no movement of particles there is no energy.

Potential Energy.
Gravitational energy.

Whether energy is a third substance does not have much to do with monism or dualism. What we're arguing is do you need intention, power and knowledge in order to achieve coordination.

I believe that whatever you are describing as the mind - that sense of being "us" inside of a body - the idea of being separate from our bodies and inhabiting our bodies - is a construct of the brain. It's not a "thing" or "energy field" that exists separate and distinct from the brain - it is a construct of the brain. Yes, I can get by with the word brain. However, you've been talking about something called a "mind." And, when you describe what it is you are defining as "mind", I don't disagree that there is a perception of that - what I am stating is that there isn't any reason to suppose it isn't just a construct of the brain (and there are many reasons to suppose that it is, in fact, a construct of the brain).

You need to define construct.

"construct" (noun): something constructed (i.e. built, formed, devised).

I think what you mean is something invented by the brain to make sense of reality,

I expressed nothing of its purpose. I only said it was constructed by the brain. It's part of the functioning of the brain, and does not exist without the brain.

sort of like inventing the story about Phoebus riding the Apollo's sun chariot and creating the Milky Way, but I want to be sure.

It's nothing about inventing a story. I have been very clear here. What you are describing as "the mind" is merely the functioning of your brain. Stop your brain from functioning, and the mind is gone.

I suppose you are only talking about a human mind.

Is there a mind somewhere that you are aware of that is not affiliated with a brain? If so, what, where, when?

God.[/quote]

Evidence? What makes you think there is such a thing?

Who do you know this god thing does not itself have a brain? Is it something you are taking as axiomatic?

But, see, this demonstrates what you're really doing by setting up this monism/dualism dichotomy - you're trying to set it up so that one choice between the two necessarily requires there to be a god. However, neither choice necessarily requires there to be a god.

When you phrase a question "if there were no evidence that the human mind could effect reality without a body...." You PRESUME the existence of a human mind as a separate thing from the human brain. So, I'll ask again - is there any evidence of a mind existing without a body, or after a body dies? The answer is, of course, no there isn't. There is no evidence of a mind existing without a body, or after a body dies.

If you're interested in researching it, Kubler Ross, she's the one who wrote the book on death and dying, wrote a book on life after death. I haven't read it but if you consider yourself open to new ideas you might want to look into it.

You are recommending me to find evidence of a mind existing without a body, or after the body dies, by reading a book that you haven't read. How do you know it is worth reading?

I wasn't going to bother bringing this up because I know it won't convince you but I have seen a lot of evidence that my brother who died in 1992 continues to manipulate reality.

I'm on the edge of my seat.

My dad made a best friend for 10 years with a man named Michael (that was my brother's name) three months after my brother died and the guy was about 16 years younger than my dad, my dad rarely befriended young people. My best friend of four years is named Michelle. When I did couchsurfing in Jordan I hosted about 50 people and the only two that I'm still in touch with are named Michael. I also might be getting into a relationship with a woman named Maika.

None of that sounds particularly amazing or out of the ordinary. I went out with several girls named Michelle - more Michelles than any other name. There are a lot of Michaels out there and a lot of Michelles. I bet many of those following this thread also have good friends named Michael and Michelle.

And, even if it was in any way something to be surprised or alarmed by, why would you suppose or conclude that it was your brother at work? Why would he care what name your friends use? Why would he care if you entered a relationship with a woman named Maika? If I were dead and could manipulate reality, I wouldn't steer people of a particular name to my family members - I'd steer people who would be good to them and who would help them and make them happy, irrespective of their name.

These kind of stories happen all the time.

That's because there is nothing really strange about them, or unordinary. Sometimes I've walked into a room of 20 people and there have been 3 or 4 with birthdays within a few days of the same day. I've met three people in a row at a party with the same name as me. Recently, I was playing a roulette wheel game of chance at a charitable event. I kept winning things all in a row, and I leaned over and told my girlfriend, "this is our lucky night - we're going to win the grand prize!" Lo and beyond - despite leaving early, I got a call the next day from the hosts of the event that we had indeed won the grand prize.

You know what? It happens. My dead grandfather didn't cause the ticket to be drawn for us.

I didn't bother to bring it up at first because the evidence is very subjective but since you insisted I'm telling you.

If you consider that evidence, then I don't know what to say.

You consider it as evidence that there is a mind existing separately from the brain, and/or after the brain dies, that after your brother Michael died 10 years ago, you had a best friend Michelle, your dad had a best friend Michael who was 16 years younger, and you might be getting involved with a girl named Maika. You see that as "evidence" that tends to show that your brother Michael is manipulating reality.

This may be another important, key difference. That, to me, is easily explainable as coincidence. Such things do happen all the time, as you said. Many people report many different coincidences relative to who they meet and interact with. Birthdays - names - etc.

Have you thought about what the odds actually are that you and your father would have friends named Michael, Michelle and Maika? Are those odds really any different than me being friends with people with a Michael, Michelle and Macy? I am. Is it your brother's handiwork?

If you're interested in finding out more just do a google search life after death.

I've done that, and more.

But again the point we were arguing about is that just because a human mind cannot manipulate a human brain if the brain is damaged and beyond repair does not mean the mind cannot exist.

You haven't established that a thing called a "mind" exists outside of the brain.

Let's take this analogy. Let's say you're a piano player and can play no other instrument whatsoever and moreover your body is a piano. If you're piano breaks and you can't get another one because all the other pianos are occupied by other players, then you can't influence reality.

Or, what you call "the mind" comes into being along with the brain because it is part of the brain - part of the brain's functioning. If you obliterate the brain, then the state of affairs is much the same as it was before the brain existed. There is no mind.

There is no evidence of individual human minds existing before an individual's brain comes to be, and there is no evidence one existing after the mind is gone (all due respect to you and your dad coincidentally having friends with the name Michael or reminiscent of the name Michael.

Moreover, a human body can "coordinate" without a mind. No mind causes the embryo to develop into the fetus inside the mother. It happens according to known biological laws and processes, physical laws and processes and chemical laws and processes. It is undirected, but not random. No "mind" is needed. The undirected and nonrandom processes proceed and a human being eventually comes into being. The brain of that human being develops and begins to think. What that being perceives as its "mind" is produced by its brain. Smash the brain, and the mind is gone.

Ok, explain how Beethoven writes his 9th symphony, all the while obeying physical laws.

Who in the world thinks he violated physical laws by writing his 9th symphony?

But, o.k., let me take a crack at it - his brain thought thoughts (all without violating any physical laws) by means of his neurons gathering and transmitting electromagnetic signals. Neurons do not violate physical laws by doing this, and it is very well understood how neurons work and what their structure is. The various structures of the brain - frontal lobe, parietal lobe, cerebral cortex, etc. operate to create thoughts - when Beethoven moves his fingers, signals are sent electromagnetically to the muscles which move the body - the energy needed to do this is provided by food. No energy is created or destroyed, and things that are not in motion are set in motion by application of force.

How does any of the brain's function violate any physical law?

The brain has the knowledge and power to perform its functions.

Define knowledge and power in completely monist terms.

Knowledge: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:" or "the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension."

Power: "ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."

It develops over time from a sperm and an egg, which meet inside the mother, and attaches to the wall of the uterus. The chemical, biological, and physical processes naturally follow, non-random yet undirected, according to the laws of nature and the cells divide and redivide, through the various stages, blastocyst, embryo to fetus. The brain develops from its early stages to its later stages, and begins to function in accord with the laws of nature.

What law of nature could force Michelangelo to sculpt the statue of David?

Who said anything about compelling him to do anything?

Most physical laws are rather simple. I can't imagine what a law would look like that would force Michelangelo to sculpt such a statue.

He wasn't forced. I can't imagine why the fact that Michaelangelo formed in his mother's womb according to natural laws means he had to be "forced" to sculpt a statue.

It has certain built in processes and abilities (keep the organs functioning - control breathing and heart rate - and many others)

Yes, it does, but other functions such as speaking language are much more complicated.

Not necessarily more complicated. The brain handles many complex actions automatically.

and it has certain abilities - e.g. receive input from the sensory organs - and it processes that information.

Explain processing information in purely monist terms. Define information.

Information: "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact, thing or circumstance."
Process: to treat or handle something in a particular way, often systematically or by a particular series of actions or operations."

The brain processes (treats or handles in a particular way) the information (knowledge received concerning things), which allows the brain to make decisions. Some decisions are reflexive, and others not. The brain may detect, for example, a rock being thrown at the head of the body, it processes that information and is then able to make a decision and send a signal to the body to move quickly. The fast twitch muscles are activated and hopefully the rock is avoided. No violations of natural laws occur in the process.

I define information as: a description of the properties of objects

Doesn't change or impact my point.

Gravity is not located in the object, it is a property of the object.

No, it is not a "property" of the object. Gravity is a force created by the object bending space-time.

That object's ability to bend space-time is its property.

A metal's ability to conduct electricity is its property.

Gravity is a force, not a property of matter. But, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.

It doesn't "know" - the neurons fire in accordance with the properties of the brain. The problem with using words like "know" in these circumstances is that you tend to start thinking of these things as conscious actors. They aren't. A neuron doesn't "know" when to fire. It fires because of how it is built - energy is transmitted and passes through the neurons as they are made to do. ...[later you said:] I think Einstein's brain developed the way it is because of what his DNA coded, but I do not think that DNA preordains particular thoughts. Einstein could easily have chosen to be a lazy lay-about and stayed int he patent office, rubber stamping inventions.

What you're saying is the neurons are coordinated because other material is coordinated, the DNA I suppose.

I didn't say that at all.

To build the neurons such that they coordinate you need to coordinate the building. So how does that building get coordinated?

The neurons are built according to our genetic code.

DNA is located in the nucleus of our cells and is made up of smaller molecules called nucleic acids. These smaller molecules in DNA are arranged in a sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. The sequence of these nucleic acids tells the cells of our body how, where, and when to build our nose, eyes, hands, feet, brain and everything else. Cells multiply according to DNA, by taking energy from food to build new cells. When food is digested and broken down to its basic amino acids, the various amino acids are then rearranged in a certain sequence to form cells that make up the various tissues and organs. What sequence these amino acids come together in is determined by the sequence of the molecules in DNA. Thus, when you feed your dog a steak, your dog's DNA operates to digest and rearrange the steak to form the various parts of your dog, but when you eat the same steak, your DNA digests and rearranges the steak to form human parts.

DNA carries the information for making all of a cell's proteins. These proteins implement all of the functions of a living organism and determine the organism' s characteristics. When the cell reproduces, it has passes all of this information on to the daughter cells. DNA carr ies all of the information for your physical characteristics, which are essentially determined by proteins. So, DNA contains the instructions for making a protein. In DNA, each protein is encoded by a gene (a specific sequence of DNA nucleotides that specify how a single protein is to be made). Specifically, the order of nucleotides within a gene specifies the order and types of amino acids that must be put together to make a protein.

We start with one cell before and after division (during embryonic development): The two halves of the cell before division were chemically different so that as they divided (though identical in their genes) different genes were turned on or off due to the chemical dissimilarity between the two sides (through methylation or demethylation of genes). The expression of genes then initiates the process of "transcription" and "translation" to produce proteins. Given that the gene expression in the two cells are different, the protein products of the two cells will also be different which explains the differences between different cell types , both in their function and their phenotype. As such , every single cell in the human body is derived from a single fertilised egg. Cells come to differ in different parts of the body , even though they are genetically identical , because of their history of asymmetric cell division during the short course of embryonic development. Some of the cells become brain cells, in accordance with natural biological processes within the body and DNA.

Why does monism require Beethoven to be "forced" to do anything?

You said: "The mind receives input, and can initiate actions based on that input." Writing a symphony is an action. So how would you program a brain to produce an output like a symphony?

It doesn't have to be pre-programmed. The brain is an organ which can think and imagine.

All I'm arguing here is that the mind is a construct of the brain. Isn't it? Or, are you seriously suggesting that there are minds floating around somewhere, that eventually show up and inhabit brains. That is what you are arguing after all. You're saying the brain and the mind are separate things. Well, if they are separate things than they exist separately, and a mind could hang around if the brain were incinerated. That appears to be what you think.

The mind can only manipulate reality if it has a working body that it has knowledge of, maybe.

Evidence that the mind is something other than the brain?

I only know that 100 billion neurons cannot self-coordinate and that 2000 amino acids cannot self-coordinate into a protein.

How do you know that? And, on what basis do you make that assertion. We know that the body forms inside the womb according to natural processes and known laws. There is no point in human development that involves a violation of physical laws. There is no point in the process from insemination to birth that requires some outside force to do anything. It looks as if, plainly, humans do form naturally.

Whether or not a mind, after the body is incinerated can go on to do other things is too speculative.

That's true. Your whole idea that there is a mind that isn't part of the brain functioning is purely speculative.

It's like an invisible hand and a glove. If there is no glove then nothing happens. If there is no hand then the glove does not move.

I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

The brain forms naturally during fetal development, like every other part of the body, fully in accord with natural laws and processes.

what we perceive as the mind is a construct of the brain and does not exist apart from the brain. What is that evidence? The fact that we can destroy the mind or change it by doing things to the different structures of the brain, and there is no evidence that the mind exists unaffected thereby.

You need to define mind. You seem to have a different definition from mine.

I'm using your definition. I'm simply stating that whatever the mind is, it is constructed by the brain - it is part of the brains functioning - and has no existence outside of the brain.

What is the human mind? You mean the brain? Or, is it something else floating around separate and apart from the brain, or temporarily inhabiting the brain? Of course it isn't! Again - what you perceive as the mind is a construct of your brain. The "mind" knows nothing. The brain does.

I look forward to your definition of knowledge.

Already gave it to you.

As for mind I defined them already here. I looked over my definition of body and I decided to add a sentence.

definition of mind: an immaterial force that can compel a number of bodies to move in a certain direction

Can this force be measured?

The dualist position, which is the one I support, is that there exists a mind that can compel a limited number of bodies to obey its will.

You keep referring to THE "dualist position." There is no one dualist position, and most dualists would not agree with your definition of "mind."

The three basic properties of mind are: knowledge, will and power.

Says you. That's just something you've invented. You haven't yet established that a "mind" exists as you've defined it.

The mind first wills a result, then it uses its knowledge to determine what bodies must be moved, then it uses its power over a limited number of bodies to move them to the location it wills. All results in the physical world are due to a correct sequencing of the proper bodies. The mind is that force that seqeunces the material. This is all that is required for coordination to arise.

Again - you need to establish that this "mind" exists. Based on the evidence, many things move and happen mindlessly, and coordinate without direction, according to natural processes.

Definition of a body: an enclosed unit of material that has a finite set of properties

Bodies are routinely combined and often when two bodies merge, they acquire properties that they did not have otherwise. When a body acquires a new property, it ceases to be the old body and becomes a new body. When two hydrogen combine with one oxygen, the body suddenly acquires a whole new property. Three Billion base DNA pairs alone have few remarkable properties, but if sequenced correctly they can initiate a chain reaction that will result in a human.

Addition: a body has no knowledge, no will and no power. When bodies move they do so either due to a mind or due to an obedience of a physical law.

You think that when a "mind" directs something to move - like when a human decides to throw a baseball - physical laws are not obeyed?

And, I suppose you have some evidence that there is a mind out there separate and distinct from the brain? I've asked you for that. You've not been willing to describe that evidence because you said it was incidental. Here it is again - central to the argument.

I already outlined in my paper four major proofs for the existence of mind.

There was no proof.

If you would quote from those proofs and show me where I have erred I would be happy to consider your ideas.

You previously refused to answer the question, stating it was "incidental." Now you're stating you clearly demonstrated that proof in the OP. You're dodging.

The brain forms the way it does according to DNA code,

There are 100 billion neurons and only 3.2 billion base DNA pairs, much of it junk DNA, or, just in case someone finds a use for it one day, 50% of DNA is the same sequence over and over again. Moreover, do you really believe the code for Tolstoy to write War and Peace is in the DNA? How would Natural Selection know what War and Peace is?

Natural selection doesn't "know" anything at all. It's no different than gravity in that regard. Gravity doesn't "know" how to make planets orbit the sun and apples to fall to the Earth. It's a physical law - a law of physics. Natural selection is no more than that - it's just a law of nature that operates when there are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms. That's it. Natural selection (more of one trait breeding than another) operates to cause the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms to change.
Natural Selection doesn't "know" anything. The brain evolved, and it's not "natural selection" that writes War and Peace, it was Tolstoy.

But all actions must be the result of properties of the brain. How do you write a law/property along the lines of
if stimuli x
then write 1300 page book?

This idea that the brain must work as "if stimuli x, then write a 1300 page book?" There didn't need to be a "stimuli." It's not a reflex response. Some processes of the brain are reflexive, others are not.

First you have to define every input, an impossible task, then you have to program each input for one output. Every word written is one output, how would you program a brain to write a book?

The brain isn't "programmed" like a computer. It does have the ability to think, and the thoughts can be written down on a page.

But clearly, when an atom within the human body is set in motion, it is because a force has acted upon it. The brain instructs the muscles to move by transmitting electromagnetic energy to the muscles. That electromagnetic energy is the "force" which acts on the muscles to cause them to move. Of course it is in accord with Newton's law that an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

If you're a consistent monist you have to believe that the brain does not instruct, rather the brain receives a stimuli (an input), which causes the brain to perform an output. I'm a dualist, so I believe the idea starts in the person's mind and they then cause the proper neurons to fire so that the desired result is achieved.

I don't have to believe that. Monists do not suggest that humans are automatons. Monists do not have to believe that all human action is a reflexive response to stimuli. Clearly, a person may see something being flung at it and duck, or a person may choose not to duck, even if the thing will hurt.

I do not subscribe to your "automaton" version. If that makes me not a proper "monist' then so be it. My point is that the brain is what creates what you perceive as the mind, that this mind is a function of the brain, and that what you perceive as a mind dies with the brain.

That definition is also valid. I'm not saying that my definition is the only definition. I'm just focusing on how dualism and monism differ in their conceptions of what life is.

I don't think that your concept of "dualism" makes any sense. You'd need to establish that a mind exists outside of a brain.

I'm arguing that the mind has limited resources. Resources are those bodies the mind has control of. Why do you insist that the mind must have resources other than the brain?[/quote]

I don't insist that the mind have any resources. The mind isn't a different thing from the brain - it's just part of the brain's functioning.

Natural Selection has to select for 20,000 proteins in the human body, how can it possible have time to also encode Einstein's ideas.

Nobody ever said it "encoded Einsteins ideas." All the ideas don't need to be in the DNA code.

Ideas are outputs. If the brain is an input/output machine [/quote]

It's not.

which a consistent monist believes,

Doesn't. Monism: "The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system." Or, "The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being."

Nothing requires that a monist consider the brain something that it isn't - the brain isn't merely an input output machine like some UNIVAC card-reading computer in the 50s.

you have to program every output.

You don't.

An input/output machine cannot perform an output for which it has not been programmed.

The brain isn't a mere input/output machine, and yet your idea of this "mind" as something separate from the brain is still unsupported by any evidence (your brother making sure you have a girlfriend named Michelle or Maika, notwithstanding)

I think you have a limited notion of what monism and dualism is. You're using the terms in relation to brains and minds. Your argument is about - is the brain all there is, or is the mind a separate and distinct entity from the brain. Monism actually is any philosophy that tries to explain everything by resort to one governing principle, or the manifestation of a single substance.

I described the specific idea I was attacking in my paper. It's more the computational theory of the brain but in order to believe in the computational theory of the brain you have to be a monist. There are other monists but I believe they invent terms that don't exist.

It's a "computational theory" without any computations?

Speaking of inventing terms that don't exist - see the OP.

Hegel considered the spirit as one reality, and he was a monist, and Spinoza the pantheist said we are all attributes of the one substance, the deity. Ernst Haekel took one substance, "energy" and said that was the one reality. Monistic philosophies are juxtaposed against "pluralistic" - not just "dualism" -- philosophies.

I'm aware of other third ways but I believe they are logically inconsistent. They invent concepts that do not exist. Monism, or the computational theory of the brain, is the only one that does not resort to the invention of things that are not there and is the only one that is really rigorous. Also I did not choose the name Spinoza because I like him or agree with him. I just chose a philosopher that was not annoying or not a cliche like Socrates, Plato or Kant.

A monistic philosophy, however, does not require that humans be automatons, as you suggest. Our thoughts need not be predetermined. You seem to be mixing up obedience with the laws of physics and being predetermined. Those aren't the same things at all.

You could say that actions are like rolls of dice, not predictable but also not intended. When a dice returns a six that is not the result of an intention. Monism however in my humble opinion requires there to be no knowledge, will or power, only a simulation thereof.

I think you've just invented that.

The Andromeda galaxy is chock-full of movement, and none of it because anybody is willing it, or anyone knows about it - it's moving according to gravitational laws, and the laws of physics. But, look at it! It's not random at all!

This is similar to the argument that design can arise randomly, just look at crystals.

Crystals aren't random.

Crystals and the Andromeda Galaxy are just obeying a natural law.

What do you mean, just? They aren't behaving randomly.

They do not exhibit specified complexity,

So - they aren't random, and they have organized structure. Whatever you mean by "specified complexity" doesn't matter.

which is not my term and I don't really like it.

Because it is meaningless. It's a way of saying that the Andromeda Galaxy and crystals aren't complex enough to be taken into consideration as organized structure that comes about naturally, nonrandomly, and undirected.

For something to be designed it requires the selection of several correct choices either from an infinite list or a very large list.

Lists need not be involved. Something can be designed without resort to choosing from any list.

So the sentence: do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is designed because it requires the selection of 10 words among a list of about 30K such that they follow the rules of English grammar.

So what?

Andromeda Galaxy and crystals weren't "designed." They came to be, but they aren't designed.

Why not just get right to it: What god do you believe in and what is it like? And, what evidence do you have that it exists?

I only believe that God designed the universe, everything else is too speculative.

That "God" designed the universe is also speculative.

Here is my reasoning:
if the human mind can have power over bodies then it is reasonable that there is a mind (God) with limited power over bodies in the universe

How does the latter follow from the former? It seems equally plausible that if the human brain can have power over bodies, there is no God with limited power over bodies in the universe.

As for evidence I outlined others in my paper such as calculating the odds of life.

There is no way of knowing what the odds are with any degree of specificity. And, even if the odds are long, it's not surprising that life would arise given the number of rolls of the dice (planets) available in the universe. It's surprising to John Smith that he would win the MegaPower Lottery, but it is not surprising the anyone that SOMEONE wins the lottery.

where do decisions come from in the monist world?

The brain. Why do they have to come from anywhere else? our brain allows us to choose what to do. It is not supernatural for the brain to think and decide what to do. We never violate the laws of physics -- ever - when we act.

But you've said that actions are the results of properties/laws of the brain. A decision is not a decision if it is an inevitable obedience to a law. [/quote]

The brains thoughts aren't "inevitable." The brain has the capacity to think different things, it's not an automaton.

Newtons' first law is never violated by humans. So, if you are of the impression that our choices to move are somehow violations of the principle that objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by a force -- let me clear this up for you - they aren't.
Yes - you need to move a body that is at rest - but the body moved (a part of the human body) is moved because it is acted upon by force - and that force is supplied by the energy the body takes in through digestion and chemical burning of fuel in the alimentary canal - that fuel is transported to the brain, which operates the brain, and electromagnetic impulses are sent from the brain which signal the muscles to move and energy is supplied by blood vessels in the body.
You think that when our brains tell our muscles to move, there is a violation of the first law - I have to stress this -- there is no violation. The body supplies the energy (which it gets from food) to create the force needed to move the muscles within the body. That energy is transferred to a rock we want to throw, and the rock is hurled. We do not violate the first law, second law or third law.

Take a look at the words in bold. The neurons have to be coordinated.

So?

You can't program 100 billion neurons to coordinate.

100 billion don't have to. The brain doesn't work because there is a program telling 100 billion neurons what to do all the time.

The mind has to know which neurons to fire.

The brain is made up of neurons which fire as they are built to fire.

The correct neurons fire not because some other body acts on them but because the mind commands them to fire. The mind commands them not because it is obeying Newton's First Law, but because the mind wants to. The hand is at rest and it should stay at rest until another BODY acts on it. But what acts on the hand is not another body but a mind. The neurons become coordinated not because of an obedience to physical laws but because of the mind.

You're conflating physical laws with "commands" to do something. The brain can decide to do something and still be in accord with all physical laws.

Your statement "the hand is at rest and it should stay at rest until another BODY acts on it" is dead wrong. The hand is at rest and should stay at rest until another FORCE acts on it." The force is supplied by the muscles, which are directed by the brain to to move when the brain makes a decision. The laws of physics are not commands requiring obeisance - you will do x because it is required by the first of Newton's laws - the first law is just a principle that applies to matter. Matter that is at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by a force. That doesn't say anything at all about what we must think or feel in our brains.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Excuse me, sir, but do you know how fast you were scrolling just then?"

[Coito ergo sum]

Gawdzilla,
If you can think of a 3rd way, I would be happy to hear it.

Simply a combination of both.

Gawdzilla if you believe that some human actions are not a blind obedience to physical laws, then you admit that an immaterial thing such as will exists. You're not a hard-core atheist. Once you admit that will exists and you admit that an immaterial force has hegemony over material then you've virtually accepted theism.

Wow. Are you really that ignorant?

An atheist is someone who does not have belief in a god. Will has nothing to do with it.

And, atheists don't deny that immaterial things exist. Thoughts are immaterial, for example, yet thought exist. Emotions are immaterial, yet they exist. The "will" is just human thoughts and emotions - desire - want - intention. These things exist, but they are created by the brain through its electrochemical processes.

Nobody said anything about "hegemony" over matter. Our brains control our bodies because our bodies are hooked up to our brains via a nervous system. This allows our brains to send signals to muscles causing them to move. No violation of physical laws occurs because energy is supplied by the distribution of food and oxygen throughout the body by the veins and arteries. If we do all the math, the energy in equals the energy out, and the laws of motion are completely adhered to.

What spinoza99 is saying is that a miracle is required for human brains to function. He's wrong.

[spinoza99]

I'm going to drop the side issues and focus on the central theses. If I have not answered a side issue it's not because I can't it's because I don't think it's a valid use of my time. I've learned it's a waste of time to try to force someone to understand, I'm only interested in finding mistakes in my own understanding.

It's nothing about inventing a story. I have been very clear here. What you are describing as "the mind" is merely the functioning of your brain. Stop your brain from functioning, and the mind is gone.

In your day to day life, do you use the word mind? I haven't read Stephen Pinker's work on how the mind works but when I get more time I will because I'm pretty sure he believes in the computational theory of mind. If you believe the brain is an input/output device then you should just get rid of the word mind, it has no use. The brain is all you need. If you need a word to describe brain functioning just say brain processes or brain functions, don't use the word mind, because most people, though not all, think of the mind as immaterial.

Who do you know this god thing does not itself have a brain?

Because then we would be stuck with the question how is God's brain coordinated. Material is not coordinated because other material is coordinated.

But, see, this demonstrates what you're really doing by setting up this monism/dualism dichotomy - you're trying to set it up so that one choice between the two necessarily requires there to be a god. However, neither choice necessarily requires there to be a god.

Either: coordination is intended
Or: coordination is not intended

Either: Intention is embodied
Or: Intention is not embodied

If you can think of a third way, I would be happy to consider it.

You consider it as evidence that there is a mind existing separately from the brain, and/or after the brain dies, that after your brother Michael died 10 years ago, you had a best friend Michelle, your dad had a best friend Michael who was 16 years younger, and you might be getting involved with a girl named Maika.

I've had these debates with atheists before. I've heard these arguments. I'm not here to persuade you. I'm only here to correct mistakes in my own understanding.

I will make one point however. Intelligence is choosing the right choice several times out of a very large list, this is something that a computer cannot do. Let's take 9/11. On which day would it be the most appropriate for America to be attacked so as to make a sign? I don't think 9/11 was the most appropriate date, but I think it might be the second most appropriate. why? America attacked and oppressed numerous countries after world war ii the top five being Vietnam, Korea, beyond that it can be debated, maybe Chile, maybe Indonesia. In any case we attacked Chile through Pinochet on 9/11/73. Here, an appropriate date was selected among a list of 365. It's only once choice so it doesn't matter but there are more choices. Now, what American was most responsible for this act? Maybe Richard Nixon, but he was dead in 2001, but also Henry Kissinger. Chilean Families brought a lawsuit against Henry Kissinger and on 9/10/2001. It's one day off but very close. Here was the headline:

http://www.democracynow.org/2001/9/11/r ... _commander
The family of Chilean military Commander Rene Schneider, who was killed thirty-one years ago during a botched kidnapping by rightwing coup plotters supported by the US, filed a lawsuit yesterday in a US federal court. The lawsuit accuses former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former CIA Chief Richard Helms, among others, of involvement in covert operations that led to Schneider’s assassination.

Again, the right man out of a list of 6 billion was selected. Which building was most appropriate to attack? Certainly the twin towers in the shape of 11 makes it a good target, although there are others. Again, the right choice out of a list of about every building in America was chosen. Now, if there was a day when the pick three New York lottery matched the date what date would that have been, such that it gains the attention of the media? Certainly 9/11/02. Again, the right choice was selected from a list of 365. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/ ... 1749.shtml
Some say the odds of a ticket matching the date should happen once in every four years, therefore it's not surprising, but it is surprising because no one cares if it happens on just any day. Special dates only happen about once every ten years, so the real odds are 1000 times 10 years, once in every 10,000 years, because you only get an event once in every 10 years. Perhaps you've seen those websites that outline the coincidences on 911 as well as the coincidences of the similarities between the JFK and the Lincoln assassination. Personally I think they go a bit overboard so I won't discuss them further.

One coincidence does not mean anything. But when the right choice out of a list of a 1000 or so keeps coming up then you can't just dismiss it as coincidence.

Who in the world thinks he violated physical laws by writing his 9th symphony? ... How does any of the brain's function violate any physical law?

Do you think he wrote it due to obedience of a physical law? If he didn't violate physical laws, then he was obeying them.

But, o.k., let me take a crack at it - his brain thought thoughts (all without violating any physical laws) by means of his neurons gathering and transmitting electromagnetic signals. Neurons do not violate physical laws by doing this, and it is very well understood how neurons work and what their structure is. The various structures of the brain - frontal lobe, parietal lobe, cerebral cortex, etc. operate to create thoughts - when Beethoven moves his fingers, signals are sent electromagnetically to the muscles which move the body - the energy needed to do this is provided by food. No energy is created or destroyed, and things that are not in motion are set in motion by application of force.

Pay attention to the words in bold. You don't account for how those brain areas are coordinated. It took him about five years to write the symphony. You agree that actions are due to what I call the Samuel Cooleridge theory of brain functioning: the right synapses in the right order. According to this website, I was actually quite shocked but some neurons fire a thousand times per second:
http://www.neurophysiology.ws/synapse.htm
"Recall that the approximate 1 ms required for a single action potential imposes an upper limit of about a thousand impulses per second on a neuron's firing rate."

How do you explain the fact that those neurons are coordinated?

Knowledge: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:" or "the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension."

Power: "ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."

This is true. But where are these abilities located in material? What material has to move such that power is used. Is this movement the result of a code or what?

He wasn't forced. I can't imagine why the fact that Michaelangelo formed in his mother's womb according to natural laws means he had to be "forced" to sculpt a statue....

If he wasn't forced then he did it on his own free will. If we are free to control our own bodies, then our bodies' movements are not the result of physical and chemical processes. If they are not the result of chemical and physical processes then what are they the result of?

Information: "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact, thing or circumstance." The brain processes (treats or handles in a particular way) the information (knowledge received concerning things), which allows the brain to make decisions. Some decisions are reflexive, and others not. The brain may detect, for example, a rock being thrown at the head of the body, it processes that information and is then able to make a decision and send a signal to the body to move quickly. The fast twitch muscles are activated and hopefully the rock is avoided. No violations of natural laws occur in the process.

How is knowledge communicated through material? For example, two Hs and one O makes water. That's information. Only a mind can know that, material cannot know that. Take a computer. A computer does not know anything, it only follows instructions. It only handles input and produces output.

DNA carries the information for making all of a cell's proteins. These proteins implement all of the functions of a living organism and determine the organism' s characteristics.

Carl Sagan, for example, in Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), put the odds at one in ten followed by two billion zeroes, in spite of this he considered himself an agnostic. There are 20 different amino acids. Some of these amino acids are constructed of very complex configurations of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, etc. It is certainly a property of carbon that it binds easily with hydrogen. But it is not a property of carbon that it knows that now is the time to find six other carbons, fourteen hydrogens, two nitrogens and two oxygens and all of them coordinate to form the amino acid, Lysine, C6H14N2O2, nor is it a property of the other 23 elements in that configuration that they also "know" to bind with the other 23 elements to form Lysine. It is certainly a property of Nitrogen to bond with two hydrogens but it is not a property that at a certain time and at a certain space that it will bind with two particular hydrogens which will also bind with six carbons and 12 other hydrogrens and oxygens. Moving on from amino acids to proteins, it is also not a property of the molecule Lysine that it knows in what order to bind with other amino acids to form proteins. There are about 2 million proteins and the average protein is a combination of about 120 amino acids. It cannot be a property of Lysine that it "knows" that a certain protein is being formed and therefore it must find the other amino acids and get in the proper order.

Given the fact that 20 different amino acids must be put in a sequence 120 units long, the odds of forming just one protein then become around 1 in 10^150, and this assumes that forming the probability of forming an amino acid is one in one, which it is not. The stock answer that the monists pose to this is: "life could arose through a different set of proteins, not the 2 million at our disposal." However, this is believing in something for which there is no evidence, which is the cardinal sin of atheism. But let us just say for argument's sake, that it is possible for life to arise through a different set of proteins. How many different proteins must there be before the odds become reasonable? Before I determine this number let me give you a simple answer to show you my reasoning. Let us get back to the example of rolling a four sided dice ten times in a room, the odds of which are one in 1,048,576. But this only hold that there only one possible sequence for the ten throws of the dice. What if 100 sequences were possible? This only means that the odds are now one in 1,048,476, we have just subtracted those 100 sequences from the maximum number of sequences available. So now let's apply it to the proteins. There are 10^50 atoms on the Earth and the Earth is about 10^13 seconds old. If all those atoms attempted to recombine to form a protein every second that the Earth is old, then the number of events at our disposal to hit this one in 10^150 lottery would be 10^63. So in order to get the 10^150 odds down to 10^63 where the probability of just one protein forming would mean that there must be 10^87 different proteins that can all do things that would form life. There are roughly 20 amino acids, 2 million proteins, 100 elements, 52 million organic and inorganic substances, and between ten and 100 million animal species. Given those numbers it is very unlikely that there are 10^87 different proteins. Moreover, there is very strong evidence that there is essentially only one path to complex life, if not one then probably not one million. Many scientists believe that all multi-cellular species trace back to just one ancestor. Further, all the complex organs seem to share similar DNA structures and it appears that there is only one basic way to form an eye, nose, ear, etc. Let's however be more generous in defining the impossible. Let's say that every atom in the Universe tried in every nanosecond of the history of our universe and let's say that there are as many universes in the multiverse as there are stars in our universe. How large is that number? That number is only 10^128. There are 10^80 atoms, 10^26 nanoseconds, and 10^22 stars in our universe. To multiply those together you just add the exponents.

The brain is an organ which can think and imagine.

So you don't believe the brain is an input/output machine. Does the origin of an imagination lie in the movement of a material? Or does it originate in an immaterial mind, which then moves the proper material to perform actions. If you can think of a third way, let me know.

I only know that 100 billion neurons cannot self-coordinate and that 2000 amino acids cannot self-coordinate into a protein.

How do you know that? And, on what basis do you make that assertion. We know that the body forms inside the womb according to natural processes and known laws. There is no point in human development that involves a violation of physical laws. There is no point in the process from insemination to birth that requires some outside force to do anything. It looks as if, plainly, humans do form naturally.

See above regarding the odds of forming proteins.

You need to define mind. You seem to have a different definition from mine.

I'm using your definition. I'm simply stating that whatever the mind is, it is constructed by the brain - it is part of the brains functioning - and has no existence outside of the brain.

The mind is not constructed by the brain. Both need each other in order to function. They're in a symbiotic relationship. It's like the invisible hand a glove. A glove cannot move without a hand. An invisible hand exhibit movement unless it wears a glove.

Based on the evidence, many things move and happen mindlessly, and coordinate without direction, according to natural processes.

There are a few things that you and I agree are random: leaves falling, cloud shapes, rocks in the desert, erosion. Of those three I have never seen any of them form anything more than the most elementary shapes. The most intricate shape I've seen them form is this one:



Notice in the above, the blocks don't even really do anything. They just form a shape. It's a huge difference from those ribosome factories that process rna at the rate of about 500 per second.

You think that when a "mind" directs something to move - like when a human decides to throw a baseball - physical laws are not obeyed?

After the ball leaves the hand, sure, it follows physical laws. But the human is not an input/output machine. It's not throwing that ball due to input which inevitably results in an output.

I already outlined in my paper four major proofs for the existence of mind.

There was no proof.

Since you won't quote from it, you've given me no reason to change my mind.

You previously refused to answer the question, stating it was "incidental." Now you're stating you clearly demonstrated that proof in the OP. You're dodging.

I don't know what question you mean and I don't know what it refers to. But it's ok because you've already attempted to refute my central thesis.

This idea that the brain must work as "if stimuli x, then write a 1300 page book?" There didn't need to be a "stimuli." It's not a reflex response. Some processes of the brain are reflexive, others are not. ... The brain isn't "programmed" like a computer. It does have the ability to think, and the thoughts can be written down on a page. ... Monists do not suggest that humans are automatons. Monists do not have to believe that all human action is a reflexive response to stimuli. Clearly, a person may see something being flung at it and duck, or a person may choose not to duck, even if the thing will hurt. I do not subscribe to your "automaton" version. If that makes me not a proper "monist' then so be it. My point is that the brain is what creates what you perceive as the mind, that this mind is a function of the brain, and that what you perceive as a mind dies with the brain.

This is straight-up dualism. You're a dualist. If some processes are not reflexive then what material causes them?

Monism: "The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system." Or, "The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being." Nothing requires that a monist consider the brain something that it isn't - the brain isn't merely an input output machine like some UNIVAC card-reading computer in the 50s.

This is a real important point about monism. I also use the word materialism. Most monists do not understand the consequences of their central thesis, that "mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being." If you believe that there is one thing, matter, then every action the human makes has to have its origin in material. A computer is a great example. Every action the computer does is the result of material processes.

you have to program every output.

You don't.

An input/output machine cannot perform an output for which it has not been programmed.

I'll get back to you on this. I've referred this question to a computer programming forum and they'll weigh in on the issue.

which is not my term (specified complexity) and I don't really like it.

Because it is meaningless. It's a way of saying that the Andromeda Galaxy and crystals aren't complex enough to be taken into consideration as organized structure that comes about naturally, nonrandomly, and undirected.

It's not meaningless. Crystals arise just because carbon forms a tetrahedral structure because the four electrons are forced to be as far apart from each other as possible since they repel one another. This patterns gets repeated over and over and that's how crystals form, I think, I might be wrong, I'm not a super scientist. Specified complexity is where the right choice out of a long list is chosen over and over again. We have to account for the existence of specified complexity. In the book the biology of the cell by Albert which is a standard Darwinist text, the word specification is used over and over again. They account for this via Natural Selection but if you think about the minimum odds you'll see that it's not possible.

Here is my reasoning:
if the human mind can have power over bodies then it is reasonable that there is a mind (God) with limited power over bodies in the universe

How does the latter follow from the former? It seems equally plausible that if the human brain can have power over bodies, there is no God with limited power over bodies in the universe.

If you believe that humans are capable of knowledge, will and power, in the sense that I use them, then you cannot believe that knowledge, will and power arose after material. Knowledge, will and power explain how material is coordinated. You can't believe that knowledge, will and power arose because material luckily got coordinated in the right way. Knowledge, will and power are prior to material. You cannot have a coordinated universe without knowledge, will and power. God is that being that has knowledge, will and power.

There is no way of knowing what the odds are with any degree of specificity.

It's possible to know the minimum odds and the maximum number of events. See above.

The brain is made up of neurons which fire as they are built to fire.

You're saying that material is coordinated because other material is coordinated.

Your statement "the hand is at rest and it should stay at rest until another BODY acts on it" is dead wrong. The hand is at rest and should stay at rest until another FORCE acts on it." The force is supplied by the muscles, which are directed by the brain to to move when the brain makes a decision.
[/quote
Force is mass times acceleration. You can't have force without mass. The body is a mass.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm only here to correct mistakes in my own understanding.

We're going to need a bigger forum....

[Coito ergo sum]

It's nothing about inventing a story. I have been very clear here. What you are describing as "the mind" is merely the functioning of your brain. Stop your brain from functioning, and the mind is gone.

In your day to day life, do you use the word mind? I haven't read Stephen Pinker's work on how the mind works but when I get more time I will because I'm pretty sure he believes in the computational theory of mind. If you believe the brain is an input/output device then you should just get rid of the word mind, it has no use. The brain is all you need. If you need a word to describe brain functioning just say brain processes or brain functions, don't use the word mind, because most people, though not all, think of the mind as immaterial.

You're the one who keep saying that I "must" believe the brain is an input/output device. I need not believe that. The brain does receive information, and does do stuff with that information. But, that's not all it does.

Look, lots of things are "immaterial." Gravity is "immaterial."

If you are suggesting, though, that the mind is UNDETECTABLE and exists but outside of matter AND energy, then that's where you've got some work to do. I'm not from Missouri, but I'd appreciate it if you'd show me - show your work there. On what basis do you claim this "immaterial mind" exists.

And, don't tell me what words I can and can't use. "Mind" is a perfectly good English word, and I will use it. I will especially use it when I'm talking about whatever you consider to be the mind.

I've been quite clear that the "mind" that you speak of is a function of the brain. You're the one who seems to think it's some amorphous floating blog of "immaterial" stuff that inhabits brains. That's your line, not mine.

Mind and brain, however, are not synonymous. "Mind" means "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc." That's the "mind." And, "brain" means " the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and other vertebrates, consisting of a soft, convoluted mass of gray and white matter and serving to control and coordinate the mental and physical actions." The mind is the part of the brain that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.

The mind is part of the brain, but parts of the brain are not the mind. The brain has other structures that do other things besides reason, think, feel, will, perceive or judge. Those other parts of the brain are not the mind.

[Coito ergo sum]

How do you know this god thing does not itself have a brain?

Because then we would be stuck with the question how is God's brain coordinated. Material is not coordinated because other material is coordinated.

1. So what if we would be "stuck" with that question? The fact that a question is difficult, not at present answerable, or unpleasant, is no "reason" to think a proposition wrong. Maybe god does have a brain, and we don't know how that brain was "coordinated."

2. So what if material is not coordinated because other material is coordinated? Material is coordinated according to natural processes and the laws of physics, and when it comes to life, biology.

[Coito ergo sum]

But, see, this demonstrates what you're really doing by setting up this monism/dualism dichotomy - you're trying to set it up so that one choice between the two necessarily requires there to be a god. However, neither choice necessarily requires there to be a god.

Either: coordination is intended
Or: coordination is not intended

Either: Intention is embodied
Or: Intention is not embodied

If you can think of a third way, I would be happy to consider it.

I can -

Some coordination is intended, and other instances of coordination are not.
I suppose another option could be some intention is embodied, and other intention is not. Although, there is no evidence of disembodied intention.

There are plenty of instances where coordination is not intended - we've talked about some. Crystals. Ice cubes. The Andromeda Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy. The Sol Solar System. The planets. The Earth and Moon. The oceans and the land. Elements of the periodic Table. Molecules. Polymers. Nucleotides. amino acids, proteins.... Ribonucleic Acid.... deoxyribonucleic acid.... All these things formed -- coordinated - without any intention.

So, these things show that coordination can occur without intention.

Things that get coordinated with intention seem to always have a body associated with it. Like, when a beaver builds a damn or a human builds a house. There is no evidence for intention that is disembodied. Unless you have some....if so, please present it - or sum it up.

[Coito ergo sum]

Here is my reasoning:
if the human mind can have power over bodies then it is reasonable that there is a mind (God) with limited power over bodies in the universe

How does the latter follow from the former? It seems equally plausible that if the human brain can have power over bodies, there is no God with limited power over bodies in the universe.

If you believe that humans are capable of knowledge, will and power, in the sense that I use them, then you cannot believe that knowledge, will and power arose after material. Knowledge, will and power explain how material is coordinated. You can't believe that knowledge, will and power arose because material luckily got coordinated in the right way. Knowledge, will and power are prior to material. You cannot have a coordinated universe without knowledge, will and power. God is that being that has knowledge, will and power.

If I believe that humans are capable of knowledge, will and power (not quite sure what you mean by humans being capable of power - we have power in us, we increase our power by eating - but we aren't power generators - we don't increase the sum of energy in the universe) --- I most certainly can believe that knowledge, will and power arose after material. Knowledge, will and power are functions of the material (matter and energy). There was no konwledge, will or power before there was matter and energy.

There is no knowledge without a brain. There is no will without a brain.

As for "you can't believe that knowledge, will and power arose because of material luckily got coordinated the right way..." Why not? First of all - your use of the word "luck" is inappropriate. Certainly some luck is involved, but it's not "random."

We do have a (partially) coordinated universe without knowledge, will and power. There is no evidence that any god exists.

[Coito ergo sum]

One coincidence does not mean anything. But when the right choice out of a list of a 1000 or so keeps coming up then you can't just dismiss it as coincidence.

You take a logical leap, though - you claim that a few instances of commonalities among names - which are hardly known to be "correct" choices - means YOUR BROTHER is involved. Why? Because his name was Michael?

And, again the few examples of "right answers" (you don't know what a right answer is in that circumstance), are hardly extraordinary. I was just thinking about a customer and shortly thereafter he called. Magic? Telepathy? Mind control? What is it? Couldn't be coincidence....just couldn't be.....right?

[Svartalf]

When you consider how long theists spend on utter nonsense (the whole of their lives usually), this contribution isn't really significantly long. I'm not prepared to waste my time reading something that someone presents to "explain" the nonsensical claptrap they believe. Sorry, spinoza99, it's just all wrong. You are wasting your life. WAKE UP.

You really want to delve into monster works like Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica ? That's a major contribution to deistic writing... and it's even more sleep inducing than OP, on a par with James Joyce actually... without the weird language effects.