Greg Koukl - Is God Merely a Function of the Brain?

[Abokaru]

I'm starting to view God as the function of creation. This started with the concept that ideas are merely functions. Our input is what we observe, our output is our reflection and thoughts.

One could ask what is the perfect chair, but as long as you can sit on it the function is fulfilled. Every chair is perfect.

God is the function that manifested everything in existence and science tries to understand the output of God the physical plane. The functions that exist via creation. Just a thought

[hovsec]

as he said if u believe in god because u need a parent figure, or because u r afraid to death, or because u feel alone, that doesnt mean god exists, it only means u believe in him because u need to, not also it cannot be disproven that god exists, but if he existed wouldnt we know? do we have to make excuses and attribute everything to him so we can accept his existance?

[NephilimFree]

The HOX genes that develop the limbs of man and apes are different genes and are in different chromosomes. This proves the DNA of man and ape cannot be related. Translocation of genes in the embryo is fatal, and in the born is causes gross deformity or death. Natural Selectio would remove such dysfunctional creatures from the gene pool and they would be unfit to survive. This is true of many creatures evos claim are related, such as fish and amphibians. The Darwinian tree of life is disproven.

[NephilimFree]

The universe cannot be infinite. It's expanding. If it were infinite, it could not expand.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

NephelimFree,

I dispute every substantial claim you just made - including several that are matters of fact, not argument. Your understanding is so far removed from mine that it would futile to go over this point by point - nothing would be accomplished, it would take forever, and it would completely hog the comments section while having nothing to with this video.

[NephilimFree]

It's a fact. If the universe were infinite wit could not exapand. And yet, it's expanding. Did you know that the Bible tells us in 16 seperate verses that the heavens are expanding? That was 2,500 yrs before modern science could have discovered it. Give that some thought.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

1) The universe can't be infinite because it's expanding? Wrong. I'll give you a trivial example. Take 3-dim space the usual distance function d (or any unbounded metric space for that matter). It's infinite. Make a new distance function varying with time D(t) = (1+t)*d. Then for distinct vectors x and y, have d(x,y)<D(1)(x,y)<D(2)(x,y) etc.. The distance between any two points grows with time, hence this infinite space is expanding.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

2) If the Bible clearly claimed the universe was expanding, how come no one suspected this until AFTER astronomy discovered it? When Hubble discovered this, why was it such a big surprise to the Christian world? Didn't they already know this for thousands of years? Trying to pass off the ancient Biblical ignorance (that WOULD'VE been accurate were the Bible truly from God) as actually knowledgeable - well, it's just ridiculous. So I gave it some thought, and I think it's silly.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(those ampersand lt's are "less than" symbols < that YouTube kindly escaped in that post, but not in this one. What a charming new "feature".)

[NephilimFree]

No, the universe cannot be infinite if it is expanding. If it is expanding, it's increasing. It can't increase if it's already infinite in size. Use your head. Think before you speak.

[NephilimFree]

Furthermore, your claim the universe is infinite is an assumption. We have no scientific evidence that the universe is infinite. We know that it cannot be because all things have a cause, and an infinite universe cannot have a cause because it is and always has been present. Thus, science discredits the concept that the universe can be infinite.

You see, it is an empirical law of science that all thingas have a cause. An infinite universe would have no cause.

0o

[NephilimFree]

As if that weren't enough, we know that the First Cause is God. We know this because all things have a cause. The universe had a cause. It's cause must be outside of time, space, and matter, which comprise the universe. This makes it SUPERnatural. It's also personal because iot chose to create instead of allowing nothingness to continue. It therefore has mind.

The infinite which is supernatural and a person describes God. There can be no other cause for the universe. Philosophy verifies it.

[NephilimFree]

I can't help you grasp concepts such as this. If you deny because you're afraid of what science has taught us, I can't help you. If you are simply uninformed, I can help you, but you seem unable to be helped since you are denying a simple premise that is a scientific fact.

No dear boy, the universe cannot be infinite and expanding. Sorry.

[NephilimFree]

Try disputing that Sporty. Science has discredited evolutionism, both biological and cosmological evolution.

Did you know the sun shrinks at a rate that proves it cannot be even 1 million yrs old? You don't believe that do you. It's true. There's so much you don't know because you do not study the objections in science to your worldview. You do not want to hear such knowledge. So long as what you want to believe is more important to you than the truth, you will remain in that little hole.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

You missed my point. First, there are hypothetical naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe (quantum fluctuation are one, colliding 10 dimensional branes are another, space-time being compact, so w/o preferred "beginning" is a third), and the origins of life (essentially a run-away chem reaction once a rare but possible self-replication structure arises in the right surroundings). Not that I understand the details of these; the point is that such explanations are possible.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Second, "God did it" produces no greater explanatory satisfaction than "that's just what the natural world does", because if God exists, his existence and nature are arbitrary, as nothing about reality can condition either. Thus the explanation "God did it" relies on a feature of reality that's in principle beyond any explanation other than "that's just how reality is" (as God and His nature just happen to be). Reality is capable of originating the universe, so what's the God hypothesis adding?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Finally, your incredulity about naturalistic explanations is based on your human intuition. Quantum mechanics proves those are completely unreliable. Regarding evolution, you have NO visceral appreciation for the final probabilities when combining tiny improbabilities, colossal numbers of opportunities, and durations of millions and billions of years. Reality is under no obligation to abide by your desires or instincts about how things should be.

[NephilimFree]

I do not need human intition to know that God created this universe and it's life. Science has done that. As for me personally, God Himself has taught me many things, led me by the hand to a lot of information He wanted me to know about Him being the creator. That's an advantage no atheist has.

Regardless, intuition plays no part in my knowledge that it is all created.

[NephilimFree]

We don't need to rely on "God did it." Science had verified that God did do it.

There are thousands of videos right here on YT alone of scientisdts explaining the evidences that discredit evolutionism and verify design. The evolutionist can only scy denialism. But denialism is not intellectual.

[NephilimFree]

The rule of cause and effect pertains to the physical world we live in, not to God, who is outside of the physical laws he created. That one's kinda obvious isn't it?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

"It's a fact" "Use my head" "Think before I speak" "now dear boy" "I can help you" - such comments directed at me over your claim that the universe can't be both infinite and expanding. I even gave you a trivial example showing how it's possible (ignored of course). I've solved Einstein's General Relativity field equations for some very simple model universes. I know what I'm talking about. So you're condescendingly certain, yet completely ignorant - that's an ugly combination.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

You falsely said I claimed the universe IS infinite. You claim, quite absurdly, that science has discredited evolution, and shown that God created the universe and life. Your argument about the Sun is comical. (Guess what "Sporty", there's a NASA solar physicist in my family, and I studied physics in school, including some graduate work. Your BS is wasted.) On and on it goes. You're rude, condescending, not very bright, and wrong with every breath. I'll have no further interaction with you.

[NephilimFree]

It's comical that the sun is shrinking at such a rate that discredits evolutionism? Well, if one can avoid all arguments that way, it's convenienvt, but it sure isn't intellectual, and it isn't worthy of my time.

I have a right to be condescending. people like you tell little kids there is no God and it all created itself. Everyone who does such falacious and harmful things is a criminal to mankind in my opinion.

[NephilimFree]

So, just a complaint, nothing intellectual. Let's check your next post.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

If God exists, then why does He exist? Why does He have the particular nature He has?

Since He's not created, and since His existence and nature aren't conditioned by any feature of reality, these two questions are IN PRINCIPLE unanswerable. An atheist can hope to answer your questions, but a theist can never hope to answer mine. Furthermore, since His existence and nature are beyond explanation, nothing He does (like create the universe and life) is ever ultimately explainable.

[NephilimFree]

"Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident...you have essentially "lost your mind."

- Jay Homnick, referring to the insanity of Darwinists

[NephilimFree]

"The belief that our wondrous universe could have evolved by blind chance is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of a slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking."

- Karl Stern, University of Montreal Psychiatrist

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Neph

1) The features of living organisms (including their complexity) aren't accidents according to evolution.

2) The universe didn't "evolve" in the biological sense, but in the sense of simple change it evolved according to the laws of physics - hardly "blind chance."

3) There's sweet irony in suggesting that those who DON'T believe in invisible magical spirits are perhaps literally crazy and possibly schizophrenic.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

4) So both your quotes follow the pattern of misrepresenting a position (actually, the second is almost incoherent and without an obvious or clear position it's attacking), then incredulously calling its believers crazy. Nice.

5) And both your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with this video's content.

[NephilimFree]

I mean not discredit the video, but they discredit your uniformitarianism.

[NephilimFree]

1) Wrong. Evos claim random genetic mistakes (mutations) are the mechanism for evolutionary change. We have learned from science this is not possible, and that DNA itself is empirical proof of design. It's information stored and retrieved with algorithms to conform to linguistics law. These are immaterial products of intelligence that moleculular interactions cannot produce.

2) The universe indeed has not evolved. It was created. Science verifies it is missing the mass to be as it is.

[NephilimFree]

3) Because you are spiritually blind does not mean you are wise. You have not learned what others know.

4) my quotes do not misrepresent anything. You just don;'t like them.

5) my posts discredit this video.

[reflect7]

Another great post, Greg -- I appreciate your VERY compelling contributions to the You Tube conversation -- Keep it up! Thanks --

[xtrashed]

The fact is, whether the belief in God is hardwired into the brain or not, it does not make the belief in God false!

[shizfergus27]

So theologians bring as much as anyone else to the table. Perhaps next time you should try to find a flaw in someone's reasoning and defeat his argument instead of throwing around logical fallacies and trumping up science (which David Hume showed to be incapable of "proving" anything) to be the be all end all when science itself relies upon philosophy for its validity.

[rofyle]

shizfergus:

You are one of the few people I've seen here on YT willing to point this out. That without knowing that 2 + 2 must always be equal to four for example, though being incapable of proving why it must be so, then nothing could be "proved" mathematically, and the field of physics would therefore fall flat on its face. Science does indeed need to rely upon philosophy for its validity. Too bad there aren't more scientists willing to admit this.

[shizfergus27]

rofyle:

You're right it is too bad! I guess all we can do is try to show them why it's so and hope they come around.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Philosophers say all kinds of things about science. Scientists usually ignore them. There's an understandable expectation for good philosophical justifications of science's claims. However, the reality is that all Philo departments could drop off the face of the Earth, and very few people would notice or care, but if science stopped, the world would suffer and there would be a global outcry to start it again. So yeah, theoretically science is dependent on philosophy, but in reality...

[rofyle]

Zoo:

This is a bad argument. There are plenty of things that could drop off the earth, and with only few taking notice. This doesn't say anything about the things themselves however. Rather, this speaks to the attitude of the public. What do you think would bring a louder outcry for instance, the cancellation of American Idol, or the systematic destruction of an American city? AM-I might suck, but Detroits still in trouble, and a great majority of the unwashed masses still dont care.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

It was an observation more than an argument. As I said, theoretically science is dependent on philosophy. Theoretically nations abide by international law. Theoretically traffic moves at 55 mph on the Washington DC's Beltway. Theoretically Glenn Beck is a grown man. You get the drift. Also, science's position is a little more firmly grounded in the modern world than being mere public opinion.

As for the rest, I didn't really get your point.

[rofyle]

Zoo:

"science's position is a little more firmly grounded in the modern world than being mere public opinion."

Really? Care to prove this in terms of global warming?

[rofyle]

Zoo (cont'd):

As to whether the world would suffer if science ever came to a halt, this too is a poor argument. Science is just as guilty in the cause of suffering, as it is of alleviating it. In fact, its truer to say that if ever there were a global catastrophe, itll most likely be science that played a hand in it (nuclear war, level 4 viral outbreak). Furthermore, how exactly was it that the human race survived for so many millennia w/o modern science?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Your disparagement of scientific progress is naive, I think. Science and technology are powerful tools, so of course they can bring harm as well as good. But do you really want to read by candlelight, make your own clothes, live in deprivation compared to current prosperity, travel vast distances on horseback, potentially die from minor infections, and look forward to a life expectancy in the 30's? Finally, reading complaints about science over the internet is nothing if not amusing.

[rofyle]

Well Zoo, I'll tell you this much. I'd rather be forced to read by candlelight, than incinerated in a nuclear explosion.

[shizfergus27]

One shouldn't listen to theologians based on the fact that they are theologians. One should listen to the person/people that present the best argument. Why? Because philosophical reasoning and argumentation is the backbone of human knowledge, even science depends upon it. As Greg has said before, "science is the handmaiden of philosophy." Philosophy is far more important than science because science is simply a tool of philosophy! And theology is just a type of philosophy. (cont.)

[shizfergus27]

Toledosteal, first of all, science cannot point out that if it can't prove something, there's no point worrying about it! This is a self defeating statement! Can science prove this statement? No because if the validity of science is in question, you can not use science to answer that question. This is an informal logical fallacy called begging the question. But if science can't prove this statement then by your reasoning, we shouldn't worry about it! So nice try. (cont.)

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I take the idea behind Toledosteal's claim (basically: if science can't prove it, then there's no point worrying about it) to be that if something has tangible measurable consequences, then it's amenable to scientific scrutiny, but if that thing doesn't have such consequences, then, because it's inconsequential, it's not worth worrying about. I wouldn't phrase it using the word "proof", but I think the basic idea is correct.

[shizfergus27]

I think that this assumes that if something doesn't have "tangible measurable" consequences, then it doesn't have any consequences at all. This is not necessarily the case, it's simply assuming materialism to be true, but because materialism is itself in question here, it begs the question.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

An actual divine communication, if it caused the diaphragm to move and vocal chords to vibrate "God spoke to me", in principle leaves evidence that's subject to scientific scrutiny.

The only possible examples of "consequential but no material consequences" I can think of are the immediacy aspects of consciousness (like qualia). There's no measuring yellow as a subjective experience. Even vocal declarations only measure the identification of yellow, not "the yellowness of yellow."

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Is the subjective experience of yellow consequential? It depends on what's meant by consequential. I think it counts knowledge one wouldn't know without ever experiencing it. I think gaining knowledge can be fairly called consequential, so I suppose qualia counts as consequential (as would the other subjective realities). (Google: Mary the color scientist).

If you can think of any other examples of "consequential but no material consequences", I'd be interested to hear them.

[shizfergus27]

One thing would be if God were to speak to you, not physically, but rather to make you experience the qualia of meaning without physical processes like vocalization etc. This is, however, just another example of qualia. But qualia is in itself a bane for the materialist, which is hard to explain away. I agree that all qualia is consequential, and it can also be an agent of causation (a yellow experience can make me feel glad, etc.).

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I don't think there's material causation associated with qualia - otherwise it would have measurable consequences in principle. A yellow quale isn't the capacity to identify or react to yellow; it's just the yellowness present to subjective experience. I think its only possible consequences are ontic (its real, we're not zombies - though it's odd saying existence is a consequence of something existing) and epistemic (we meaningfully learn of it, more than just identification, by our experience).

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

As for divine communications/revelations, if such actually happened, then if it caused someone to do or say anything that they wouldn't have w/o that experience - in other words if they're even aware of it at all (which is presumably part of the point of such divine actions) - then it's produced a material consequence.

"Things" lacking material consequences are truly not worth worrying about. They in principle can't make an iota of difference to your words, feelings, thoughts, or deeds.

[shizfergus27]

Again this presupposes materialism. This assumes that feelings and thoughts are nothing more than material consequences, but this is not obvious at all. You can not measure a thought, you cannot find it in someone's brain; at best you can only show constant conjunction. So again, this begs the question.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I don't think this presupposes materialism. Dualists almost universally accept that immaterial thoughts have material brain correlates. Thus even for dualists, a change in the mental realm has material consequences. Furthermore, should God speak to you in any manner that causes you to speak anything you wouldn't have otherwise, then God's action has produced a measurable material consequence in the universe (forget the brain, notice the vocal chords moving!). That holds even if you're a dualist.

[shizfergus27]

I'm not sure but I think we're in agreement on this issue. The bottom line is I agree with Greg's point in the video, and I think you do as well; regardless of our other differences. It has been a true pleasure and I commend your intelligence and powers of logic. I hope to communicate in the future on other videos perhaps!

[shizfergus27]

A yellow quale is not the capacity to react to yellow, I agree, but the fact that one can react to yellow means that the yellow quale is an agent of causation. It is causing the "experiencer" to react to it.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

You make a very reasonable point here. I'm still not persuaded, but this is a colossal topic that's kinda unrelated to this vid, so I'd rather let it drop.

[Toledosteal]

Science is in a really good position to point out that if science can't prove something there's no point in worrying about it.

And why should any one listen to theologians, what kind of credentials can they even bring to the table?

[shizfergus27]

Also, God was given an influential status in the early days of science because He was thought to have originated the universe and hence science itself. It was never thought by thinking men that science can could disprove God. This is no great concession at all; in fact it's of absolutely no consequence to the theist. It's only dillusional atheist who runs around claiming that science has disproven God (believe me there are many) that suffer a loss here.

[ticobassie]

The fact that God indeed was given an influential status by natural theologists such as for example Carl Linnaeus is of no direct impact to what I said, as indicated in my other response.

[shizfergus27]

Why can't it explain the origin of the physical universe? Because science deals with the observable physical universe only, and this is exactly what needs explaining. But a discipline that can only function by observing the physical universe is obselete before the physical universe existed. So it doesn't matter how much faster science progresses, it can never provide a physical explanation for the origins of the universe; logically, there can't be one.

[ticobassie]

shizfergus27 wrote: "Why can't it explain the origin of the physical universe? Because science deals with the observable physical universe only, and this is exactly what needs explaining."

That doesn't make sense. It's like saying: A detective can not, nor can he ever, solve a murder case. Why? Because a detective deals with the evidence available after the event and the event is exactly what needs explaining.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I think shiz's point is correct. To have measurable consequences WITHIN our universe is TO BE within our universe. (If God exists and performs a miracle, He's at least partially in the universe while doing so.) While informed speculation is possible, one can only be confident in a scientific theory if ultimately there's empirical evidence supporting it. We IN PRINCPLE cannot have empirical evidence about "outside the universe", so how could we ever have a trusted scientific theory about it?

[ticobassie]

"We IN PRINCPLE cannot have empirical evidence about "outside the universe", so how could we ever have a trusted scientific theory about it?"

A trusted scientific theory about what?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

About any being or "natural" (by definition it would be supernatural, so I mean here something like "mindless and law-like") process outside the universe that led to the origin of the universe.

[shizfergus27]

ticobassie, this certainlyis not a pyrrhic victory; what has it cost the christian apologist? Only a little clear thinking which is worthwhile in itself! Science may have provided natural explanations for many things previously assumed to be controlled by God like the weather etc. But science has not, nor can it ever, provide an ex[planation for the origin of the most important thing of all; the universe itself.

[ticobassie]

You miss my point. Contemporary apologists didn't live 1000 years ago and therefore don't hold the then-god-view. They hold a view of a much more hands-off God, and the reason for doing so is found in science. Imagine a time series in which feature all the acts for which a god was initially invoked, then play this fast-forward and you would see God retreating into the supernatural, nevermind that many of the great early scientists were Christian (natural theologists).

[ticobassie]

Considering a wider historical scope, this argument is at best a Pyrrhus victory for a Christian apologist.

Indeed science can not disprove God but what science has done since its inception is providing natural explanations where supernatural explanations were assumed beforehand. An important reason religion has not been dealt a lethal blow by scientific progress is that progress is still relatively slow, allowing the theist time to readapt his god-view rather than reject it.

Cont.

[ticobassie]

For a theist to rejoice in the knowledge that science can not disprove god is in fact quite a concession considering how much of an influential status was ascribed to god prior to or in the early days of scientific practice.

[shizfergus27]

*proving nothing, but forcing us to remain agnostic.

[shizfergus27]

So science cannot disprove God, because God is beyond what science can test and observe (the physical realm). But, if God created the physical world, then we may be able to discover signs that this is so. We cannot, however, infer the non-existence of God based on any lack of these signs; we can only infer that there is no God that created the world in the way which we expected. It's still logically possible that God created the world in a way that it wouldn't seem as though He did; proving 0.

[shizfergus27]

When a certain religion makes empirical claims about God, (that God created physical reality, for instance), we can look at the the physical evidence and see if it matches the claims of the religion (like whether there's evidence for inteligent design or not). If there is such evidence, then it can be used to support the claims of the religion which made them. Also if the evidence leads one to infer an inteligent designer aside from any particular religion, then this is evidence for it. (cont.)

[shizfergus27]

Randy, it's not that science is too "weak" to prove that God doesn't exist. The fact is that science can only deal with the natural (ie. physical) realm, only that which can be observed and tested physically. Therefore, it is incapable of disproving anything supernatural (ie. non physical)(ie. God). Now the reason that science can be used in some cases to infer God (I say infer not prove and so did Greg), is somewhat trickier. (Continued on next post).

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

You're absolutely right about that objection being a genetic fallacy. It's silly to try to invalidate a position because something is known about its associated brain states. Everything happens in the brain (regardless if you hold correlation or causation). That includes the brain process by which the it's-only-a-brain-process objection itself is raised! If you multiply 71 times 644 by hand, parts of your brain will light up like a Christmas tree. Does that call multiplication into question?

[ticobassie]

"If you multiply 71 times 644 by hand, parts of your brain will light up like a Christmas tree. Does that call multiplication into question?"

I assume you meant "by head" right? I think doing it by hand really fast might make your hands light up like a Christmas tree ;-)

Seriously, this is not a valid analogy. An atheist is not questioning the validity of the spiritual experience itself, (s)he just denies there is an external source that is responsible for this experience.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

As an atheist, I agree. The point of my comment was agreement with Koukl that knowledge about brain states corresponding to beliefs does nothing whatsoever to invalidate or undermine those beliefs. Every aspect of human psychology will have some corresponding brain patterns, even when those patterns are unknown. Even if something truly bizarre were discovered, say brain regions associated with fear being active during mental arithmetic, that still wouldn't undermine the legitimacy of arithmetic.

[ticobassie]

My apology VEPZ, I was mistaken in asserting your analogy is invalid. I hope to come back here but need to do some more thinking first.

[randyhelzerman]

I would really like to know why you think this asymmetry exists. It seems to me that if science is too weak to prove that god doesn't exist, then it would also be too weak to prove that god exists as well, and for much the same reasons.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Ditto Randy. If you can derive a scientifically testable prediction from a supernatural claim, then the results of testing that prediction count as evidence (for or against) about that supernatural claim.

[Xaulted]

Great explaination.... as usual.