What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[Dave]

Well?

[vedder]

First, god would have to interrupt all regularly scheduled tv and radio programs and proceed to broadcast the 1812 overture. Then all the volcanoes on earth would have to erupt purple bubbles simultaneously. All religious fundamentalists would then have to grow wings on their asses and serenade the atheists, on harp, with beautiful twinkly ballads of love whilst the atheists all renounced darwin as an extra-terrestrial mole. Light would then have to slow down to 13.2 mph and i'd like to see pelicans surfing these slow waves(for effect). Then George Bush Junior would need to be caught french kissing Osama by a ressurected Jimi Hendrix. Jimi would then proceed to play the star spangled banner backwards with his elbows.

That would do it for me.

[Andy]

An act of god, but it would appear that vedder has beat me to that description of events.

[Iacchus32]

Well I think to the degree that we look for God on the outside, and not look for God on the inside, then to that degree we would have missed the point. This is why God is not known to make many cameo appearances, for indeed we might believe in God as the comedian, or God as the clown, but not God as the Creator. [;)]

[selfAdjoint]

All it takes is for God to suffuse me with his supernatural faith. Then I will believe and I will also be convinced because I don't believe any soulless force could do that to me.

[Eh]

Before answering that, I would have to see a working definition of God in the first place. It seems believers would have differing opinions on that, but it isn't a problem. Often, God is defined in terms that are purely negatives and the idea relates to nothing we've experienced, so is a non concept.

So it would be best to define it, since I can't believe/disbelieve in something without knowing what it is in the first place.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Eh
Before answering that, I would have to see a working definition of God in the first place. It seems believers would have differing opinions on that, but it isn't a problem. Often, God is defined in terms that are purely negatives and the idea relates to nothing we've experienced, so is a non concept.

So it would be best to define it, since I can't believe/disbelieve in something without knowing what it is in the first place. How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?


From the thread, Think! (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3765) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?
Originally posted by heusdens
What is consciousness, if we would not be consciouss?

But reality exists, independend of our consciousness.

There were no humans at the time the solar system formated.And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by vedder
First, god would have to interrupt all regularly scheduled tv and radio programs and proceed to broadcast the 1812 overture. Then all the volcanoes on earth would have to erupt purple bubbles simultaneously. All religious fundamentalists would then have to grow wings on their asses and serenade the atheists, on harp, with beautiful twinkly ballads of love whilst the atheists all renounced darwin as an extra-terrestrial mole. Light would then have to slow down to 13.2 mph and i'd like to see pelicans surfing these slow waves(for effect). Then George Bush Junior would need to be caught french kissing Osama by a ressurected Jimi Hendrix. Jimi would then proceed to play the star spangled banner backwards with his elbows.

That would do it for me.


Like he said

[Ivan Seeking]

No matter what he/she did, how would I know if it is God, or the Q?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No matter what he/she did, how would I know if it is God, or the Q? Sounds more like Q to me! [;)]

Or Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey! [;)]

[tomahawk]

The greatest gift a so-called god could give the human race is freedom of thought. Religion puts restraints on all freedom of thought, it's designed to control the masses. Once the human race rids itself of those pagan beliefs, then and only then can we move on to a higher intelligence.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How about meaning, and a sense of purpose to begin with? And how about the ground of our being?

Ground of being is rather vague, since that can be interpreted as just about anything. For physicalism, the ground of being could be a unified field. Purpose and meaning are human ideals that don't really add anything to the actual concept of what God is.


From the thread, Think! (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3765) ...

And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?I don't know, does this help? Well in terms of what I believe, I know that there's a material world, there's a spirtual world, and there's a Supreme Being who created them. [/QUOTE]

It all comes down to defining this "supreme being". Is he personal? What properties does he/she/it have?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Eh
Ground of being is rather vague, since that can be interpreted as just about anything. For physicalism, the ground of being could be a unified field. Purpose and meaning are human ideals that don't really add anything to the actual concept of what God is.And yet without purpose and meaning we have no set of values which, I think is the main thing, above all else.


It all comes down to defining this "supreme being". Is he personal? What properties does he/she/it have? Would you have me describe why the sky is blue? It's as you said, the answer varies greatly, depending upon the number of differing viewpoints on this planet. And yet rightfully so, because how else would you go about describing that which is all-encompassing except from your own point of view?

Why couldn't it be approached like any other theory, like the theory of evolution, in terms of its cause and effect? (and in this sense I mean "rationally"). Obviously the Universe will still be here whether we establish God as its origin or not. While I doubt very much that anything will change, except perhaps some people may be required to show a little more compassion towards others. Even so, one doesn't necessarily need to invoke God to even suggest this.

All I can say is that there is evidence, and it's all a matter of whether one wants to conduct the research for oneself or not.

[pace]

At first one of the main reasons that I felt I believed was because of all the stuff Jesus said which I found very in truth. But as I've read philosophy I've noticed some things i.e. that a philosopher Confusius said his Golden Rule 500 years before he did, and my believes started failing.

Empirically I've not met any particularly wise christian people compared to non-christians, although maybe more giving.

And rationally, as above, when reading philosophy I feel that does more for me here.

To be reconvinced I think both these aspects need to be confronted.

[Zantra]

In order to restore faith, you must find a happy medium between blind faith and logical disdain

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why couldn't it be approached like any other theory, like the theory of evolution, in terms of its cause and effect? (and in this sense I mean "rationally"). Obviously the Universe will still be here whether we establish God as its origin or not. While I doubt very much that anything will change, except perhaps some people may be required to show a little more compassion towards others. Even so, one doesn't necessarily need to invoke God to even suggest this.

All I can say is that there is evidence, and it's all a matter of whether one wants to conduct the research for oneself or not.

Well, first there has to be evidence that can be checked by others who may completely disagree with you. This is certainly the way of science.

If you wish it investigated as a scientific endeavor, clarify your evidence, develop hypotheses which make falsifiable predictions. If it is not possible to produce falsifiable predictions, then you are likely outside the domain of science.

Why don't we start here and now - state a couple of pieces of evidence, and come up one or more reason derived predictions based on that evidence. Make sure your conclusions are the simplest that fit the evidence.

I look forward to your post.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Well, first there has to be evidence that can be checked by others who may completely disagree with you. This is certainly the way of science.

If you wish it investigated as a scientific endeavor, clarify your evidence, develop hypotheses which make falsifiable predictions. If it is not possible to produce falsifiable predictions, then you are likely outside the domain of science.

Why don't we start here and now - state a couple of pieces of evidence, and come up one or more reason derived predictions based on that evidence. Make sure your conclusions are the simplest that fit the evidence.

I look forward to your post. And yet the theory of evolution is just that, a theory isn't it? In which case all I have to offer up here, as is the case with evolution, is conjecture.

However, I have been able to amass enough proof for myself, to answer this question on a personal level which, is more in line with the title of this thread.

While I'm afraid all I can do is speak from my own experience, and do so to the best of my ability. I don't know if that's good enough to begin a debate or not?

Another thing, is that once you establish something, you tend to get a little bit lazy, as it no longer requires all this additional evidence -- as it would in a debate -- to back it up. In which case I might seem a little short-handed in some of my replies, as I'm not always dwelling on such things. Nor do I always feel like there's something there to be said.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Dave
What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

Well?
Well, I think it would be a nice start if he'd at least come over once for dinner.

I'm sure we could find a way to take it forward from there.

[Andy]

Going back to an earlier post, cant be bothered to quote it, but maybe god is the Q, and maybe he/it has created life on this planet just to see how much fun he can have with us by giving us all freedom of thought, maybe he is having bets with all of his Q mates to see how long it takes for us to destroy the world that we live in, maybe it just wants to laugh at all of our petty little arguements about religions that he probably started on his own just to confuse the earths population, maybe i have just got back from the pub after a few drinks and dont know when to stop typing.

To sum up all of that rubbish maybe Q is just having a laugh with his mates.

[heusdens]

What does it take one to be convinced that God (the being which is defined as the consciouss omnipotent omniscient infinite eternal being and creator of the universe) actually does not exist?

But consider this:
The being defined as above has a fundamental flaw that makes it into an inpossibility.

The argument is not that eternal infinite being can not exist, since we can conceive of the material world, that it was not created but existed always.
The argument is however that the eternal infinite material world itself (which is the highest or most broad form of being, since there is nothing outside or beyond it) can not exist in consciouss or subjective form.
To be consciousness, means to be consciousness of something. but by definition there is not something beyond or outside the eternal infinite material world itself.
To be subjective can only be defined if there is something that forms an objective basis for that.
To be selfconsciouss and selfaware can only be meaningfull if there is something that you can distinguishe between that which is you, and that what is not you. You can not reflect on yourself, if there is nothing outside you, to reflect on.

So consciousness has no meaning and can not be defined in the context of the eternal infinite existing material world, which is all being.

We are an expression, a development product, of the material world, which can exist in subjective and consciouss form, cause we can reflect on and be aware of the world, which itself exists in objective form. This objective world had to be already there, forming and constituting the reason and cause for our own existence.
We can distinguish between ourselves, and that what is outside, apart from and independend from us.

Any form of consciousness requires there to be an objective world in first (primary) instance, that causes consciousness to become existent, and which can be related to in a subjective way.

The material world in total can only be something objective, and can not have any consciousness of itself. Instead we - our human form - makes that the world exists also in subjective form. We are the way in which the universe, the material world, can reflect on itself and can be consciousss of itself.

So the existence of something in consciouss form, prior to there being a material world in objective form, is therefore an impossibility.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the theory of evolution is just that, a theory isn't it? In which case all I have to offer up here, as is the case with evolution, is conjecture.


Definitional argument flaw. You are using the common definition of theory and the scientific definition as equivalent. They, though spelled and pronounced the same, they are in fact, completely different in meaning.

Theory, in common usage is no more than conjecture. Theory in science, is something that has gone thru the conjecture and hypothesis stage, with collection of enough evidence and sets of logical, falsifiable predictions, surviving all assaults of those that disagree, that based on the evidence it is considered a theory.

You are trying to jump past that. God Iacchus, read up on this crap before throwing it out here. You obviously know virtually nothing of evolution, except for popular notions - read! study! learn! The mountains of evidence to support it are staggering. Are there points that will be overturned - yes, is the basic idea incorrect, hardly. The theory of evolution battled uphill for over a century. It's earned being a theory - you can't just jump past the hard part.

There is only one stage (for want of a better word) closer to certainty in science - that of a law. Most complex ideas cannot be a law because there is no way to become more certain. There are gas laws and the laws of gravity and ohms law - simple conditions that are obvious and so highly repeatable as to be virtually impossible to deny. Almost all other 'ideas' in science can only progress to the stage of theory.

Now if you can produce even one hundredth the evidence that supports evolution, then we will call your conjecture a theory. Otherwise please present the evidence.

However, I have been able to amass enough proof for myself, to answer this question on a personal level which, is more in line with the title of this thread.

That you have enough to convince yourself is good, there is no argument here, however your prior statement, that illicited my response, stated that it should be investigated seriously by science. As such, your personal convictions and beliefs bear no weight of evidence, thus irrelavent to your question/debate.

I repeat my request for you to provide unambiguous evidence to support your request that this subject be investigated by science.


Another thing, is that once you establish something, you tend to get a little bit lazy, as it no longer requires all this additional evidence -- as it would in a debate -- to back it up. In which case I might seem a little short-handed in some of my replies, as I'm not always dwelling on such things. Nor do I always feel like there's something there to be said.

But you haven't established anything with us. Certainly nothing that would support your request that this subject be treated scientifically.

I hate to point out the obvious, but unless I'm mistaken, you've never produced evidence to support the conjecture, in a scientific investigation, that god exists. So whatever you consider established is solely within the confines of your own skull. Until it's presented, fully, to the light of this inquiry, it remains true only to you. Until presented, this puts it squarely outside the domain science.

We await your evidence.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Definitional argument flaw. You are using the common definition of theory and the scientific definition as equivalent. They, though spelled and pronounced the same, they are in fact, completely different in meaning.

Theory, in common usage is no more than conjecture. Theory in science, is something that has gone thru the conjecture and hypothesis stage, with collection of enough evidence and sets of logical, falsifiable predictions, surviving all assaults of those that disagree, that based on the evidence it is considered a theory.

You are trying to jump past that. God Iacchus, read up on this crap before throwing it out here. You obviously know virtually nothing of evolution, except for popular notions - read! study! learn! The mountains of evidence to support it are staggering. Are there points that will be overturned - yes, is the basic idea incorrect, hardly. The theory of evolution battled uphill for over a century. It's earned being a theory - you can't just jump past the hard part.

There is only one stage (for want of a better word) closer to certainty in science - that of a law. Most complex ideas cannot be a law because there is no way to become more certain. There are gas laws and the laws of gravity and ohms law - simple conditions that are obvious and so highly repeatable as to be virtually impossible to deny. Almost all other 'ideas' in science can only progress to the stage of theory.

Now if you can produce even one hundredth the evidence that supports evolution, then we will call your conjecture a theory. Otherwise please present the evidence.

That you have enough to convince yourself is good, there is no argument here, however your prior statement, that illicited my response, stated that it should be investigated seriously by science. As such, your personal convictions and beliefs bear no weight of evidence, thus irrelavent to your question/debate.

I repeat my request for you to provide unambiguous evidence to support your request that this subject be investigated by science.

But you haven't established anything with us. Certainly nothing that would support your request that this subject be treated scientifically.

I hate to point out the obvious, but unless I'm mistaken, you've never produced evidence to support the conjecture, in a scientific investigation, that god exists. So whatever you consider established is solely within the confines of your own skull. Until it's presented, fully, to the light of this inquiry, it remains true only to you. Until presented, this puts it squarely outside the domain science.

We await your evidence. Let me put it this way, so perhaps you can get off your high horse and find something useful to do.

How do you know that the sun shines? How do you know that the sky is blue? How do you know that a rose is beautiful?

Indeed, if you can't answer the question of God within the same context, as being "intrinsic," then chances are you'll never get it. And yes hey, it means you've at least identified this much, and that this should become your starting point. In which case you may begin to find evidence to support the "intrinsic event."

Do you believe that knowledge is intrinsic? Or, at least our ability to acknowledge it? And what's the difference between animal instinct and intrinsic knowledge? Enough to say that they aren't altogether dissimilar? Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?

These are the kinds of things that I've posted time and time again throughout my 1,500 or so posts on Physics Forums (including PF 2.0), and if you don't think any of it can be construed as evidence, or even conjecture (I recommend you do your own search), then I'll tell you of a neat little place where the sun don't shine ...

P.S. One final thing. I do have an opinion and I do have a right to voice my concerns. Comprender?

[BoulderHead]

Iacchus32,
Does this mean that I should expect god to come over for dinner?
Or should I set out an extra plate anyway, just for the idea of God?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Iacchus32,
Does this mean that I should expect god to come over for dinner?
Or should I set out an extra plate anyway, just for the idea of God? Speaking for myself I would say no. But hey you never know, things do have a way of happening when you least expect it.

Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?

But the main thing I suppose, is that you remember Santa Claus likes milk with his cookies. [;)]

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How do you know that the sun shines? How do you know that the sky is blue? How do you know that a rose is beautiful?

Indeed, if you can't answer the question of God within the same context, as being "intrinsic," then chances are you'll never get it. And yes hey, it means you've at least identified this much, and that this should become your starting point. In which case you may begin to find evidence to support the "intrinsic event."

Do you believe that knowledge is intrinsic? Or, at least our ability to acknowledge it? And what's the difference between animal instinct and intrinsic knowledge? Enough to say that they aren't altogether dissimilar? Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?

These are the kinds of things that I've posted time and time again throughout my 1,500 or so posts on Physics Forums (including PF 2.0), and if you don't think any of it can be construed as evidence, or even conjecture (I recommend you do your own search), then I'll tell you of a neat little place where the sun don't shine ...

P.S. One final thing. I do have an opinion and I do have a right to voice my concerns. Comprender? [/B]

The sun shines because of gaseous interactions which perpetually keep the sun burning. The sky is blue because of atmospheric conditions whereby the sunlight bounces off the troposphere(I may be off on this). And saying a rose is beautiful is a subjective statement, we are examining the objective evidence of god.

And you're right, you do have a right to voice your opinion.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?
You mean it is possible to think an occurance has something to do with God, when in reality it just might not?

But the main thing I suppose, is that you remember Santa Claus likes milk with his cookies. [;)]
Yes, I always leave some goodies near the chimney for him, too. [:D]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
You mean it is possible to think an occurance has something to do with God, when in reality it just might not?Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist. [;)]

[radagast]

Iacchus,
I've done what I can to try and see your point of view. In terms of a personal belief in god, etc., I see no problem with most you have said.

What I have had issue with is your insistence that science acknowledge your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. To do so, science would have to completely change it's methodology, and the definition of what it is.

Sure, a lot of people here will not acknowledge something if there isn't scientific evidence - so what! That should be a completely seperate issue from perverting science to try and make it fit into a mold in which it wasn't designed.

You state you wish that science should address your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. Yet, when using the tools of science to do just that, in asking for evidence - you try to pass off evidence of a completely subjective nature - evidence that those who may disagree with your conclusions, cannot possibly check. You imply the mounds of objective evidence that support evolution are equivalent to your theory of god, simply because you use the word theory to describe them.

This is not science. It cannot be science without completely redefining what science is.

Science is a system that is designed to be self-correcting. Fraud and unintended, erroneous information can be and is discovered and rooted out. As an example: If we are to take completely subjective evidence as true, how do we cancel out the fraud, the erroneous results gotten because they were expected by the individuals that are part of the experiment, simple mental illness, or the same terms being used to describe completely different internal states? These are totally subjective, so it's not like I can repeat them with someone else or take them out and compare them with Boulderhead's or Zantra's.

(Our view of ) Objective reality is always filtered thru both the subjective and language. It does have some consistency and constantcy because there is a common set of referents. If the sensation I associate with seeing green is the sensation someone else has when seeing blue there is no problem, it is irrelavent, because each of us has the same type sensation, internally, to the same external referent, so the words and semiotic signs we use to designate them are consistent. With the subjective, there is no way of being certain the referents we assume are common, are in common. They could be influenced by expectations, or something completely different, yet we would call them by the same names. There are important reasons why science restricts itself to the objective. The recent thread on enlightenment is a great example. Some described almost mundane occurrences, others profound. They all used the same term.

I do believe there are things we can learn that are as far from the scientific as is possible - that is no reason for me, nor anyone else, to assume that science has a duty or should be perverted to investigate them, or that they have no value.

There are systems/patterns of behaviour/investigative methods that are used to discover these, but they are not within the scope of science.

Science may be able to tell exactly how a smile occurs, what the hormones and neurotransmitters occur with the emotion of happiness, but it cannot and is not meant to tell us how we are to find happiness. That doesn't mean finding happiness doesn't exist, only that it's outside the domain of science. The same could be said for appreciating art, for finding purpose in ones life, for finding spiritual fulfillment, or for learning to play a lute.

You say I'm on a high horse for stating what any first year college science major should know implicitly. You say you have evidence, but the only evidence you mention is explicitly excluded from scientific investigation. I have little clue as to your areas of expertise, but if someone started saying a lot a stuff that was plain nonsense about this field, how would you react.

I can no more investigate and double check your internal, subjective experiences any more than you can relieve my full bladder by going to the rest room for me.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?

<...response>

Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist. [;)]

Actually, no. This is Occams razor at work.

God brings a lot of baggage to explain, something that precognition would answer but with less baggage/ less 'elaboration of reasons', which Occams is so famous for slicing thru.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist. [;)]

Basing events on God is a self-reinforcement. Things that would be normally written off as coincidental, or happening through a complexed chain of cause and effect, are being attributed to the intervention of God. Yet 99.9 percent of those events can be logically and scientifically explained if you have a complete picture and understanding.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
I've done what I can to try and see your point of view. In terms of a personal belief in god, etc., I see no problem with most you have said.

What I have had issue with is your insistence that science acknowledge your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. To do so, science would have to completely change it's methodology, and the definition of what it is.

Sure, a lot of people here will not acknowledge something if there isn't scientific evidence - so what! That should be a completely seperate issue from perverting science to try and make it fit into a mold in which it wasn't designed.Except for the fact that we're all human beings and we all own a piece of the "original equipment." Otherwise, what's the point in trying to communicate anything? You don't think science can be inclusive of that?


You state you wish that science should address your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. Yet, when using the tools of science to do just that, in asking for evidence - you try to pass off evidence of a completely subjective nature - evidence that those who may disagree with your conclusions, cannot possibly check. You imply the mounds of objective evidence that support evolution are equivalent to your theory of god, simply because you use the word theory to describe them.As I have said time and time again, I have no qualms with the theory of evolution per se', in so far as it goes ... in terms of the "natural world."


This is not science. It cannot be science without completely redefining what science is.And yet the difference between the "objective reality" and the "subjective reality," is the difference between the beginning of life (essence) and where that life culminates and drops off (in form). Or, you can even say it's a matter of life and death, in that essence doesn't extend beyond form (outside of context), in which case anything that exists outside of form -- and hence "objective reality" -- spells death for the essence or life within. Are you saying that science should not be inclusive of this?

At the very least I think it gives some grounds for the inquiry of what I'm trying to say. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Actually, no. This is Occams razor at work.

God brings a lot of baggage to explain, something that precognition would answer but with less baggage/ less 'elaboration of reasons', which Occams is so famous for slicing thru. And yet if you don't open up to the possibility that God exists, then you will never know. This is the only thing I was trying to say. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
Basing events on God is a self-reinforcement. Things that would be normally written off as coincidental, or happening through a complexed chain of cause and effect, are being attributed to the intervention of God. Yet 99.9 percent of those events can be logically and scientifically explained if you have a complete picture and understanding. And yet the original question was kind of misleading, perhaps on purpose?

And basically by my reply, I was trying to say which reality? A reality that includes God? Or, a reality that doesn't? I only suggested it was possible because of my own personal beliefs about God, not to reinforce mine or anyone else's.

[bleh]

if you think of god as a being, something tangible then i dont think i could wrap my head around that one, but if you think god is something intangible then i do think that it has some bearing because religion only sets out to make people as good as possible and religion dosnt exist with out god.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except for the fact that we're all human beings and we all own a piece of the "original equipment." Otherwise, what's the point in trying to communicate anything? You don't think science can be inclusive of that?

Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.



As I have said time and time again, I have no qualms with the theory of evolution per se', in so far as it goes ... in terms of the "natural world."


I realise that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.



And yet the difference between the "objective reality" and the "subjective reality," is the difference between the beginning of life (essence) and where that life culminates and drops off (in form). Or, you can even say it's a matter of life and death, in that essence doesn't extend beyond form (outside of context), in which case anything that exists outside of form -- and hence "objective reality" -- spells death for the essence or life within. Are you saying that science should not be inclusive of this?


Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.

[radagast]

Originally posted by bleh
...and religion dosnt exist with out god.

Since both Buddhism and Taoism exist, without a god, then I would have to disagree.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by bleh
if you think of god as a being, something tangible then i dont think i could wrap my head around that one, but if you think god is something intangible then i do think that it has some bearing because religion only sets out to make people as good as possible and religion dosnt exist with out god. I believe in God as both tangible and intangible, in that if there was nothing tangible we couldn't possibly know, and yet, there are so many intangible things that we will probably never know.

[megashawn]

Iacchus:

Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?

Yes, I agree that this God idea has popped up. The problem, is that it is rarely the same, or even close to the same God that pops up.

And the particular brand of god your pimping out is not of the oldest known.

But this is supposed to be evidence? Hardly. Really it seems to work against your cause.

See, Jo Volcano in pre-history California sees something, that, in his limited understanding of nature confuses the mess out of him. In this confusion, he decides the act most have been of a supernatural God type being.

This is quite apparent, if you look at some of these religions that have "popped up".

And yet if you don't open up to the possibility that God exists, then you will never know. This is the only thing I was trying to say.

I do not deny the possibility of a god. Frankly, I don't have any idea. To make a decision based on ignorance does not seem like a good idea to me. If there is a god, then there is no good reason I do not know it.

(I in the previous paragraph can be any of us)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.And yet, if we all had the capacity to experience the taste, then it wouldn't it be a matter of introducing the fruit?


I realise that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.Basically all I'm doing is taking the theory of evolution (not to detract from it) and extending it to include a "spiritual reality." So in that respect you can't really use evolution for the sake of comparison, unless you wish to claim only the "natural world" exists.


Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned. And yet it does illustrate the fact that an "internal reality" exists and, that the purpose of the "objective reality" exists for the sake of maintaining that which is internal (life itself), that indeed the "internal reality" takes more precedence. What this tells me is that the key to the "mystery of life" is within. Therefore, if we want to better understand the human predicament -- i.e., from whence it comes and whence it goes -- then we need to look within.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Iacchus:

Yes, I agree that this God idea has popped up. The problem, is that it is rarely the same, or even close to the same God that pops up.

And the particular brand of god your pimping out is not of the oldest known.

But this is supposed to be evidence? Hardly. Really it seems to work against your cause.

See, Jo Volcano in pre-history California sees something, that, in his limited understanding of nature confuses the mess out of him. In this confusion, he decides the act most have been of a supernatural God type being.

This is quite apparent, if you look at some of these religions that have "popped up".Pimping? ...

There are as many gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, there is only one sun in the sky. So that allows for just about any approach you could care for. And, while such a diversity of gods has existed, they tend to have a lot more things in common, with many underlying themes running throughout each.


I do not deny the possibility of a god. Frankly, I don't have any idea. To make a decision based on ignorance does not seem like a good idea to me. If there is a god, then there is no good reason I do not know it.I can assure you, I wouldn't predicate my belief in God based upon this alone. [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

-----
Originally posted by radagast
Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.
-----

And yet, if we all had the capacity to experience the taste, then it wouldn't it be a matter of introducing the fruit?


Iacchus,
You are a true master at avoiding the exact issue raised.

I try to make a point about the inability of one person to 'see' the evidence of another's subjective experience, and you divert the issue to something irrelevant. I have been under the working assumption you don't do this intentionally (otherwise I'd drop the discussion - no need speaking with anyone that isn't an honest debater).

I cannot figure out if you are subconsciously doing this because you want to win the argument, or you just cannot stick to the subject.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

quote:From radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realise that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Basically all I'm doing is taking the theory of evolution (not to detract from it) and extending it to include a "spiritual reality." So in that respect you can't really use evolution for the sake of comparison, unless you wish to claim only the "natural world" exists.


Evolution was only picked, because it was an existing theory in science. Any scientific theory would have done, because if it's a scientific theory, it will have a good deal of evidence to support what's hypothesized.

The point you are diverting from, is that I expect the same level and type of evidence for any theory to be accepted in a scientific setting, whether it covers the sex lives of the horn toad, or concerns the existence of a god.

So far, the only evidence you've mentioned (that I've personally seen) concerns a subjective experience, that cannot be seen or shown to a dispassionate investigator, or two that the concept to god has been around a while. The former isn't evidence that can be used by science, and the latter, using Occams razor, would have many, many simpler, more reasonable answers.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

-------from radagast
Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.
-------
And yet it does illustrate the fact that an "internal reality" exists and, that the purpose of the "objective reality" exists for the sake of maintaining that which is internal (life itself), that indeed the "internal reality" takes more precedence. What this tells me is that the key to the "mystery of life" is within. Therefore, if we want to better understand the human predicament -- i.e., from whence it comes and whence it goes -- then we need to look within.

One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.

three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.

four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
You are a true master at avoiding the exact issue raised.

I try to make a point about the inability of one person to 'see' the evidence of another's subjective experience, and you divert the issue to something irrelevant. I have been under the working assumption you don't do this intentionally (otherwise I'd drop the discussion - no need speaking with anyone that isn't an honest debater).

I cannot figure out if you are subconsciously doing this because you want to win the argument, or you just cannot stick to the subject. Actually I wasn't sure what the heck you were trying to say here?


Originally posted by radagast
Evolution was only picked, because it was an existing theory in science. Any scientific theory would have done, because if it's a scientific theory, it will have a good deal of evidence to support what's hypothesized.I realized that after I made the reply, but since I already had it in mind to say it, I decided to leave it as is.


The point you are diverting from, is that I expect the same level and type of evidence for any theory to be accepted in a scientific setting, whether it covers the sex lives of the horn toad, or concerns the existence of a god.But it's not like somebody just came up with theory that God existed out of the blue. You can construe that as evidence too if you like. [;)]


So far, the only evidence you've mentioned (that I've personally seen) concerns a subjective experience, that cannot be seen or shown to a dispassionate investigator, or two that the concept to god has been around a while. The former isn't evidence that can be used by science, and the latter, using Occams razor, would have many, many simpler, more reasonable answers.What would you have me do write a book about it and present it here for everybody's review?


Originally posted by radagast
One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.Except for the fact (hence evidence) that we're speaking about the same animal here. You can apply this to your Occam's razor as well.


three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.Just as with any endeavor, say like exploring the depths of the sea, you begin with the generalites (i.e., on the surface), and work your way in (hence down). Doesn't that at least suggest the beginnings of an approach? And why couldn't it be explored by means of psychology or anthropology and what not?


four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32



And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).

See, this is where you screw up. Blood isn't 'essence', it is BLOOD! There is a physical, biological reason why you bleed to death. So, associating blood with your make-believe ideas is just wrong.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I wasn't sure what the heck you were trying to say here?


Then I apologize for the diverting issues statement.

I will reiterate, so as to clarify.


1) You state Science should investigate 'gods' existence.

2) Science requires that all evidence be view and verified by all investigative parties, both those that accept a conclusion from the evidence and those unconvinced.

3) The evidence you keep bringing up doesn't match point (2), in that I can no more examine your evidence of god, andmore than someone who's never tasted a fruit can 'know' the taste of a mango, from someone else's description.


If this isn't clear enough, please point out which points are not.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
See, this is where you screw up. Blood isn't 'essence', it is BLOOD! There is a physical, biological reason why you bleed to death. So, associating blood with your make-believe ideas is just wrong. No, I say blood because it's part of the internal makeup of the body, and hence essential. And let's not forget that the blood oxygenates our body and sustains it with nutrients.

Am just trying to use this as an example of how the form gets breeched (or corrupted) and the essence gets taken out of context, and the "life-form" (essence and the form) dies.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I say blood because it's part of the internal makeup of the body, and hence essential. And let's not forget that the blood oxygenates our body and sustains it with nutrients.

Am just trying to use this as an example of how the form gets breeched (or corrupted) and the essence gets taken out of context, and the "life-form" (essence and the form) dies.
And your example is wrong. That is your problem! You try to use faulty comparisons to 'prove' things that don't exist.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Then I apologize for the diverting issues statement.

I will reiterate, so as to clarify.


1) You state Science should investigate 'gods' existence.

2) Science requires that all evidence be view and verified by all investigative parties, both those that accept a conclusion from the evidence and those unconvinced.

3) The evidence you keep bringing up doesn't match point (2), in that I can no more examine your evidence of god, andmore than someone who's never tasted a fruit can 'know' the taste of a mango, from someone else's description.


If this isn't clear enough, please point out which points are not. And yet, which is what I was "attempting" to bring up, is what if you were to compare the experiences of those who have already shared the experience, and begin by comparing notes? And, while there may be nothing conclusive to it (although I have seen studies which were), you may discover a means by which to begin the approach.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And your example is wrong. That is your problem! You try to use faulty comparisons to 'prove' things that don't exist. As I said in the previous post to which you first replied, that in order to understand something, you begin with the generalities (i.e., what you do know) and work your way in (typically from the outside to the inside). So what is the difference between this and what I'm trying to tell you?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
As I said in the previous post to which you first replied, that in order to understand something, you begin with the generalities (i.e., what you do know) and work your way in (typically from the outside to the inside). So what is the difference between this and what I'm trying to tell you?

The difference is that you are comparing apples and noexistant oranges.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But it's not like somebody just came up with theory that God existed out of the blue. You can construe that as evidence too if you like. [;)]

One) Please use the term conjecture (or something similar), NOT theory. Theory has an extremely special meaning, in a scientific context - one that you haven't met so far. This will prevent avoidable confusion.

Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.


What would you have me do write a book about it and present it here for everybody's review?


Nope, just present some evidence that supports the existence of (a) god(s). Then, those of us with a scientific bent will present out acceptance or rejection of said evidence, with the reasons behind the acceptance/rejection.

All this, keeping in mind that science is designed so that theories are targetted to skeptics. Theories demonstrate that they fit the evidence seen better than any other theory with the power or the evidence and rationality of the reasoning.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by radagast
One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except for the fact (hence evidence) that we're speaking about the same animal here. You can apply this to your Occam's razor as well.


OK, You'll need to clarify what you mean. Perhaps there's too many pronouns or I'm just overworked, but I have no idea what you mean.







quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just as with any endeavor, say like exploring the depths of the sea, you begin with the generalites (i.e., on the surface), and work your way in (hence down). Doesn't that at least suggest the beginnings of an approach? And why couldn't it be explored by means of psychology or anthropology and what not?


But to use psychology, you wouldn't be investigating the existence of god, but the effect of 'a specific experience' on the persons mental state and subsequent actions - nothing to do with the boolean nature of god's existence.

Similarly, anthropology would investigate the effect of a belief on groups of humans, not the existence, or lack thereof, of god.



quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).


While you may consider it very clear, I would take it to be quite the opposite. You assume I cannot see something different [what I get from reading your post], yet I do. Since I do disagree, then how can this be taken as evidence (moreover, evidence of what).

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet, which is what I was "attempting" to bring up, is what if you were to compare the experiences of those who have already shared the experience, and begin by comparing notes? And, while there may be nothing conclusive to it (although I have seen studies which were), you may discover a means by which to begin the approach.

But from a scientific point of view, there is no way to assume the two experiences are the same. Similar, but no way to determine if they are the same.

E.g. You give two people that haven't tasted fruit a piece of fruit. One a lemon and one a lime. If they only taste the fruit, not see it, how can they communicate to the point of determining it was the same or a different fruit.

There is also the problem of determining if the experience has a myriad of other, more mundane, causes.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
One) Please use the term conjecture (or something similar), NOT theory. Theory has an extremely special meaning, in a scientific context - one that you haven't met so far. This will prevent avoidable confusion.And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).


Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.And yet there's nothing to say that these same arguments can't be used in the existence "for" God -- i.e., in illustrating man's "inherent" need for authority, thus alluding to the ultimate authority, "God Himself." And neither do they explain the elaborate imagery and mythologies entailed (especially in well developed cultures, such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc.).


Nope, just present some evidence that supports the existence of (a) god(s). Then, those of us with a scientific bent will present out acceptance or rejection of said evidence, with the reasons behind the acceptance/rejection. Those of us? Hmm ...


All this, keeping in mind that science is designed so that theories are targetted to skeptics. Theories demonstrate that they fit the evidence seen better than any other theory with the power or the evidence and rationality of the reasoning. And how about myself? I doubt that you can find a much better skeptic than I. And you can ask Zero about that! [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).




There is no such thing as a Theory of Creationism. That is one of the points you seem to miss. Calling something a theory doesn't make it so. "Theory' is the highest level an idea can achieve in science, and creationism doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).


In respected scientific circles, Creationism is about as far from a theory as you can get. Only the creationists believe it's a theory, not the general scientific community.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32 quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet there's nothing to say that these same arguments can't be used in the existence "for" God -- i.e., in illustrating man's "inherent" need for authority, thus alluding to the ultimate authority, "God Himself." And neither do they explain the elaborate imagery and mythologies entailed (especially in well developed cultures, such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc.).


But what you're running into is a difference between 'poor' evidence and 'good' evidence. If evidence supports conclusion 'a' much more poorly (or less reasonably [see Occam's razor]) than other conclusions, then it's considered poor evidence of conclusion 'a'.

Even assuming no difference in the quality of the evidence, Occams razor is still a factor. Existent and more mundane possible causes are more reasonable to claim, because they carry no overhead of explaining how they exist (since they are known to), compared with god, which requires many more details (where did god come from, how was he created, where does he exist, how do we know all these things).

To put it in more concrete terms, when you find the body of a person with a bullet hole in his head, you could suppose he was shot by a gun, or we could suppose that the bullet appeared in front of the person, already traveling at a high rate of speed, killing the poor guy. We have no more evidence of one supposition than the other, but it's more reasonable to pick the one that requires no added explanations.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And how about myself? I doubt that you can find a much better skeptic than I. And you can ask Zero about that! [;)]

The conjecture has to take on all skeptics, not just those that proposed it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
There is no such thing as a Theory of Creationism. That is one of the points you seem to miss. Calling something a theory doesn't make it so. "Theory' is the highest level an idea can achieve in science, and creationism doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria. So far, all I've alluded to in my posts is the theory of evolution, that is until now. And as for the theory of Creationism, I'm not even sure what that entails, except that there are parts which take the Bible literally, that I don't agree with. I just threw this up to see if any theory of God was deemed acceptable, which apparently it's not.

[megashawn]

If a god theory could offer something beneficial, then I'm sure it would be taken serious.

If it solved any fundamental questions, again, a serious look would be taken.

But really, there has been no God hypothesis (i think thats the word your looking for here) that has shown to be even slightly usefull. In deed it seems that adding god to the mix rather complicates things.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
But what you're running into is a difference between 'poor' evidence and 'good' evidence. If evidence supports conclusion 'a' much more poorly (or less reasonably [see Occam's razor]) than other conclusions, then it's considered poor evidence of conclusion 'a'.Not necessarily, because the thing you don't understand is that I'm not trying to refute the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of God, but only augment the two. In which case evidence from either side would still be acceptable. Hence it would only be a matter of finding the "missing links."


Even assuming no difference in the quality of the evidence, Occams razor is still a factor. Existent and more mundane possible causes are more reasonable to claim, because they carry no overhead of explaining how they exist (since they are known to), compared with god, which requires many more details (where did god come from, how was he created, where does he exist, how do we know all these things).And yet what does Occam's razor got to do with the world being flat? Which is precisely the point. Because this was the easiest thing for people to understand at that time. Are you not setting yourself up for the potential of repeating the same "classical mistake?" Indeed!


To put it in more concrete terms, when you find the body of a person with a bullet hole in his head, you could suppose he was shot by a gun, or we could suppose that the bullet appeared in front of the person, already traveling at a high rate of speed, killing the poor guy. We have no more evidence of one supposition than the other, but it's more reasonable to pick the one that requires no added explanations. Except that we all know that a bullet is typically fired from a gun or, how about if it was thrown into a nearby campfire or something?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
If a god theory could offer something beneficial, then I'm sure it would be taken serious.

If it solved any fundamental questions, again, a serious look would be taken.

But really, there has been no God hypothesis (i think thats the word your looking for here) that has shown to be even slightly usefull. In deed it seems that adding god to the mix rather complicates things. Well I can think of one useful thing right off hand. It might give science and religion a chance to agree with each other for once, and maybe they could do something useful together, like clean up the environment -- i.e., by means of a grass roots organization or something.

If you're interested and would like to read more, please check out my Center of Existence (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1869) thread.

[megashawn]

heh, uhm, running out of straws?

Why in the world would religion and science need to unite to clean up the enviroment?

There are groups around here cleaning up that are multi-cultured. See, the trick, is to do this. If you believe in something unexplainable to the average joe, and for some reason feel benefited, by all means do it. Don't try to make something that isn't going to work happen.

I see what your saying, and in your eyes, I'd imagine you could view science as a tool for exploring gods creation.

Science just leaves it open for anyone, saying it is a tool for exploring everything.

I mean, its not like you go to school to become a physicist and get kicked out because you believe in god.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
heh, uhm, running out of straws?

Why in the world would religion and science need to unite to clean up the enviroment?Well you obviously didn't bother to read the thread. [g)]

[Zantra]

I think the theme of this, and what I believe is that with regard to religion, People who believe in it are not willing to accept any alternative or even consider it for the most part. For example:

If the 2nd messiah came, or God appeared and started smiting people, I'll admit as an athiest I'd be dumbfounded. But after a short pause I'd say "well, time to rewrite science- and acceptance would sink in. In the face of an undeniable observation like oceans parting or Jesus strolling down the boulevard, I'd have no choice to to accept the reality of it.

Now take a religious person. Say we discovered the true origins of the universe, and ultimately realized it was natural phenomenon. Or say a new technology was developed allowing us to prove that the bible was a work of fiction created by a mortal man. Perhaps we could even one day time travel back to 33 BC and see if Christ really existed. Either way, it was proven beyond any escapable shadow of a doubt that religion was a hoax, and that there was no God. I can envision mass hysteria, mass suicides, and total denial. Religious people could not accept, as whole, the end of religion. They believe, against any form of evidence, that God does exist. If an alien race were to come down and say "hey, we seeded you millenia ago, and we're more advanced than you are, but we're not omnipotent" Religion would call them frauds.

You say to me prove that god doesn't exist and I say to you, prove to me that infinity never ends(in the physical sense, not mathmatical- been there, done that:P)

[heusdens]

Zantra:

Your whole point about the proof/disproof of God is in fact pointless, cause you would assume we have to wait for facts digging up, that would never occur.

The whole point about the proof/disproof of God, is that that issue resides within the mind itself, and nowhere else.

God is and never has been a "real" entity of and to the world.
God has only existed in mindly form, in the minds of people.

The philosophical and materialistic untrained mind, are likely to fall for the "easy" way religion explains things and deals with "proof". It is entirely mind based, and does not bother at any moment to take reality itself, in an objective way, into account.

The proof for any idea is however not in the mind itself, but outside of that. Just that religion will never accept that.

Any outlook in a philosophical way has to start with *some* assumption about reality. Either reality exists in a material way in primary instance, and in consciouss form only secondary, or (like theism claims) the other way around.

These are two different outlooks on reality, which oppose each other.

So what you realy have to do is struggle with that philosophical question, and establish for yourself the right perception of reality.

Reading some books on that particular issue might help.

What do you think. Can your mind (continue) to exists without a body and brain? And if yours can't why would that situation be any different to any consciouss being?

Is matter objective? Or does it appear and reappear just as the mind wishes it?

If you know the right answers to such question, you already have some profound outlook on reality.

[Iacchus32]

Well you guys make the hill pretty steep (very little for me to hold onto), and yet I'm not prepared to go rock climbing today. I will, however, let you know once I've conquered the first plateau, and from there we can examine what has progressed so far. [;)]

[Zantra]

Originally posted by heusdens
Zantra:

Your whole point about the proof/disproof of God is in fact pointless, cause you would assume we have to wait for facts digging up, that would never occur.

The whole point about the proof/disproof of God, is that that issue resides within the mind itself, and nowhere else.

God is and never has been a "real" entity of and to the world.
God has only existed in mindly form, in the minds of people.

The philosophical and materialistic untrained mind, are likely to fall for the "easy" way religion explains things and deals with "proof". It is entirely mind based, and does not bother at any moment to take reality itself, in an objective way, into account.

The proof for any idea is however not in the mind itself, but outside of that. Just that religion will never accept that.

Any outlook in a philosophical way has to start with *some* assumption about reality. Either reality exists in a material way in primary instance, and in consciouss form only secondary, or (like theism claims) the other way around.

These are two different outlooks on reality, which oppose each other.

So what you realy have to do is struggle with that philosophical question, and establish for yourself the right perception of reality.

Reading some books on that particular issue might help.

What do you think. Can your mind (continue) to exists without a body and brain? And if yours can't why would that situation be any different to any consciouss being?

Is matter objective? Or does it appear and reappear just as the mind wishes it?

If you know the right answers to such question, you already have some profound outlook on reality.

That is a very good way of looking at it. Just want to point out that my post points out the assumption that it can't be proven physically by my last line. I can no more "prove" that God exists without physical proof than someone could find the non-existent end of infinity.

For myself, I undersand your point about perception of reality, but for me, I require physical proof of something above something that as you said, exists only in the minds of those who created it.

Not quite sure I follow you on the objectivity of matter. Are you hinting that matter is only a reflection of what our minds percieve it to be? If so, I'm not sure I agree. If one person sees an object and describes it, then it could be considered possibly subjective. If multiple persons see something and agree on a description, it stands to reason that the object is as we initially percieve it. Unless you're inferring mass delusion of the way things are percived. Give me more detail one this point, not sure I'm following you correctly.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So far, all I've alluded to in my posts is the theory of evolution, that is until now. And as for the theory of Creationism, I'm not even sure what that entails, except that there are parts which take the Bible literally, that I don't agree with. I just threw this up to see if any theory of God was deemed acceptable, which apparently it's not.

There are obviously no 'theories of God'...and for you to suggest it shows your intentional lack of understanding of a rather simple word like 'theory'.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well I can think of one useful thing right off hand. It might give science and religion a chance to agree with each other for once, and maybe they could do something useful together, like clean up the environment -- i.e., by means of a grass roots organization or something.

If you're interested and would like to read more, please check out my Center of Existence (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1869) thread.

Ummm...and I guess we should declare that pi=3, because it makes the math easier? Why should science work with religion? Religion is fairy tales that play on people's phychology, while science is a rational way of looking at the world. Apples and oranges.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...and I guess we should declare that pi=3, because it makes the math easier? Why should science work with religion? Religion is fairy tales that play on people's phychology, while science is a rational way of looking at the world. Apples and oranges. Because science is of the mind and religion is of the heart, and if maybe we could put "our hearts" where only our mind is right now, then hey, we might actually get something done. Otherwise? ... not until hell freezes over.

Or perhaps another way of putting this would be to look at the difference between men and women -- essentially a patriarchal view (science) versus a matriarchal view (religion). And here, where men tend to be more rational and scientifically minded (patriarchal), women tend to be more emotional and religiously based (matriarchal). Now has anybody ever heard the expression, "Men are slobs and women are innately clean?" Hmm ... Maybe it's time we allowed women (Mother Church/Mother Earth) the opportunity to "clean house" so to speak?

Need I say more?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Need I say more?

Yes, please. Tell me what exactly do you want from the church and from the science to do, and in what way the church can help the science (or the reverse)?

PS: in my heart there's no religion, only my wife [:))]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
Yes, please. Tell me what exactly do you want from the church and from the science to do, and in what way the church can help the science (or the reverse)?Yes, please follow this link to the previous thread, The Center of Existence (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1869).


PS: in my heart there's no religion, only my wife [:))] Yep, that's close enough! [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not necessarily, because the thing you don't understand is that I'm not trying to refute the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of God, but only augment the two. In which case evidence from either side would still be acceptable. Hence it would only be a matter of finding the "missing links."

If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.



And yet what does Occam's razor got to do with the world being flat? Which is precisely the point. Because this was the easiest thing for people to understand at that time. Are you not setting yourself up for the potential of repeating the same "classical mistake?" Indeed!


Occam's razor is not meant to give you the correct answer, it's not about correct, it's about the most reasonable choice 'at that point in time/or with the current evidence'. Occam's razor would have chosen the earth being flat, because it was the most logical position given the evidence at the time. I thought you understood this.
In science we cannot know the answers we have are correct, only that we are making the most reasonable determination, at the time, with the current evidence.



Except that we all know that a bullet is typically fired from a gun or, how about if it was thrown into a nearby campfire or something?

No, you are making assumptions based on ordinary experience. We do not 'know' the bullet came from any ordinary source. We do not 'know' it didn't appear with the momentum and trajectory needed to kill our hypothetical person. These are the same assumptions some of your detractors are making, with respect to the 'god' issue. Something non-supernatural, i.e. within ordinary experience.

But you do agree that it is the most reasonable position, that it came from a gun.

p.s. a pistol or rifle cartridge (bullet) thrown into a campfire, will project the slug at high velocity (like out of a gun) - the casing explodes, with the bullet being projected at an extremely low velocity. Only the pieces of casing are projected at high velocity.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
There are obviously no 'theories of God'...and for you to suggest it shows your intentional lack of understanding of a rather simple word like 'theory'.

Zero, I believe he understands this. The discussion has been to explain why it couldn't be a theory - or more accurately, why the evidence he has is insufficient to even warrant a hypothesis, much less a theory.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because science is of the mind and religion is of the heart, and if maybe we could put "our hearts" where only our mind is right now, then hey, we might actually get something done. Otherwise? ... not until hell freezes over.

Why don't we keep our hearts where out hearts should be and out minds where their supposed to be. They're functions are different. Applying them to a different one may give us unpleasant results.

The same as trying to get science to do the function of religion.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.And the question is, by whom? Don't you think that's just the least bit reckless, especially when there's such a vast majority that claim otherwise? If it was anything other than the notion of God, then I would probably say no big deal. Or, am I wrong in saying you just claimed that the default position suggests God doesn't exit?


Occam's razor is not meant to give you the correct answer, it's not about correct, it's about the most reasonable choice 'at that point in time/or with the current evidence'. Occam's razor would have chosen the earth being flat, because it was the most logical position given the evidence at the time. I thought you understood this.
In science we cannot know the answers we have are correct, only that we are making the most reasonable determination, at the time, with the current evidence. So in that respect Occam's razor doesn't necessarily mean anything, least of all with respect to God. Hmm ... I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have had to say about such a thing? Of course I think we already know the answer to that. [;)]

And just because water rolls down hill (path of least resistance), doesn't mean we can't construct terraces or build a resevoir by which to contain it. Otherwise nothing is "developed," and we're just maintaining the "status quo."


Originally posted by radagast
Why don't we keep our hearts where out hearts should be and out minds where their supposed to be. They're functions are different. Applying them to a different one may give us unpleasant results.

The same as trying to get science to do the function of religion.But can't we at least recognize that they're both functions of the "same body?" Which can't function -- let alone be whole -- without either one? And what are you suggesting that men should be kept separate from women? ... In which case I would agree, at least for a time. [;)]

[Royce]

Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?

Is the default position any more rational that the God position? After all, while the God postion may contain a lot of extra baggage such as where did God come from, does not the default position contain the same baggage? Where did we, the earth, the universe come from? How much time and effort has been spent; how many books have been written to attempt explain just that?

We can not seperate the mind and the heart, the objective from the subjective, reason from emotion. As much as we would like to try to it is impossible. We are not built that way. We ask and explore and think because we care. It is not pure reason. If we were not involved, did not care, did not need to know we would still been in the trees eating fruit or in the meadows eating grass.

[Zero]

You folks seem confused again...the brain does the THINKING, the heart PUMPS BLOOD.


I hope that clears things up?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
inpossibility.
The argument is however that the eternal infinite material world itself (which is the highest or most broad form of being, since there is nothing outside or beyond it) can not exist in consciouss or subjective form.
To be consciousness, means to be consciousness of something. but by definition there is not something beyond or outside the eternal infinite material world itself.


I find this post to be based on nothing more than semantics and a load of assumptions, some of which have no more a scientific basis than God.

Of course you cannot be conscious of yourself if you are all that exists because the concept of "yourself" is meaningless. That's what I meant when I said semantics above. But there is no basis for saying that you cannot be conscious of whatever it is that exists. You just can't call it "yourself". And to make any claims that one cannot be conscious of anything unless it is distinct from oneself would be making the assumption that things are somehow objectively distinct to begin with! Does sciences say this? I don't think so. If you think about it, distinction is all in the mind.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by radagast
If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the question is, by whom? Don't you think that's just the least bit reckless, especially when there's such a vast majority that claim otherwise? If it was anything other than the notion of God, then I would probably say no big deal. Or, am I wrong in saying you just claimed that the default position suggests God doesn't exit?


Appeal to the popular - an argument flaw. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

If you mean the judgement of good evidence, this has to pass the reasonable person test. Given a good understanding of the type of evidence, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the evidence is good at supporting the argument given for it, and not much more supportive (or more reasonable) of a contradictory argument.

This has not been, in any form or fashion, been presented for your case.


So in that respect Occam's razor doesn't necessarily mean anything, least of all with respect to God. Hmm ... I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have had to say about such a thing? Of course I think we already know the answer to that. [;)]


Certainly it does, have you not been listening? Think about it, I could alway come up with any competeing conjecture, to an existing theory, which fits the evidence, but expands the number of requirements and reasons, unboundedly. So instead of heat traveling from hot objects to cool objects because of radiative dissapation and molecular collision, I could say that trillions of microscopic, invisible fairies carried the heat from hot to cold.

Occam's razor holds because the converse is absurd. It's not a simple concept, but if you try and think it through honestly, it becomes apparent.


First, Columbus, as most intellectuals of the day, knew the world had to be round - the evidence supported it. It was the common people that didn't believe it. Columbus was in extreme error in the computation of the worlds size, and was only saved by the fact that the america's were here, otherwise he'd have died of thirst and hunger.

Just because something is more reasonable to believe, doesn't imply it's true. Nor, does it imply we don't look elsewhere to ensure what we accept is true, is. Each time we get new evidence, the whole needs to be re-evaluated by Occam.


And just because water rolls down hill (path of least resistance), doesn't mean we can't construct terraces or build a resevoir by which to contain it. Otherwise nothing is "developed," and we're just maintaining the "status quo."

This is as good an example of an non-sequituir as I've seen.



But can't we at least recognize that they're both functions of the "same body?" Which can't function -- let alone be whole -- without either one? And what are you suggesting that men should be kept separate from women? ... In which case I would agree, at least for a time. [;)]

No problem with them functioning in the 'same house'. They function that way in my 'house' just fine, as well as a number of theist I know and respect.

What you have asked, though, is that the 'mind' (science) start pumping blood for the heart ('religion'). That has been, is, and will remain the argument in this thread, with you.

The premise that they cannot be alone is a strongly contestable statement. Many people in the forum operate without any religious support/practice/faith.

Men and Women - Aren't we really stretching the analogy way, way past the breaking point here?

I'm beginning to think that any and all debates with you, as cordial as you've been, are fruitless. You seem to ignore/avoid/misinterpret every strong point I've made, ignore the argument flaws detected, dismiss one of the more basic principles of reason, not to mention that our differences seem completely irreconcilable. At the present rate, I will cease any debate with you on any point - no insult intended - simply because they are doomed to a deadlock.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?


Good evidence = see previous post. Good evidence has to be extremely hard to contest (as evidence of a given point or position). Most of the christians I know would have a hard time using the evidence mentioned here as 'scientific' evidence.

Evidence is irrelevant of popularity - hence the reason for the Argumentum ad populum argument flaw. Many millions of small children believe that the universe consists of the inside of their house...


Is the default position any more rational that the God position? After all, while the God postion may contain a lot of extra baggage such as where did God come from, does not the default position contain the same baggage? Where did we, the earth, the universe come from? How much time and effort has been spent; how many books have been written to attempt explain just that?


The problem with the god baggage, vs the physical causes baggage is that we have demonstrated that physical cause and effect happens, no such thing has been demonstrated about god, not even his existence.

Don't get me wrong, have faith in any diety you wish. But to try and apply science to that problem would only pervert science into something which it was not.

Trying to use science to prove god is as absurd as using the bible to construct a Boeing 747. Hammers and screwdrivers - they do different things, when they are misused, the results are rarely pretty.

Assuming you're a believing christian, the last time people tried to prove heaven/god existed, it ended badly. (Babylon)

We can not seperate the mind and the heart, the objective from the subjective, reason from emotion. As much as we would like to try to it is impossible. We are not built that way. We ask and explore and think because we care. It is not pure reason. If we were not involved, did not care, did not need to know we would still been in the trees eating fruit or in the meadows eating grass.

The point of subject/objective concerns the lack of referents. Since there are no referents to completely subjective experience, comparing them is difficult, examining if they are the same is virtually impossible. See lemon/lime test, previous post - explain your solution.

[Royce]

Glenn, I do agree with you that God or his existence can not be proven by scientific evidence. God, religion, spiritualism and/or theism is not and can not be addressed by science at all. Nor can or should the opposite be true. However, Science is not the only tool that we have have to gain knowledge.

It is indeed apples and oranges but when we are looking exclusively at the apples with the proper applescope it does not mean that oranges do not exist. The see the organges we have to use an orange scope. I do not mean to be frivalous or make light of the topic but the point is valid IMO.

We all agree that sdcience cannot be used to prove God exists or created the universe. Okay, why do we then continue to refer to scientific methods and evidence when discussing God etc?

By the same token science can not be used to prove that God does not exist or that God did not create the universe. So why do you and others try? Please understand that I am not necessary speaking of you personally but on non-theist and anti-theist. We speak or write of God and creation and far to often a response has been that science have PROVED the BB and evolution etc. We, theist, are then compelled to address scientific issues in theist terms which as you correctly point out is comparing apples and oranges.

That response seems to work for you in discounting all that we may say but when we point this out then we are evading the issue. It is not, my friend, always a two way street.

[radagast]

Royce,
With respect to the last post. We are in complete and utter agreement. Say, isn't that listed as one of the signs of the apocolypse?

In this thread Iacchus has been arguing that science should investigate the existence of god, almost all my posts on this thread since, have been directed at explaining why science cannot be used to do that.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Appeal to the popular - an argument flaw. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.Except you're the one who said that the whole thing was outside of science's domain, and that there was no way science could grapple with it one way or the other. And yet here you are now suggesting that science -- i.e., via Occam's razor -- takes (and perhaps relys upon) the position that God doesn't exist. So which is it going to be? Sounds like a great way to back up the "staus quo" to me.


If you mean the judgement of good evidence, this has to pass the reasonable person test. Given a good understanding of the type of evidence, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the evidence is good at supporting the argument given for it, and not much more supportive (or more reasonable) of a contradictory argument.And how do we establish who is reasonable? Someone who is in accord with those who proclaim what reasonable should be? That's definitely one way!


This has not been, in any form or fashion, been presented for your case.Once again to whom? I think Royce's (first) reply above was one of the most reasonable replies I've heard so far. Hmm ... must be because we have a similar viewpoint and respect each others views. But then again that would imply bias now wouldn't? And yet it obviously doesn't agree with your sense of what "reasonable" is now does it?


Certainly it does, have you not been listening? Think about it, I could alway come up with any competeing conjecture, to an existing theory, which fits the evidence, but expands the number of requirements and reasons, unboundedly. So instead of heat traveling from hot objects to cool objects because of radiative dissapation and molecular collision, I could say that trillions of microscopic, invisible fairies carried the heat from hot to cold.But then again, what if like Christopher Columbus, we "knew" better?


Occam's razor holds because the converse is absurd. It's not a simple concept, but if you try and think it through honestly, it becomes apparent.Absurd? ... Says who?


First, Columbus, as most intellectuals of the day, knew the world had to be round - the evidence supported it. It was the common people that didn't believe it. Columbus was in extreme error in the computation of the worlds size, and was only saved by the fact that the america's were here, otherwise he'd have died of thirst and hunger.It's within the interest of the powers that be, to maintain the "status quo."


Just because something is more reasonable to believe, doesn't imply it's true. Nor, does it imply we don't look elsewhere to ensure what we accept is true, is. Each time we get new evidence, the whole needs to be re-evaluated by Occam.Or, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to reevaluate some of the old evidence as well? Especially in light of our abilities to be more comprehensive in our testing.


This is as good an example of an non-sequituir as I've seen.All I can say is I do my best. [;)]


No problem with them functioning in the 'same house'. They function that way in my 'house' just fine, as well as a number of theist I know and respect.You can't have thinking without feelings, and vice versa. Indeed the two augment each other.


What you have asked, though, is that the 'mind' (science) start pumping blood for the heart ('religion'). That has been, is, and will remain the argument in this thread, with you.No, all I've asked is that we attempt to view the whole thing in an "integrated sense."


The premise that they cannot be alone is a strongly contestable statement. Many people in the forum operate without any religious support/practice/faith. And yet, to the degree that we deny the other "significant side" to ourselves, we become neurotic.


Men and Women - Aren't we really stretching the analogy way, way past the breaking point here?Actually, when you get right down to it, this is a male versus female thing. So tell me, why is it so hard for men to express their emotions? Or, why is that women can't stand it when men get too over-analytical?


I'm beginning to think that any and all debates with you, as cordial as you've been, are fruitless. You seem to ignore/avoid/misinterpret every strong point I've made, ignore the argument flaws detected, dismiss one of the more basic principles of reason, not to mention that our differences seem completely irreconcilable. At the present rate, I will cease any debate with you on any point - no insult intended - simply because they are doomed to a deadlock. Has anybody ever accused you of being a knit-pick? [;)]

[radagast]

Iacchuss,
I've answered all these before, just in a different form. There is only a few different ways to say the same thing. If you noticed, Royce misunderstood the intent of what was said - he, as do I, and virtually everyone with a strong scientific background understand that science is ill-equipped to delve into the metaphysical.

I have, time after time, tried to show why the evidence you are presenting wouldn't qualify as evidence of what you want it to show. I cannot know, given my present knowledge, if you just have such a primative grasp of science, or you are just locked into the tunnel vision of proving what you believe to be true, but your view of science is one bordering on 'people with opinions' and nothing more. Since that is apparently what you believe, no manner of argumentation is going to convince you that you are incorrect on the point of using science to investigate the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

Debating further you is pointless. I will do my best to avoid any debates with you, on any subject, in the future. Though I am pretty good at controlling sudden impulses, it's possible I'll respond to something in the future. With luck, this will be held to a minimum.

Has anybody ever accused you of being a knit-pick? [;)]
More times than I can count. If I've got one weakness, it's a penchant for accuracy.

p.s. Occams razor though used by science, is an tool of reasoning, not specific to science. It would apply to fictitious, abstract arguments as easily as debates concerning the concrete and the real.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchuss,
I've answered all these before, just in a different form. There is only a few different ways to say the same thing. If you noticed, Royce misunderstood the intent of what was said - he, as do I, and virtually everyone with a strong scientific background understand that science is ill-equipped to delve into the metaphysical.But what does metaphysical mean, if not the precursor to that which is physical?

Well actually I thought I understood what Mr. Boyce was saying initially, but then again maybe you and he are in cahoots?


I have, time after time, tried to show why the evidence you are presenting wouldn't qualify as evidence of what you want it to show. I cannot know, given my present knowledge, if you just have such a primative grasp of science, or you are just locked into the tunnel vision of proving what you believe to be true, but your view of science is one bordering on 'people with opinions' and nothing more. Since that is apparently what you believe, no manner of argumentation is going to convince you that you are incorrect on the point of using science to investigate the existence (or lack thereof) of god.Yes, when you get right down to it, science is only a matter of opinion. Consider the theory of evolution for example. It's still yet to be proven by the way. [;)]

Given this, why is it that we don't "seem" to have the ability to prove whether something is true one way or the other? We only "seem" to have the ability to measure whether one thing is more "plausible" than another. This would be "my opinion" of course.


Debating further you is pointless. I will do my best to avoid any debates with you, on any subject, in the future. Though I am pretty good at controlling sudden impulses, it's possible I'll respond to something in the future. With luck, this will be held to a minimum.Hmm ... Now where have I heard this before? Was it something Mr. Royce brought up, or something Mr. Boyce brought up?


More times than I can count. If I've got one weakness, it's a penchant for accuracy.And I suppose people have told you how "annoying" that can be as well? [;)]


p.s. Occams razor though used by science, but is an tool of reasoning, not specific to science. It would apply to fictitious, abstract arguments as easily as debates concerning the concrete and the real.And yet it cannot ultimately be used for determining "the truth." Which you see, is what I'm trying to get at here.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by radagast Good evidence = see previous post. Good evidence has to be extremely hard to contest (as evidence of a given point or position). Most of the christians I know would have a hard time using the evidence mentioned here as 'scientific' evidence. . . . The problem with the god baggage, vs the physical causes baggage is that we have demonstrated that physical cause and effect happens, no such thing has been demonstrated about god, not even his existence.

Radagast, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve chosen your post to argue my points on this subject. Also, to fellow posters familiar with my stance, here it comes again!

Radagast, you assume science is the end-all of discovery. Your posts reveal that the standard by which you judge proof and evidence is empiricism. But empircism, by definition, is dependent on sense data. Are you certain the senses are the only avenue for acquiring information?

And yes, empiricism/science has demonstrated physical cause and effect happens. What does that prove? It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science reveals physical cause and effect. It also proves it reveals nothing more. Now, let’s be utterly, objectively, coldly logical . . . if science shows only physical cause and effect, should we conclude reality is only physical cause and effect? Or can we only objectively, coldly-logically conclude science is limited in what it reveals?

Originally posted by radagast Trying to use science to prove god is as absurd as using the bible to construct a Boeing 747. Hammers and screwdrivers - they do different things, when they are misused, the results are rarely pretty. Assuming you're a believing christian, the last time people tried to prove heaven/god existed, it ended badly. (Babylon)

Agreed

Originally posted by radagast The point of subject/objective concerns the lack of referents. Since there are no referents to completely subjective experience, comparing them is difficult, examining if they are the same is virtually impossible. See lemon/lime test, previous post - explain your solution.

Experience . . . that has for nearly two centuries been the standard of verifying claims. Experience and know -- I believe that with every inch of my being.

But what is the full range of experience? If you are a scientism devotee, you say sense experience. The problem with that bring us to my second big complaint with empircally-oriented perspectives.

Virtually unknown to all the science fantatics is the huge area of human potential out of which “enlightenment” has risen. The materialists are geniuses on everything physical, but ask them to explain the 3000 year history of the enlightenment phenomenon and all you get is a big . . . “huh?” And will they investigate and understand before spouting radical materialist philosophy? Well, I have yet to see it.

So here we all are, philosophizing without a crucial piece of human potential included in the discussion . . . and for no other reason than people are already determined to believe what they want to believe, and perfectly willing to ignore or disregard relevant additional information to do so.

[radagast]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Radagast, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve chosen your post to argue my points on this subject. Also, to fellow posters familiar with my stance, here it comes again!

Radagast, you assume science is the end-all of discovery. Your posts reveal that the standard by which you judge proof and evidence is empiricism. But empircism, by definition, is dependent on sense data. Are you certain the senses are the only avenue for acquiring information?


Les,
I realize you cannot read all the posts on the site, so I understand that you may have gotten a skewed view, especially from this thread.

1) I'm a Zen Buddhist, actually one working towards the priesthood, so to say that science is the end all and be all of discovery is hardly my view.

2) If you are basing your judgement on this thread, please listen to how it started and exactly what I'm argueing. Over half a dozen times, in this thread alone, I've stated that science is not the only avenue to knowledge. This thread - specifically with respect to Iacchuss, was to say that Science was absolutely NOT the method that made sense to try and determine if god existed. So far, only Iacchuss has argued the other side of that coin. Given his knowledge of science is so limited, I've had to withdraw from debating with him.

3) The arguments I've made concerning science are fairly common knowledge to most in science and certainly to anyone with that's studied the philosophy of science. It is one also held by a number of scientists who hold strong religious views, and is orthogonal to the idea of materialism.

4) I keep a clear idea, or division, for myself concerning my criteria for objective truth and facts, and for subjective truth and facts. Objective truth and facts require a more rigorous set of criteria, for me, than for most others. But that's just me.



And yes, empiricism/science has demonstrated physical cause and effect happens. What does that prove? It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science reveals physical cause and effect. It also proves it reveals nothing more. Now, let’s be utterly, objectively, coldly logical . . . if science shows only physical cause and effect, should we conclude reality is only physical cause and effect? Or can we only objectively, coldly-logically conclude science is limited in what it reveals?


Obviously science is limited in what it reveals. But I've stated this, in other terms, several times in this thread alone. The above paragraph is something I would agree with.


Experience . . . that has for nearly two centuries been the standard of verifying claims. Experience and know -- I believe that with every inch of my being.

I spent three years in a fundamentalist church, experienced what many call 'being saved'. That this matches your experience, neither of us can say. The whole idea behind saying that science cannot investigate the existence/non-existence of god circles around this one point - the inability to objectively judge another's subjective experience. I'm getting off my point, please excuse me. In my further religious quests I realized the experience I had had, came in different guises, depending on the religion in question, but was the same experience, interpreted in different ways. I much prefer the Buddhist interpretation of that experience.

I can know Muslims who accept what they believe, from the experiences they've had, to the core of their being. I can find Christians that believe the same about their beliefs. My office is about one third Hindu. A large number are devout and highly spiritual and would say the same about their beliefs. Though the idea of faith and belief is quite different in Buddhism, needless to say I can find number of Buddhists with a similar depth of conviction about their experiences.
Perhaps you can see a pattern in where I'm going with this...

<argument verging on ad-hominem deleted>

If you wish to judge me, please read more than one or two of my posts.

[Adam]

What would it take? Brainwashing.

Seriously, so many other things are far more likely. If someone popped up and demonstrated remarkable powers, the far more likely option is a technologically-advanced alien or such. Even more likely is hallucination. I can't think of anything that would do it, really, short of brainwashing.

[Iacchus32]

And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.

As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Virtually unknown to all the science fantatics is the huge area of human potential out of which “enlightenment” has risen. The materialists are geniuses on everything physical, but ask them to explain the 3000 year history of the enlightenment phenomenon and all you get is a big . . . “huh?” And will they investigate and understand before spouting radical materialist philosophy? Well, I have yet to see it.

So here we all are, philosophizing without a crucial piece of human potential included in the discussion . . . and for no other reason than people are already determined to believe what they want to believe, and perfectly willing to ignore or disregard relevant additional information to do so.And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."


As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it. Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective. [;)]

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."

The oldest known religious icon is about 25,000 years old, European, a small ivory carving of a pregnant-looking female. That may have been part of a pantheon or may have been from a monotheistic culture; it's uncertain.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective. [;)]
It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?[6)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance. And yet I'm not going to stand out in the middle of a field during the middle of a thunder storm and wait for it to happen. That "would" be dumb. Also, the lives of the gods were "synchronized" through such events, as storms, wars, faminines and what not. So if in fact there were a "godly connection" to be made, this is how it would mostly likely come about. While something similar is suggested by what I posted in the thread, Life without God (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=54055) ...


Originally posted by Iaccus32
And yet as I understand, the angels in heaven, as intermediaries between heaven and earth, are already endowed with this capacity ... as "mini gods" so to speak.

As a matter-of-fact, if understood correctly, it would begin to explain the nature gods and godessess in general, like throughout ancient Greece and what not. Whereby the gods or godesses we choose -- or, do they choose us? -- depends upon the "afiliations" we establish in ourselves.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?[6)] You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it? [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it? [;)] What the heck, it breaks the monotony, if nothing else!

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by radagast
Les,
I realize you cannot read all the posts on the site, so I understand that you may have gotten a skewed view, especially from this thread. . . .

If you wish to judge me, please read more than one or two of my posts.

Glenn, my sincere apologies . . . I actually read more of other people's posts, and focused more on the one of yours I quoted because it was addressing empirical issues. After going back and carefully reading your posts, I see I was careless in chosing your last post to represent the materialist position.

That last paragraph of mine definitely was NOT directed at you, but rather was a frustration I have accumulated from debating with materialists here (I think had over 500 posts at the old site, and most of them were long posts too). Yet I would add I don't believe what I said was an ad hominem argument because it is an accurate description of what has gone on.

Just to be clear, I think science is awesome, and does a wonderful job revealing the nature of the physical world. I also do not think science will ever prove or disprove whether or not there is a God, or soul or anything spiritual. They are two distinct realms, each with its own avenues for knowing.

[radagast]

Hi Les,
I wasn't offended by your post. I've made the same type of error, I guess we all have.

Our views on science seem to be quite similar.

I shouldn't have used the ad-hominem phrase. I took your general statements personally. I guess I was getting a little frustrated and fatigued at Iacchus's 'debating' tactics. I consider ceasing all debate with a person, my action of last resort. As such, I go to some extremes to give them the benefit of the doubt. I guess I took much too long to pull that plug. I shouldn't have taken it out on you. My apologies.

[Royce]

Les, my friend, I am surprised to read that even you are losing patients with the objective materialist's arguements. You the epitome of logical reasoning. I am crushed. My idol has feet of clay. Mr Spock is somewhere sadly shaking his head! Oh well, it proves that you too are only human. I had thought that it was only me with my shortcomings who was losing patients.

radagast, Glenn, is a friend of open mind and logical reasoning too.
I find it amusing that we three, as well as others, all setting on or on opposite sides of the fence, feel the same frustration.

There must be some way that we can keep from mixing up science and meta-physics while we discuss both and yet find a common ground for both. I know you and I as well as M.Gaspar and Iacchus32 as well as other do not see any real conflict between science and religion or better meta-physics. The conflict come from mixing apples and organge and both 'sides' including myself are guilty of that.

My point, other than chatting with friends, to continue the metaphor, is that, while yes, it is apples and oranges, both are fruit. Even if we keep them in seperate baskets they both reside in the same fruit stand along with still other friuits. This universe, as well as we humans, is truely a fruit salad containg and ample supply of nuts also just to make it even better.

[Zero]

The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.

[Iacchus32]

In order to believe, it has to be plausible. And it doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's science, religion or whatever. And if I can't bring any plausibility to my case, then I have no business stating anything on this forum.

By the way, how can you possibly get anybody to believe in anything, without speaking about it first?

And yet if you can't speak about it, because science can't/won't conceive of it, then there's not much point in thinking about it now is there? What? An idea is not considered rational unless science says it is rational? Hmm ... this seems to be the problem right here. And indeed this is how it feels!

Therefore if I can't think about it, using the exact same process science uses to conduct its analysis -- "through rational thought" -- then what's the point in attempting to know anything?

Seems like a great way to discourage people from practicing religion, especially when the only way you can truly understand it, is by thinking about it "rationally."

Of course science seems to have its own idea about religious thinking, that it is anything but rational and yet, what if it were possible? Hmm ... we might even be able to present a case now wouldn't we? [;)]

[Zero]

When all else fails, pull out the 'science suppresses religion' card? All we're asking for is evidence, and since you don't have any, why can't you admit it?

[Royce]

Iacchus32, I have tried both rational and natural approches in threade here and the religion forum. Didn't work and got little response.
I was told long age to never discuss religion or politicts as it led to nothing but arguments, rising tempers and frustration. Seems my Dad was right again.
I am constantly amazed at how successful people can be at ignoring the obvious and seeing what only they choose to see. This of course includes us.
Surely there is a common ground where both science and meta-physics can be discussed rationally and logically without conflict or rising tempers and frustration.
This is what I get for being a bit of an idealist I guess.

Zero. one man,s poison is another man,s necter. Intentionally or not you have just admitted that you are seeing illusions. There may be hope for you yet. It is said that seeing is believing.

[Zero]

Whatever, Royce...go back to listening to the voices in your head, ok?[g)]

There is no such thing as meta-anything. Either it is real, or it isn't. Show me the evidence, and I'll accept anything as provisionally true. Without any evidence, don't expect me to take an idea seriously.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Whatever, Royce...go back to listening to the voices in your head, ok?[g)]

There is no such thing as meta-anything. Either it is real, or it isn't. Show me the evidence, and I'll accept anything as provisionally true. Without any evidence, don't expect me to take an idea seriously. And yet until we invented the microscope, there's no way we could have foretold such a "meta-thing" as people being created by "two germs" getting together.

So maybe it's just a matter of developing a better way to look at it? [;)]

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet I'm not going to stand out in the middle of a field during the middle of a thunder storm and wait for it to happen. That "would" be dumb. Also, the lives of the gods were "synchronized" through such events, as storms, wars, faminines and what not. So if in fact there were a "godly connection" to be made, this is how it would mostly likely come about. While something similar is suggested by what I posted in the thread, Life without God (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=54055) ...

Simple experience would have told Igorant Ug the Caveman that going outside during an electrical storm would increase his chances of being struck by lightning, even if he thought it came from the big bad Storm God. People tens of millennia back weren't stupid, just ignorant. Thus for thousands of years before anything was known about electrons and valences and such, people used tghe noble metals as coins.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
Simple experience would have told Igorant Ug the Caveman that going outside during an electrical storm would increase his chances of being struck by lightning, even if he thought it came from the big bad Storm God. People tens of millennia back weren't stupid, just ignorant. Thus for thousands of years before anything was known about electrons and valences and such, people used tghe noble metals as coins. Even so, just because a person believes in a power greater than onself, does not make a person ignorant, unless you can prove otherwise. Can you prove that God doesn't exist? And what if I were to suggest there was a means by which to prove it to yourself?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet until we invented the microscope, there's no way we could have foretold such a "meta-thing" as people being created by "two germs" getting together.

So maybe it's just a matter of developing a better way to look at it? [;)] Until you determine that "better way", we are justified as disregarding what you have to say on teh subject(from a rational standpoint)

It is like ESP: as soon as someone can show a laboratory effect that matches teh claims, I will be behind it 100%. Until then, I am fully justified in my lack of belief.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Until you determine that "better way", we are justified as disregarding what you have to say on teh subject(from a rational standpoint)

It is like ESP: as soon as someone can show a laboratory effect that matches teh claims, I will be behind it 100%. Until then, I am fully justified in my lack of belief. Ignorance is no excuse for the law. Isn't that what they say? ...

Actually I'm not sure how much it really matters anyway, just so long as we learn the lessons of life and try to remain reasonable as human beings. I don't think the guy upstairs -- "if He exists" -- expects any more than that. [;)]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.

How do you know religion has anything to do with what individuals such as Jesus or the Buddha were all about? You just blindly accept that religion represents them. Have you taken time to research those individuals and, more significantly, the nature of the experience they were having?

It's like people forming their opinions about homosexuality by listening to the Moral Majority. What do you think of such an eduction?

Man, what I wouldn't give to hear an opinion from someone who has taken the time to study, really freakin' study, the whole situation. Instead we are subjected to educations designed to support one's preferences, agendas, and inclinations.

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
How do you know religion has anything to do with what individuals such as Jesus or the Buddha were all about? You just blindly accept that religion represents them. Have you taken time to research those individuals and, more significantly, the nature of the experience they were having?

It's like people forming their opinions about homosexuality by listening to the Moral Majority. What do you think of such an eduction?

Man, what I wouldn't give to hear an opinion from someone who has taken the time to study, really freakin' study, the whole situation. Instead we are subjected to educations designed to support one's preferences, agendas, and inclinations.

Odd. Only opinions that agree with you are well-supported, huh?
Try again bub, your own bias is showing.

First, prove conclusively that Buddha or Jesus existed. Then, PROVE that the reported experiences are historically accurate, and not hyped-up myth created after the fact. Then, you are still stuck with the burden of proving that their experiences really happened.
I've done plenty of research, most of which points to probable historical existance, but no confirmation proving anything supernatural in nature.

[Iacchus32]

How do you know that God exists? Through cause and effect. It's just like anything else, it's all a matter of understanding how it works.

Now why should it be more difficult than that? [;)]


From the thread, The search for truth (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2878&perpage=15&pagenumber=2) ...

Truth is just "awareness" that comes about through consciousness. Even scientific discoveries don't become truths, unless someone has been made "aware" of them.

The truth is of "the moment" ... and now I ask is that we all meditate. [;)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How do you know that God exists? Through cause and effect. It's just like anything else, it's all a matter of understanding how it works.

Now why should it be more difficult than that? [;)]



What has cause to do with the issue of God?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What has cause to do with the issue of God? I think what you mean is what "doesn't" it have to do with the issue of God?

Which is all I'm saying, that if you can't understand God from the standpoint of cause and effect, then you "can't" understand God. It would be impossible.

Granted it might require you to look at how it affects you "interiorly," but it still boils down to cause and effect.

[Zero]

What do you mean SPECIFICALLY by cause and effect?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think what you mean is what "doesn't" it have to do with the issue of God?

Which is all I'm saying, that if you can't understand God from the standpoint of cause and effect, then you "can't" understand God. It would be impossible.

Granted it might require you to look at how it affects you "interiorly," but it still boils down to cause and effect.

God has nothing to do with "cause" and "effect" cause God is just a concept of the mind.

But to explain causality, it is obvious that it means that all events exists as causes and effects simultaniously, only not in the same causal relationship. This means that there is no 'primal' cause, because it would also be a 'primal effect' which also has a cause.
That therefore means that there is no begin of causality.

And thus, no need for God either, to give the 'first push'.

Got it?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What do you mean SPECIFICALLY by cause and effect? I think it's a lot like establishing a relationship with someone, where to the extent that you begin to understand who they are, on a "personal level," then you can begin to anticipate what's going to happen next in the relationship.

The only difference here is that I'm speaking of a personal relationship with yourself, where you become familiar with the processes going on within yourself -- be it thought patterns, emotions, etc. -- and begin to establish a raport with this sense of "inner-awareness."

It isn't really altogether different than understanding yourself on a psychological level, except the experience I'm referring to here is a little more "personalized" in nature.

[Zero]

I am HUGELY self-aware...what does that have to do with the existance of gods?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I am HUGELY self-aware...what does that have to do with the existance of gods? Do you mean like from the standpoint of being detached, as if you were just an observer? Or, would it be more a matter of being "self-engrossed?"

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you mean like from the standpoint of being detached, as if you were just an observer? Or, would it be more a matter of being "self-engrossed?" Neither.(nice dig, btw)

I know what is going on within my body and my brain pretty well. I understand what I am thinking and feeling, and the rational reasons for it. Again, what would any of that have to do with gods?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
God has nothing to do with "cause" and "effect" cause God is just a concept of the mind.And if He wasn't just a concept?


But to explain causality, it is obvious that it means that all events exists as causes and effects simultaniously, only not in the same causal relationship. This means that there is no 'primal' cause, because it would also be a 'primal effect' which also has a cause.
That therefore means that there is no begin of causality.

And thus, no need for God either, to give the 'first push'.

Got it? And yet what if God were the cause (existence itself) of which everything else is the effect? (the continuance of existence). In which case I think it would suffice to say that God just "IS."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And if He wasn't just a concept?


And yet what if God were the cause (existence itself) of which everything else is the effect? (the continuance of existence).
What if I am the god of all the universe, and everything is secretly made of cheese(gouda, most likely...nummy!)? Asking a 'what if' question is fine...but simply presupposing an answer because of the existance of the question is not.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What if I am the god of all the universe, and everything is secretly made of cheese(gouda, most likely...nummy!)? Asking a 'what if' question is fine...but simply presupposing an answer because of the existance of the question is not. Huh? ... And yet everything has a beginning and all I'm suggesting is that could be God.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Huh? ... And yet everything has a beginning and all I'm suggesting is that could be God. Well, first off, we don't know that there was a begining, and secondly, you can insert whatever word you like into there, and it means exactly the same thing. You are looking, and seem to have decided on, a final answer. You don't really have any reason to, though, do you?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, first off, we don't know that there was a begining, and secondly, you can insert whatever word you like into there, and it means exactly the same thing. Except that if we refer to God, we would have to assume that He was here all along. That kind of answers heusdens' question in both respects now doesn't it? [;)]

You are looking, and seem to have decided on, a final answer. You don't really have any reason to, though, do you? And what would your final answer be? Or, are you saying a final answer doesn't exist? Ha!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that if we refer to God, we would have to assume that He was here all along. That kind of answers heusdens' question in both respects now doesn't it? [;)]

And what would your final answer be? Or, are you saying a final answer doesn't exist? Ha!

If you refer to me as a god, it gives you exactly the same answer, doesn't it?

And, as far as a final answer, well...you don't know any more than anyone else, do you?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Neither.(nice dig, btw)Actually for myself, like I think it is with most people, it's somewhere in the middle.


I know what is going on within my body and my brain pretty well. I understand what I am thinking and feeling, and the rational reasons for it. Again, what would any of that have to do with gods? If you understood that the "you" you think you are is not just you, that it's a make up of "psychological forces" which enact upon experience, then you may begin to discover the nature (origin) of these forces and how they interact with consciousness.

Have we really dived into the depths of the psyche? ... If we were to look at the work of Jung, who was more "spiritually inclined," I would say yes.

[Zero]

I think you are going too far-afield. None of this has to do with the existance of supernatural entities.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
If you refer to me as a god, it gives you exactly the same answer, doesn't it?Except most people by default, would assume you weren't. [;)]


And, as far as a final answer, well...you don't know any more than anyone else, do you? I know a lot of things other than this. Are you suggesting I don't know anything?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I think you are going too far-afield. None of this has to do with the existance of supernatural entities. Except that if they do exist -- "as spirits" -- how else would they interact with us? ... except perhaps through our "subconscious."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that if they do exist -- "as spirits" -- how else would they interact with us? ... except perhaps through our "subconscious."
Then they would cause measurable physical changes, that could be measured. In fact, why don't you call that your homework? Go measure the spirits, and get back to us?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Then they would cause measurable physical changes, that could be measured. Either that or they got us pretty well fooled into believing they don't exist. Of course that doesn't include all of us now does it?


In fact, why don't you call that your homework? Go measure the spirits, and get back to us? One way of "measuring it" would be to examine the effects it has on the mentally ill -- i.e., before they get pumped full of drugs. In fact I know of at least one clinical study which has done just this, where the clinical psychologist who conducted it had no difficulty drawing these conclusions. Or, at least he was inclined to "speculate" that such was the case. What else could you expect him to say without flat out agreeing with it?

There's a booklet called, "The Presence of Spirits in Madness," by Wilson Van Dusen which, if it's still available (try the Swedenborg Foundation (http://www.swedenborg.com/)), you can probably get for about a buck. Van Dusen wrote this as the Chief Psychologist at Mendocino State Hospital in California where he worked among the mentally ill for 17 years.

[Zero]

So demons cause mental illness? Thanks, for taking science back 1000 years.

You really do hate reality, don't you?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
So demons cause mental illness? Thanks, for taking science back 1000 years.

You really do hate reality, don't you?

Ahh I see Zero is back in the philosophy forum. Haven't seen you around much. Still bitter at religion, as usual, I see [:)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Ahh I see Zero is back in the philosophy forum. Haven't seen you around much. Still bitter at religion, as usual, I see [:)]
Not in the least bit...plenty frightened of believers, though. You folks can justify anything with your big black books.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Not in the least bit...plenty frightened of believers, though. You folks can justify anything with your big black books.

Lol, "you" folks. You still think anyone who disagrees with you is lumped into the black category eh? And everyone else is in the white. How simple the world must be to you. Anything I justify will be based on reason btw. Also I haven't disagree with anything you've said lol.

All I was saying is that I see you're apparent agenda hasn't changed. I never see you contibute on any deep thread until someone throws "god" in the title and then here you come. The obvious animosity that you have for people who disagree with you on this topic is what makes me think of bitterness. I've heard what you've claimed in the past. But I still think someone made you go to vacation bible school when you were young and you recent it[:D]. Sorry about that. But stop taking it out on these poor folks!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol, "you" folks. You still think anyone who disagrees with you is lumped into the black category eh? And everyone else is in the white. How simple the world must be to you. Anything I justify will be based on reason btw. Also I haven't disagree with anything you've said lol.

All I was saying is that I see you're apparent agenda hasn't changed. I never see you contibute on any deep thread until someone throws "god" in the title and then here you come. The obvious animosity that you have for people who disagree with you on this topic is what makes me think of bitterness. I've heard what you've claimed in the past. But I still think someone made you go to vacation bible school when you were young and you recent it[:D]. Sorry about that. But stop taking it out on these poor folks! LOL
I've been an atheist since I was 6. Sorry if you don't like being lumped in with that crowd. And, of course, it IS true that people who rely on faith instead of reason can support any position they choose to, no matter how little logic supports it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL
I've been an atheist since I was 6. Sorry if you don't like being lumped in with that crowd. And, of course, it IS true that people who rely on faith instead of reason can support any position they choose to, no matter how little logic supports it. Yet only the afterlife will tell. And even then there are still those who will deny it. This is why there's hell ...

Don't mind me, I'm just a poet. [:D]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yet only the afterlife will tell. And even then there are still those who will deny it. This is why there's hell ...

Don't mind me, I'm just a poet. [:D]

UGH...more assumptions!

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL
I've been an atheist since I was 6. Sorry if you don't like being lumped in with that crowd. And, of course, it IS true that people who rely on faith instead of reason can support any position they choose to, no matter how little logic supports it.

Whether it is true that they can support anything without logic or not has nothing to do with me. And also, I don't have a problem being "lumped" in with anyone. Just use reason to justify the lumping. That's all I asks.

And I would say that the word "atheist" is not the word to describe you. You believe that there isn't a god, right? I could be wrong but after so many hundreds of posts accusing people of making up fairy tales I assume this is what you believe. If so then is atheist the right word?

Also, I have found that people who developed an opinion on any topic as a child and then never change it tend to have more closed-minded views than those that have changed their minds as an adult. I wouldn't trust a 6 year old to decide the truth of the universe. Lol.

[Zantra]

I see stones being thrown on both sides here- I stil see the bible thumpers saying those who don't believe are going to hell. I've been told that since I was a child- and it sounds like threatening the more I learn and the older I get. Religion and Science will never reconcile, and that is a fact.

I used to believe in God- But then I also believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too. But then maybe they're up in heaven with God already[:))]

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zantra
I see stones being thrown on both sides here- I stil see the bible thumpers saying those who don't believe are going to hell. I've been told that since I was a child- and it sounds like threatening the more I learn and the older I get. Religion and Science will never reconcile, and that is a fact.

I used to believe in God- But then I also believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause too. But then maybe they're up in heaven with God already[:))]

It is a shame this forum is so shallow.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Fliption
It is a shame this forum is so shallow.

Hardly shallow- I've given the subject of God much thought over the years. And I started out as one of you-religious that is. And I cannot reconcile God in the face of all logic- it just doesn't make sense. Yes sometimes there's a part of me that would love to believe that someone's up there looking out for me. Maybe the same space that would like to believe in things like "destiny" and "fate". But the reality of it is that we have to look inward for salvation, not upward. True Salvation lies within ourselves, and we are the masters of our own destinies. To believe otherwise, is to accept that we have no conttrol over anything, and I can never ever accept that. I could easily seguway into determinism, but I won't.

Anyhow, I'm comfortable in my belief, and I don't have to "fear" going to hell, or leading my life according to the dictations of other's interpetations of some book. As someone once said to me, I am where I am, because that's where I'm supposed to be. Nothing more, nothing less. And I do find peace and comfort in that fact. Because instead of looking upward when life throws a curveball, I look inward and know that if something's going to change, it's up to me, not God or anyone else.

And that's that

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
One way of "measuring it" would be to examine the effects it has on the mentally ill -- i.e., before they get pumped full of drugs. In fact I know of at least one clinical study which has done just this, where the clinical psychologist who conducted it had no difficulty drawing these conclusions. Or, at least he was inclined to "speculate" that such was the case. What else could you expect him to say without flat out agreeing with it?

There's a booklet called, "The Presence of Spirits in Madness," by Wilson Van Dusen which, if it's still available (try the Swedenborg Foundation (http://www.swedenborg.com/)), you can probably get for about a buck. Van Dusen wrote this as the Chief Psychologist at Mendocino State Hospital in California where he worked among the mentally ill for 17 years. So here we have the possibility of clinical evidence, and no one so much as bats an eyelash! Okay ... [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Whether it is true that they can support anything without logic or not has nothing to do with me. And also, I don't have a problem being "lumped" in with anyone. Just use reason to justify the lumping. That's all I asks.

And I would say that the word "atheist" is not the word to describe you. You believe that there isn't a god, right? I could be wrong but after so many hundreds of posts accusing people of making up fairy tales I assume this is what you believe. If so then is atheist the right word?

Also, I have found that people who developed an opinion on any topic as a child and then never change it tend to have more closed-minded views than those that have changed their minds as an adult. I wouldn't trust a 6 year old to decide the truth of the universe. Lol.

Good call, accusing me of close-mindedness. How open minded are you, to the fact...FACT!!...that there is no evidence for any sorts of gods, spirits, ghosts, UFOs, etc. It takes a special kind of closed mind to ignore the facts.

Oh, and it is funny how people won't trust people whon use reason, but will trust a fairy tale about talking animals and shrubbery.

[Royce]

Zero, I have used reason and logic to support my conviction that God exists and created the universe though not in the way shown in the christiasn Bible, Genisis. There is in my mind literally and figuretively mountains of evidence that this is so. None of this evidence is what you would accept as scientific or matialistic. Some of it is but you nor others of your mind set would accept it as such.

There is alway an alternative way to explain anything and everything including religious or spiritual phenomena or physical scientific phenomena. Who can honestly say which way is the right way. We all have at best opinions and beliefs which may or not be supported by evidence which may or not be real or relevant.

While I see no conflict between science and my spiritual or religous beliefs I see no way to reconsile the to that is acceptable by most much less all of us. There will always be the question of First Cause whether religious or scientific. There will always be the question of objectivity vs aubjectivity and physical vs meta-physical.

It is very easy to say that only the physical exist and the met-physical or subjective does not exist in reality. It only exists in our mind/brains. Is not that a contradiction? It either exists or it doesn't exist. It is either real or it is not real. The fact that something exists in our minds only does not mean that it is not real and can not have any effect or influence on the real physical world. Choose in your mind to move your real physical finger. Have a purely mental intention, idea, thought to move your finger.

It can and does move if you let it or make it move. This is the subjective realm of the mind influencing and effecting the objective physical world. It is as simple and natural and easy and everyday as that. It is so natural that we never think of it as such. It is irrefutable physical evidence the the subjective mental world of pure thought can and does exist and has an effect of the physical objective material world of science. From this simple obvious proof anything is possible and can follow whether you or I or anyone else chooses to believe it or not.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, I have used reason and logic to support my conviction that God exists and created the universe though not in the way shown in the christiasn Bible, Genisis. There is in my mind literally and figuretively mountains of evidence that this is so. None of this evidence is what you would accept as scientific or matialistic. Some of it is but you nor others of your mind set would accept it as such.

There is alway an alternative way to explain anything and everything including religious or spiritual phenomena or physical scientific phenomena. Who can honestly say which way is the right way. We all have at best opinions and beliefs which may or not be supported by evidence which may or not be real or relevant.

While I see no conflict between science and my spiritual or religous beliefs I see no way to reconsile the to that is acceptable by most much less all of us. There will always be the question of First Cause whether religious or scientific. There will always be the question of objectivity vs aubjectivity and physical vs meta-physical.

It is very easy to say that only the physical exist and the met-physical or subjective does not exist in reality. It only exists in our mind/brains. Is not that a contradiction? It either exists or it doesn't exist. It is either real or it is not real. The fact that something exists in our minds only does not mean that it is not real and can not have any effect or influence on the real physical world. Choose in your mind to move your real physical finger. Have a purely mental intention, idea, thought to move your finger.

It can and does move if you let it or make it move. This is the subjective realm of the mind influencing and effecting the objective physical world. It is as simple and natural and easy and everyday as that. It is so natural that we never think of it as such. It is irrefutable physical evidence the the subjective mental world of pure thought can and does exist and has an effect of the physical objective material world of science. From this simple obvious proof anything is possible and can follow whether you or I or anyone else chooses to believe it or not.

You have 'evidence' that isn't evidence, you misinerpret the way the brain works. You say 'anything is possible', which may be true, but you forget that most things are improbable.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
You have 'evidence' that isn't evidence, you misinerpret the way the brain works. You say 'anything is possible', which may be true, but you forget that most things are improbable.

The brain works by having thoughts. By definition all thought is subjective. Intention and/or purpose is thought and therefore subjective.

These subjective thoughts cause chemical reactions to occur which eventually move your or my finger. The fact that we have consciousness and are capable of thought at all is proof enough that the subjective exists in reality. The fact that pure subjective thought caused chemical reactions in the brain and other parts of our body is proof enough.

In reality the very fact that the universe exist at all is extremely improbable. The fact that it contains and supports intelligent life is even more improbable. If we can believe that we exist and that the universe exists why is it so hard to believe that an improbable subjective thought exists or that an improbable God/Creator exists?

Your stated position that nothing but the physical and material exists is intenable and absurd at the outset. The fact that you can even think of such a position and then state it in writing disproves it beyond reasonable doubt. It is an oxymoron. To be conscious and have thought, purpose and intent and then to be able to put it in writing contradicts and disproves the statement itself.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
The brain works by having thoughts. By definition all thought is subjective. Intention and/or purpose is thought and therefore subjective.

These subjective thoughts cause chemical reactions to occur which eventually move your or my finger. The fact that we have consciousness and are capable of thought at all is proof enough that the subjective exists in reality. The fact that pure subjective thought caused chemical reactions in the brain and other parts of our body is proof enough.

In reality the very fact that the universe exist at all is extremely improbable. The fact that it contains and supports intelligent life is even more improbable. If we can believe that we exist and that the universe exists why is it so hard to believe that an improbable subjective thought exists or that an improbable God/Creator exists?

Your stated position that nothing but the physical and material exists is intenable and absurd at the outset. The fact that you can even think of such a position and then state it in writing disproves it beyond reasonable doubt. It is an oxymoron. To be conscious and have thought, purpose and intent and then to be able to put it in writing contradicts and disproves the statement itself. The mistiake you make is thinking that consiousness is somehow different from a chemical reation. One biochemical reaction causing another is no incredible feat.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zantra
Hardly shallow- I've given the subject of God much thought over the years. And I started out as one of you-religious that is. And I cannot reconcile God in the face of all logic- it just doesn't make sense. Yes sometimes there's a part of me that would love to believe that someone's up there looking out for me. Maybe the same space that would like to believe in things like "destiny" and "fate". But the reality of it is that we have to look inward for salvation, not upward. True Salvation lies within ourselves, and we are the masters of our own destinies. To believe otherwise, is to accept that we have no conttrol over anything, and I can never ever accept that. I could easily seguway into determinism, but I won't.

Anyhow, I'm comfortable in my belief, and I don't have to "fear" going to hell, or leading my life according to the dictations of other's interpetations of some book. As someone once said to me, I am where I am, because that's where I'm supposed to be. Nothing more, nothing less. And I do find peace and comfort in that fact. Because instead of looking upward when life throws a curveball, I look inward and know that if something's going to change, it's up to me, not God or anyone else.

And that's that

I understand all this. But it's full of assumptions. Number 1, I am not religious. I claim not to know. Even so, there are things that I am pretty certain about. I certainly don't believe I will ever burn for eternity and I will never preach from a book because someone told me it was the truth. My only contention is that when these topics come up, people tend to immediately associate the word "god" with this outdated concept that they learned in bible school. Because they have personally concluded this is nonsense, then everyone who argues for "god" must be a blind idiot. Your quote above assumes the same sort of "it must be this or it must be that" point of view. Yes, salvation is found within, but why must this be consistent with a meaningless, accidental universe? Forget the outdated concepts. Let's do some creative thinking. The universe has shown that it is anything but what common sense tells us it is.

[Iacchus32]

If you can "recognize" yourself in the moment, then you've acknowledged "the truth." The truth from which all other truths begin. And by the way, the acknowledgment of truth is a "subjective experience."

Oh well, so much for the notion of an "objective reality!" [;)]

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Good call, accusing me of close-mindedness. How open minded are you, to the fact...FACT!!...that there is no evidence for any sorts of gods, spirits, ghosts, UFOs, etc. It takes a special kind of closed mind to ignore the facts.

Oh, and it is funny how people won't trust people whon use reason, but will trust a fairy tale about talking animals and shrubbery.

Once again, you use tactics like this. Associating me with some idiotic position when nothing I have ever said states that I even defend it. If you want to be rational then pretend like you're actually reading what's being typed. This attitude you have is meant to do nothing but insult and inflame. It's not needed or wanted in the philosphy forum.

I NEVER said there was evidence of anything. All I'm saying is that you're attitude toward people stinks. Such bitterness.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Once again, you use tactics like this. Associating me with some idiotic position when nothing I have ever said states that I even defend it. If you want to be rational then pretend like you're actually reading what's being typed. This attitude you have is meant to do nothing but insult and inflame. It's not needed or wanted in the philosphy forum.

I NEVER said there was evidence of anything. All I'm saying is that you're attitude toward people stinks. Such bitterness.

LOL, you are so cute...do you come in more than one color?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, you are so cute...do you come in more than one color?

Much too pricey...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol, "you" folks. You still think anyone who disagrees with you is lumped into the black category eh? And everyone else is in the white. How simple the world must be to you. Anything I justify will be based on reason btw. Also I haven't disagree with anything you've said lol.

All I was saying is that I see you're apparent agenda hasn't changed. I never see you contibute on any deep thread until someone throws "god" in the title and then here you come. The obvious animosity that you have for people who disagree with you on this topic is what makes me think of bitterness. I've heard what you've claimed in the past. But I still think someone made you go to vacation bible school when you were young and you recent it[:D]. Sorry about that. But stop taking it out on these poor folks! I've never seen you contribute much, except coming around to give me crap.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dave
Well?

A Bible, signed by the author.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you can "recognize" yourself in the moment, then you've acknowledged "the truth." The truth from which all other truths begin. And by the way, the acknowledgment of truth is a "subjective experience."

Oh well, so much for the notion of an "objective reality!" [;)]

You claim that the objective reality doesn't exists, because we ourselves, and our awareness is something subjective?

Since we acknowlegde that fact that there is subjective existence in the form of us humans, we must also account for the fact that this subjective existence exists. Has it existed always? Has it created itself?

Since both answers are no, that is why there has to be objective existence in the first place.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
You claim that the objective reality doesn't exists, because we ourselves, and our awareness is something subjective?

Since we acknowlegde that fact that there is subjective existence in the form of us humans, we must also account for the fact that this subjective existence exists. Has it existed always? Has it created itself?

Since both answers are no, that is why there has to be objective existence in the first place. Whether an objective reality exists or not is besides the point, because all we can really do is speculate on the matter. [;)]

Therefore, what it means is, you, me, and everyone else don't exist in an objective reality, but in a "fantasy land." So what difference does it make whether we say God exists or God doesn't exist? ... because it's all part of the same fantasy!

In which case it puts God on equal grounds with the "plausibility" of anything else. Meaning, it's all subjective! Hmm ... I wonder if science -- which, is none other than a "humanistic endeavor" -- will ever be able to figure that one out?

This by the way, is what allows people like Zero the opportunity to say what they say, and still get away with it! [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Whether an objective reality exists or not is besides the point, because all we can really do is speculate on the matter. [;)]

Therefore, what it means is, you, me, and everyone else don't exist in an objective reality, but in a "fantasy land." So what difference does it make whether we say God exists or God doesn't exist? ... because it's all part of the same fantasy!

In which case it puts God on equal grounds with the "plausibility" of anything else. Meaning, it's all subjective! Hmm ... I wonder if science -- which, is none other than a "humanistic endeavor" -- will ever be able to figure that one out?

This by the way, is what allows people like Zero the opportunity to say what they say, and still get away with it! [;)]

Boy, you are just...grrrrr!

If it is all subjective, then you should have NO opinion, since every option is equally possible, right?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Boy, you are just...grrrrr!

If it is all subjective, then you should have NO opinion, since every option is equally possible, right? Yes, there's nothing about human experience which isn't subjective. Otherwise why would we disagree? It would all be the objective truth!

Therefore, if the only means we have to determine reality is through speculation, then that puts the idea of God on equal grounds with any other idea. [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, there's nothing about human experience which isn't subjective. Otherwise why would we disagree? It would all be the objective truth!

Therefore, if the only means we have to determine reality is through speculation, then that puts the idea of God on equal grounds with any other idea. [;)]

But, on teh other hand, in order to be a functioning human being, we have to make distinctions. You see your attitude as liberating; I see it as dysfunctional and unpractical. If 'God' is considered likely, so are fairies, UFOs, Smurfs, and compassionate conservatives. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for any of those, so why bother believing in them, except because it makes you feel good?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
But, on teh other hand, in order to be a functioning human being, we have to make distinctions. You see your attitude as liberating; I see it as dysfunctional and unpractical.Yes we do have to make distinctions. And yet each one of us is tied to the same "subjective process" of sorting it all out. [;)]


If 'God' is considered likely, so are fairies, UFOs, Smurfs, and compassionate conservatives. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for any of those, so why bother believing in them, except because it makes you feel good? And yet, for some reason, there always seems to be an exception to the rule. And just when we think we have it all figured out ... here it comes! [;)]

By the way, I see my attitude more in terms of the way reality has "presented itself" to me -- thus including my own interpretation of it -- in which case I am unable to argue beyond what I've accepted (or know). So I'm afraid I am unable to accept "your version" of reality, unless of course it was similar to mine. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
If 'God' is considered likely, so are fairies, UFOs, Smurfs, and compassionate conservatives. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for any of those, so why bother believing in them, except because it makes you feel good? Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet, for some reason, there always seems to be an exception to the rule. And just when we think we have it all figured out ... here it comes! [;)]While another thing you might want to consider is why do we have that ability in the first place? What is this whole thing about the imagination? Is it possible that there is something original that works through our imagination, thus giving us the capacity to experience these other things which, are merely "cheap derivatives" of the original? Otherwise what would be the point in having that which gives rise to what is faulty and delusional?

And why wouldn't it be comparable to say, developing a premier software program, only to have bootleg copies or copycat programs popping up all over the place?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
While another thing you might want to consider is why do we have that ability in the first place? What is this whole thing about the imagination? Is it possible that there is something original that works through our imagination, thus giving us the capacity to experience these other things which, are merely "cheap derivatives" of the original? Otherwise what would be the point in having that which gives rise to what is faulty and delusional?

Whereas wouldn't it be comparable to developing a premier software program, only to have bootleg copies or copycat programs popping up all over the place?

And here you go with more 'what if' questions!! Also, you keep asking 'why' questions that may or may not even mean anything.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem as I see it is that the 'fruit' off religion is at best illusion, and at worst it is poison.


Originally posted by LW Sleeth
How do you know religion has anything to do with what individuals such as Jesus or the Buddha were all about? You just blindly accept that religion represents them. Have you taken time to research those individuals and, more significantly, the nature of the experience they were having?

It's like people forming their opinions about homosexuality by listening to the Moral Majority. What do you think of such an eduction?

Man, what I wouldn't give to hear an opinion from someone who has taken the time to study, really freakin' study, the whole situation. Instead we are subjected to educations designed to support one's preferences, agendas, and inclinations.

Originally posted by Zero
Odd. Only opinions that agree with you are well-supported, huh?
Try again bub, your own bias is showing.

First, prove conclusively that Buddha or Jesus existed. Then, PROVE that the reported experiences are historically accurate, and not hyped-up myth created after the fact. Then, you are still stuck with the burden of proving that their experiences really happened.
I've done plenty of research, most of which points to probable historical existance, but no confirmation proving anything supernatural in nature.

I think you are fantastically missing the point. It's easy to polarize this in terms of black and white, and clearly organized religion has more than its fair share of warts, both ethically and intellectually. But perhaps Les was speaking of the messages embodied by these figures rather than the materialistic facts of the historical figures themselves?

Forget about any metaphysical claims for the moment. That may be what you're arguing with Iacchus, but let's go a little deeper. That is not what's important here. Religion is merely a social institution built around a basic experience of humankind-- the spiritual experience. While any such institution itself may be prone to spilling out a lot of garbage, the central concept is the real fruit, and it is not an illusion. It is not a belief, although beliefs are often constructed around it-- it is an experience, a specific modality of apprehending existence. This experience is tremendously valuable; anyone who has genuinely had at least one will tell you that it is one of the most important and influential experiences of their lifetime. If you have not had such an experience (see the poll: Have you had a spiritual experience? for a more concrete definition), I advise you seriously take time and effort to meditate and see where it takes you. Perhaps you will find your attitude to all things unscientific will change. Until you have had such an experience, your paradigm of reality is terribly lopsided and incomplete, not unlike a child who is born blind.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
The mistiake you make is thinking that consiousness is somehow different from a chemical reation. One biochemical reaction causing another is no incredible feat.

Which comes first, Zero, the chemical reaction or the thought? I have watched countless chemical reactions take place over the years. I have yet to see one have a counscious thought or create a new thought or work of art.

I don't know what consciousness is; nor, do I know were thought comes from. I don't think that it is created by chemical reactions but I do think it is the other way around.

It is Life itself and Consciousness that is subjective and beyond discription, definition and replication by science. By your stated position nothing of life, consciousness, thought or even yourself much less me exists in reality. Is not this an absurd contradiction?
How can that which does not exist claim or state that it does not exist.

Strict objective materialism is rediculous, even more absurd than existence and/or religion itself.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
I don't know what consciousness is; nor, do I know were thought comes from. I don't think that it is created by chemical reactions but I do think it is the other way around.

It is Life itself and Consciousness that is subjective and beyond discription, definition and replication by science. By your stated position nothing of life, consciousness, thought or even yourself much less me exists in reality. Is not this an absurd contradiction?
How can that which does not exist claim or state that it does not exist.

Royce,
How do you explain mental illness, the effects of psycotropic drugs, the effects of anti-psycotic drugs? Why does lithium have an effect on many bipolar individuals?

Do you believe the insane are still insane, once the individuals body dies - another words, does their 'spirit' still exhibit the same flawed reasoning?

If thoughts and consciousness is as devoid of chemical interaction, as I interpret from your post, then the points I've raised are inexplicable.

While I don't hold a strict materialistic view of the world, I also don't see it as absurd. I can see that it is completely, internally self-consistent.

[Royce]

Glenn, First I honestly don't know. I want to say, of course, chemicals effect and affect our thinking and well being mentally and physically. This is apperantly obvious. The question remains, however, is thought purely chemical reactions or does thought cause the chemical reactions or are the two inseperably entwinded. I don't know. I think that chemical reaction by and of themselves are incapable of producing thought, art etc.

I too am a materialist in so far as I beleive that physical objective material exists and is real. The unierse out there and in here is real and if I stub my toe on the perverbial rock it will hurt.

I just don't think that that is all that there is. In fact I know that that is not all that there is. If logic, mathmatics, philosophy, science, thought, art, beauty, love etc. etc. etc. exists then the subjective exista also.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And here you go with more 'what if' questions!! Also, you keep asking 'why' questions that may or may not even mean anything. So you think you have it all figured out huh? Oh well, it looks like you have your hands full now anyway. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Royce,
How do you explain mental illness, the effects of psycotropic drugs, the effects of anti-psycotic drugs? Why does lithium have an effect on many bipolar individuals?

Do you believe the insane are still insane, once the individuals body dies - another words, does their 'spirit' still exhibit the same flawed reasoning?

If thoughts and consciousness is as devoid of chemical interaction, as I interpret from your post, then the points I've raised are inexplicable.

While I don't hold a strict materialistic view of the world, I also don't see it as absurd. I can see that it is completely, internally self-consistent. The thought comes first, which creates the chemical reaction, which creates the hallucination which, feeds more information into the thought process which, sustains the hallucination. And, while the drugs do not cancel out the thought itself, it does suppress the chemical process which creates the hallucination, which no longer creates feedback into the thought process, and it is no longer sustained.

Of course that doesn't mean that one of the sides effects of a patient who is given these drugs, will appear as if they've been "drugged out."

Neither does it mean the "original trauma" -- which, gave rise to "the thought" in the first place -- will go away, although by administering the drugs it suppresses the symptoms, and it will cease to continue and remain dormant. It still has yet to be addressed though.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Which comes first, Zero, the chemical reaction or the thought? I have watched countless chemical reactions take place over the years. I have yet to see one have a counscious thought or create a new thought or work of art.



Sure you have, indirectly...thought is caused by chemical reations in the brain creating electrical signals...why is that idea so offensive?

[Royce]

It is not offensive, Zero. I am not convinced that chemical reaction cause thought and not that thought causes chemical reactions.

Nor am I convinced that only physical objective universe exists and that the subjective does not exist in reality.

I believe that the are three levels of reality, the physical, the mental or subjective and the spiritual.

I can not except that thought is merely the result of random chemical reactions. If the reactions are not random then some force is acting upon them, directing and controling them and this force would be thought, IMO. I just don't beleive nor can I make myself believe that random chemical reactions can be as creative, ingenious and sometimes logical as the human mind is. This may be a failing on my part. I don't think so.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I've never seen you contribute much, except coming around to give me crap.

That's because I contribute in many threads that have nothing to do with God or religion. Try visiting those threads and contribute.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
That's bacause I contribute in many threads that have nothing to do with God or religion. Try visiting those threads and contribute. So know I have to post where you want me to? Please, stop it already, I feel like you are stalking me, and have made a hair out of my hair clippings from the barber shop. You only come into these threads to give me a hard time, and I don't care why, so long as you STOP.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
So know I have to post where you want me to? Please, stop it already, I feel like you are stalking me, and have made a hair out of my hair clippings from the barber shop. You only come into these threads to give me a hard time, and I don't care why, so long as you STOP.

Lol. That's it. Twist what I'm saying again. I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm defending myself from your comment that I don't contribute anything. Anyone who wants to see that you are wrong on that can go read other threads. But whoever wants to see such things will have to put aside their bitter obcession with "god" and religion and visit other topics to see it. I'm just defending myself, nothing more.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. That's it. Twist what I'm saying again. I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm defending myself from your comment that I don't contribute anything. Anyone who wants to see that you are wrong on that can go read other threads. But whoever wants to see such things will have to put aside their bitter obcession with "god" and religion and visit other topics to see it. I'm just defending myself, nothing more.
Why are you defending yourself? All you had to do was not post something off-topic in this thread to specifically comment about my posting. That would have avoided all this, don't you think?

Now, can we drop this and get back on topic, please?

[radagast]

Royce,
Though I hate the idea of intruding on Zero's and Fliptions 'discussion' [you'd think they were married...[:)]], the question arises, if consciousness and thought are more than the sum of the pattern of electrochemical reactions in the brain, then what are they. Obviously they would have to be able to exert influence over matter, to trigger the electrochemical events in the brain, and it begs the question why would structural problems in the brain (Alzheimers, for instance) interfere with thoughts and consciousness, if the thoughts caused the actions in the brain? Would it be (meditated by) a fifth force? Just some thoughts to chew on.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
It is not offensive, Zero. I am not convinced that chemical reaction cause thought and not that thought causes chemical reactions.

Nor am I convinced that only physical objective universe exists and that the subjective does not exist in reality.

I believe that the are three levels of reality, the physical, the mental or subjective and the spiritual.

I can not except that thought is merely the result of random chemical reactions. If the reactions are not random then some force is acting upon them, directing and controling them and this force would be thought, IMO. I just don't beleive nor can I make myself believe that random chemical reactions can be as creative, ingenious and sometimes logical as the human mind is. This may be a failing on my part. I don't think so.

Who said anything was random? That is the sort of strawman argument that ruins it for me, you know?

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
It is not offensive, Zero. I am not convinced that chemical reaction cause thought and not that thought causes chemical reactions.

Nor am I convinced that only physical objective universe exists and that the subjective does not exist in reality.

I believe that the are three levels of reality, the physical, the mental or subjective and the spiritual.

I can not except that thought is merely the result of random chemical reactions. If the reactions are not random then some force is acting upon them, directing and controling them and this force would be thought, IMO. I just don't beleive nor can I make myself believe that random chemical reactions can be as creative, ingenious and sometimes logical as the human mind is. This may be a failing on my part. I don't think so.

I am sympathetic to your argument, Royce. Discerning the nature of the relationship between consciousness and physical activity in the brain seems to be easily the biggest problem confronting science. Anyone who claims it is a trivial fact that brain states cause states of consciousness is obviously not well versed in cognitive science, because it is far from trivial to establish such a relationship. Indeed, science is still in the beginning stages where it's just trying to put together a good framework of how neural activity is even correlated with consciousness, and even this has proved to be much more difficult than one might think.

However, one thing I think we can rule out is a subjective state having a causal relationship up on the physical brain. Philosophically, this is introduces a dualism where somehow 'mind' can interact with and causally affect 'matter,' which raises a host of troublesome questions. More importantly, it has been shown that neural activity precedes conscious thought. For instance, when you decide to reach out your hand to pick up a glass, this decision is characterized by a spike of local activity in the area of the motor cortex responsible for controlling your arm. The interesting thing is that this spike in activity actually precedes your conscious awareness (or thought) of your decision to pick up the glass. So it is impossible, at least in this case, for the subjective thought to have a causal effect on the physical brain (unless this causal effect somehow goes backwards in time [;)]).

This shouldn't be too hard for you to reconcile. 'Random' chemical reactions can be plenty creative, logical, and downright ingenious, just within the framework provided by the laws of physics. Look at the human body. Do you suppose that there is some metaphysical thinker guiding the complex chemical interactions of the body? The complexity of the body is comparable (very roughly) to that of the brain; if you don't feel compelled to think that thoughts must somehow guide embryological development or cell replication, you shouldn't feel compelled to think that thoughts must be having a causal action on the brain.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Why are you defending yourself? All you had to do was not post something off-topic in this thread to specifically comment about my posting. That would have avoided all this, don't you think?

Now, can we drop this and get back on topic, please?

Nice setup. But it took you 3 pages to tell me this was off topic? I'm moving on now.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I am sympathetic to your argument, Royce. Discerning the nature of the relationship between consciousness and physical activity in the brain seems to be easily the biggest problem confronting science. Anyone who claims it is a trivial fact that brain states cause states of consciousness is obviously not well versed in cognitive science, because it is far from trivial to establish such a relationship. Indeed, science is still in the beginning stages where it's just trying to put together a good framework of how neural activity is even correlated with consciousness, and even this has proved to be much more difficult than one might think.


This is a very good post hypnagogue. This one as well as the earlier one defending Les's point to Zero. Both are excellent posts. I apologize if it seems I have dragged things down a bit but I do tend to get frustrated when I don't see more post like yours. I too can relate to Royce's view and it's good to see someone in this forum finally admit that the "brain creates consciousness" idea isn't as simple as 1, 2, 3 the way it is pretended to be here much of the time. But I also think you make good rational points to the contrary that people (like Royce and myself of course) would need to do research and discuss more. These discussions would be much anticipated and enjoyed by yours truly.

[Zero]

Ok, even if we stipulate the consciousness exists outside of the physical realm(which I think is unsupported nonsense), that doesn't bring you any closer to the proof of the existance of anything else outside the physical, does it?

[Zantra]

What will it take to make me believe?

Well let me put this to rest. I think I speak for all the non-believers when I say it will take physical, undisputable proof. Not subjective experience, not viewpoints, not "spiritual enlightenment". Proof, visual, and undeniable. Absolutely nothing less than that. That can be in many forms. A signed copy of the bible, An UNAMBIGUOUS sign from god which leaves NO DOUBT that it is him and not some other phenomenon. Anything in the Bible is disputable and open to a wide variety of interpetations, so that is not proof. An actual religious item verified by carbon dating. Recently there was an item in the news about a box that was "alleged" to contain the ashes of jesus' brother or something. It was verified as a fake by experts. There is not one single shred of physical evidence to support the orgin of christ, and that is what bothers me.

PROOF. That's what it takes. So talk until you're blue in the face, but unless you can produce EVIDENCE, you're wasting you time. I'm not flexible in that criteria, and neither, I believe, are any of the other non-religious people..

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zantra
What will it take to make me believe?

Well let me put this to rest. I think I speak for all the non-believers when I say it will take physical, undisputable proof. Not subjective experience, not viewpoints, not "spiritual enlightenment". Proof, visual, and undeniable. Absolutely nothing less than that. That can be in many forms. A signed copy of the bible, An UNAMBIGUOUS sign from god which leaves NO DOUBT that it is him and not some other phenomenon. Anything in the Bible is disputable and open to a wide variety of interpetations, so that is not proof. An actual religious item verified by carbon dating. Recently there was an item in the news about a box that was "alleged" to contain the ashes of jesus' brother or something. It was verified as a fake by experts. There is not one single shred of physical evidence to support the orgin of christ, and that is what bothers me.

PROOF. That's what it takes. So talk until you're blue in the face, but unless you can produce EVIDENCE, you're wasting you time. I'm not flexible in that criteria, and neither, I believe, are any of the other non-religious people..

Great post. I would simply add two things to it:

1) Even if we prove that something exists of a 'magical nature', there will always be the chance of it being sufficiently advanced science, including mind control to force us to believe.

2) The standards of proof are accepted in every other forum on PF. You cannot say that you thought long and hard about the social ramifications of a math problem, and decide to change the answer to suit a belief. If you claim that the moon is made of blue cheese, no one accepts that answer because 'all measurements are subjective'. So why should the standard be any different for religious thinking?

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Who said anything was random? That is the sort of strawman argument that ruins it for me, you know?

Please read the second sentence in my post. It is either random chemical reactions, which I say is improbable due to the creativity of the human mind/brain, or it is not random reactions implying that there is some force controlling or directing the reactions and I surmise that that force may be thought.

Originally posted by radagast
...the question arises, if consciousness and thought are more than the sum of the pattern of electrochemical reactions in the brain, then what are they. Obviously they would have to be able to exert influence over matter, to trigger the electrochemical events in the brain, and it begs the question why would structural problems in the brain (Alzheimers, for instance) interfere with thoughts and consciousness, if the thoughts caused the actions in the brain? Would it be (meditated by) a fifth force? Just some thoughts to chew on.

I don't know Glenn nor doe anyone else I think. Is it posible that the physical and/or chemical structure of the brain must be intact for thoughts to be come conscious to us and then accomplish their purpose?

Originally posted by hypnagogue
However, one thing I think we can rule out is a subjective state having a causal relationship up on the physical brain. Philosophically, this is introduces a dualism where somehow 'mind' can interact with and causally affect 'matter,' which raises a host of troublesome questions. More importantly, it has been shown that neural activity precedes conscious thought. For instance, when you decide to reach out your hand to pick up a glass, this decision is characterized by a spike of local activity in the area of the motor cortex responsible for controlling your arm. The interesting thing is that this spike in activity actually precedes your conscious awareness (or thought) of your decision to pick up the glass. So it is impossible, at least in this case, for the subjective thought to have a causal effect on the physical brain (unless this causal effect somehow goes backwards in time ).

Why can we rule out the subjective state having a causal relationship with the physical brain or body. Pychosamatic (sp?) illnesses and good old Frued's hysteria symptoms were/are all evidence of subjective disorders causing the physical to malfunction.

Is it possible that the pure subjective thought occurs - causes the chemical reactions to take place which then cause us to become conscious of the thought and finally to pick up the glass? Surely it is far more complicated than we think. Possibly the structure of the brain is necessary for the subjective to influence and control the chemical reactions at the molecular level.

You are saying that we are robots without free will, control or purpose responding to acausal random chemical reactions. Seems to me that life is chaotic enough without that randomness controling even our thoughts intents and purposes. If it isn't random then what controls it? Thought?

Zero, I just read your last post while trying to compile this post.
No, it proves nothing. It only makes it possible which takes it then out of the realm of fairytales back into philosophy and meta-physics.

[Royce]

Zandra, that absolute indisputable proof is what happened to me. I cannot and will never attempt to prove anything to you or anyone else.
The proof must come to you or you will not accept it. If and when it comes it will be internal and personel. Try to keep and open mind. I am merely speculating, questioning and presenting another view point. I am also having fun.[:D]

Zero, there is nothing magical or mystical about belief in God or that God created the universe. If God did create the natural universe wouldn't God then be a natural part of it as well as it being a natural part of him. Quit looking for ghosts, fairies and spooks. Look at nature, at the universe. It is wonderful enough without adding magic and mystisism.

What about the social ramifications of Einstein's cosmological constant to force his equations to show a atatic universe? What about fieman's doing away with the infinities in Hiesenberg's equations because they were useless the way they were. Give me a break, Zero, If your going to claim righeousness on your side your going to have to find a better example than science. History is full of hoaxes, mistakes and outright fraud and plagerism. Science is a human endevore after all and even scientist are human.
Science is not the temple of truth, honesty, integrity, wisdom and righeousness you would have us all believe.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Please read the second sentence in my post. It is either random chemical reactions, which I say is improbable due to the creativity of the human mind/brain, or it is not random reactions implying that there is some force controlling or directing the reactions and I surmise that that force may be thought. It isn't either/or. The third option is that the physical structure of the brain, in combination with the known laws of physics and chemistry, combine to form a framework for how thought works. Not random, but not controlled by a conscious force either. It is the same way that a river flows along the channel it exists in. It doesn't flow randomly, but there is no conscious design either.




Zero, I just read your last post while trying to compile this post.
No, it proves nothing. It only makes it possible which takes it then out of the realm of fairytales back into philosophy and meta-physics.
Which is a starting point, but since you and many other are already at that point without any proof, why would you then be able to produce any more evidence than you can now?

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't either/or. The third option is that the physical structure of the brain, in combination with the known laws of physics and chemistry, combine to form a framework for how thought works. Not random, but not controlled by a conscious force either. It is the same way that a river flows along the channel it exists in. It doesn't flow randomly, but there is no conscious design either.


But in reality the river makes it's channel not the other way around. Look at the Grand Canyon. It is the river that made it not the canyon making the river.



Which is a starting point, but since you and many other are already at that point without any proof, why would you then be able to produce any more evidence than you can now?

I can not provide any evidence or proof at all. I can only speculate and question. Possibly I can form a working hypothesis from which to go further in my/our speculations and questions. It may not be scientific but it is a valid form of reasoning. This again takes it out of the realm of pure faith and your fairy tales. This in reality is all that I am trying to do. I am exersising and stretching my brain/mind just as in a good game of chess. I am having fun [:)][;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero

Which is a starting point, but since you and many other are already at that point without any proof, why would you then be able to produce any more evidence than you can now?

But Zero, it is enough evidene (subjective though it is) for him. Just as the title of this thread, it is what was needed to convince him.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
But in reality the river makes it's channel not the other way around. Look at the Grand Canyon. It is the river that made it not the canyon making the river. Are you saying that the river consciously decides which way it will go? My point is that it's path is determined by gravity, erosion, geography...lot's or purely physical laws govern things, including consciousness.




I can not provide any evidence or proof at all. I can only speculate and question. Possibly I can form a working hypothesis from which to go further in my/our speculations and questions. It may not be scientific but it is a valid form of reasoning. This again takes it out of the realm of pure faith and your fairy tales. This in reality is all that I am trying to do. I am exersising and stretching my brain/mind just as in a good game of chess. I am having fun [:)][;)] Uh huh...speculation is great, I suppose. So long as you recognise it as such, knock yourself out!

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
Why can we rule out the subjective state having a causal relationship with the physical brain or body. Pychosamatic (sp?) illnesses and good old Frued's hysteria symptoms were/are all evidence of subjective disorders causing the physical to malfunction.

Strictly speaking, these phenomena are not evidence of the subjecive having a causative effect on the physical. They are only evidence that the things we experience subjectively are highly correlated with the physical events and phenomena of our body. For instance, it is said that depressed people are more susceptible to illness. Why? Is it the subjective experience that causes the susceptibility to illness, or is it that the subjective experience is indicative of a disorder in the physical organization of the brain that propogates throughout the body and winds up somehow suppressing the immune system?

The flaw with your argument is that psychosomatic illnesses and the like are equally explicable assuming the subjective experience has a direct causal power, or assuming that the subjective experience is an epiphenomenon that expresses or mirrors the state and condition of the underlying physical substrate but itself has no causal powers. In fact, the evidence in my last post seems to indicate it is the latter; the causal chain of reaction that culminates with you lifting your arm is initiated before you yourself are aware that you have made such a decision. It therefore seems more likely that your conscious experience of choosing to lift your arm is a depiction of the causal chain of neural activity rather than a participant in the causal chain.

Is it possible that the pure subjective thought occurs - causes the chemical reactions to take place which then cause us to become conscious of the thought and finally to pick up the glass? Surely it is far more complicated than we think. Possibly the structure of the brain is necessary for the subjective to influence and control the chemical reactions at the molecular level.

You are saying that we are robots without free will, control or purpose responding to acausal random chemical reactions. Seems to me that life is chaotic enough without that randomness controling even our thoughts intents and purposes. If it isn't random then what controls it? Thought?

So you are proposing that an initial thought takes place, initiates the neural activity, which in turn causes our consciousness of that thought? If we are not conscious of this 'pure subjective thought,' then what have you gained? It essentially functions the same as the physicalist description. Either way, the power is out of our conscious hands. One paradigm attributes it to dead, unseeing chemical reactions, the other to dead, unseeing 'thought.'

I don't pretend that science tells us, or even can tell us, all there is to be known about consciousness. Not for a second. But it sure can tell us a lot, and it would be foolish not to take into account the understanding we can develop of consciousness through scientific inquiry.

I don't understand why people equate a physical description of the processes of consciousness with an interpretation that we are dead, robotic, purposeless, without control, without wonder. Well, let me qualify that; I understand it, but I think further thought will show you that a physical understanding of human consciousness is not irrenconcilable with a full appreciation for the human condition: our purposefulness, creativity, and yes, even our control over ourselves. I think I'll expand on this in a future post since it is such a basic and, I think, misunderstood component of this argument.

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
But Zero, it is enough evidene (subjective though it is) for him. Just as the title of this thread, it is what was needed to convince him.

Yep...

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
*snip*

I don't pretend that science tells us, or even can tell us, all there is to be known about consciousness. Not for a second. But it sure can tell us a lot, and it would be foolish not to take into account the understanding we can develop of consciousness through scientific inquiry.

I would sort of disagree with you on this. I think science is the only possible way to discover all there is to know, even if some things are unknowable. If someone can show that a 'metaphysical' event exists, and can be repeated in laboratory conditions, then it becames science, even if we never quite figure out the explanation for HOW it happens.

[hypnagogue]

This is an epistemological question. As it stands the scientific method is the most reliable method of inquiry we have, but as you say, it leaves certain propositions unknowable. That doesn't mean that they are themselves inherently unknowable. What possible method could throw light on these things that science can't? I don't know. But it would probably be shortsighted to imply that science is the end-all of knowledge. If anyone wants to contest this, they would have to prove that science is the only avenue to knowledge, which is itself impossible to prove given current accepted methods of proof. So it remains an open question.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
This is an epistemological question. As it stands the scientific method is the most reliable method of inquiry we have, but as you say, it leaves certain propositions unknowable. That doesn't mean that they are themselves inherently unknowable. What possible method could throw light on these things that science can't? I don't know. But it would probably be shortsighted to imply that science is the end-all of knowledge. If anyone wants to contest this, they would have to prove that science is the only avenue to knowledge, which is itself impossible to prove given current accepted methods of proof. So it remains an open question. Guess what? I own a piece of the "original equipment." So I don't necessarily need science, or you, or anyone else to tell me how to think. Consciousness is the very essence of "my being," and it's through consciousness that I come to know the world and everything about it.

So which came first? Consciousness? Or, this "human endeavor" we call science, which has evolved as a result of consciousness? Hmm ... It would seem that question has already been answered. [;)]

[hypnagogue]

no offense, but I don't see how what you said is relevant at all to the post of mine you quoted. [;)] I wasn't telling anyone how to think.. if anything the opposite.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
no offense, but I don't see how what you said is relevant at all to the post of mine you quoted. [;)] I wasn't telling anyone how to think.. if anything the opposite. Just a general statement that seemed to coincide with what your'e saying. Except that you're right, I probably could have said it without quoting you. I was just trying to reiterate that the idea of concsciousness is much more personal than what any scientific observation could describe it to be. Sorry. [:)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Zero
I would sort of disagree with you on this. I think science is the only possible way to discover all there is to know, even if some things are unknowable. If someone can show that a 'metaphysical' event exists, and can be repeated in laboratory conditions, then it becames science, even if we never quite figure out the explanation for HOW it happens.

Uhmmmm.

So quantum-mechanics and Big Bang cosmology are fields of pure metaphysics, since we can't know causes there?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Royce
ZanTra, that absolute indisputable proof is what happened to me. I cannot and will never attempt to prove anything to you or anyone else.
The proof must come to you or you will not accept it. If and when it comes it will be internal and personel. Try to keep and open mind. I am merely speculating, questioning and presenting another view point. I am also having fun.[:D]


Ok so you're saying God came to you personally and said "hey I'm real"? Because that's what it would take for me. I don't mean any kind of abstract esoteric,internal experience. I mean something that can be verified by the 5 senses. Elsewise it's jut a dream.

I've heard the same schpiel time and time again. And those same people swore christ was coming in 2000, and that I should be prepared
*looks at watch* Still waiting..I guess no one said he was a "punction God eh?[;)]

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok so you're saying God came to you personally and said "hey I'm real"? Because that's what it would take for me. I don't mean any kind of abstract esoteric,internal experience. I mean something that can be verified by the 5 senses. Elsewise it's jut a dream.

What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?

Because his 5 senses are more or less analogous to mine and yours, and anything he can see, hear, etc., he can show us, or have us listen to as well.

[Royce]

But our 5 senses are known to be limited and fallable as well qs our interpetation of what our senses are showing us.

I am not predicting that Jesus or God will come back to this world anytime soon. Nor will it be a dream if he comes to you internally. You will know it and know the truth of it or what would be the point.

Strictly speaking, these phenomena are not evidence of the subjecive having a causative effect on the physical. They are only evidence that the things we experience subjectively are highly correlated with the physical events and phenomena of our body. For instance, it is said that depressed people are more susceptible to illness. Why? Is it the subjective experience that causes the susceptibility to illness, or is it that the subjective experience is indicative of a disorder in the physical organization of the brain that propogates throughout the body and winds up somehow suppressing the immune system?

This sound very much like the typical dodge that science takes when something happens that they cannot explain and will not admit that they can never explain with their physical science.

An emotional or psychololigal trauma with no physical trauma present can and does have physical effects on the body. People have become crippled ,blind, deaf, dumb for various lengths of time and recovered just as fast and mysteriously as they became effected. This is obvious and clinical evidence of the subjective effecting the physical. I am surprised that you refuse to admit this phenomina is real.

I am of a either or mind set about this topic. Either the chemical activitiy is random or it is not random.

If it is pure random with out cause, control or direction by us, our thoughts then we have no control over our thoughts and actions. This is what is meant as being robots with out will or choice. To me this is absurd.
If these chemical reactions are not random this implys and necessates control and direction. This is what thought, will, purpose, and intention does, control the direction of the reactions or nerve impulses.

It is or it isn't. I see no room for a third alternative at this time. We are either in control of our thoughts and actions or we are not. Either we are intelligent humans with free will or we are not and are controled by random chemical reactions. This makes us robots.
What possible third possiblity could there be?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce

It is or it isn't. I see no room for a third alternative at this time. We are either in control of our thoughts and actions or we are not. Either we are intelligent humans with free will or we are not and are controled by random chemical reactions. This makes us robots.
What possible third possiblity could there be? That's your fault, not ours. You continuously say 'random', we continuously explain that it is not, and you continue to say random. How is that possible? Did you forget what I posted, did you just not understand it, or is a reality-based explanation son frightening that you block it out?

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't either/or. The third option is that the physical structure of the brain, in combination with the known laws of physics and chemistry, combine to form a framework for how thought works. Not random, but not controlled by a conscious force either. It is the same way that a river flows along the channel it exists in. It doesn't flow randomly, but there is no conscious design either.

The third option is still deterministic and not within our human control. Unless the physical structure of our brain changes as we think in response to or along with creating new thoughts there is no room for new creative thoughts because the physical structure of our brain is hardwired and the know laws of physics and chemistry cannot change.
If the structure of our brain does change with each thought then what drives this change.
Your third alternative is just a rewording of the first alternative. The result is the same.

Either the physical and chemical activity is drive by our thoughts or it drives our thoughts. Since the physical and chemical properties of our brains cannot be willfully changed then our thoughts are determined by physics and chemistry on not by our will. Thus our thoughts are determined and we are robots of physics and chemistry.

We are at the very basic, deepest level of philosophy here. We are debating or discussing consciousness and thought itself and how it may or may not come about. Right along with it and inseperable with it is freewill vs determinism. This has been debated for centuries by greater minds than you or me.

Whether the action is random or controled and directed by the physical structure of our brains and the laws of physics and chemistry, or whether the action is controlled and directed by our will and our thoughts is the basic question here. Either we are controlled or we control is the secondary issue.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
What makes your 5 senses such an authority on judging reality?

Well unles you're psychic, those are the only senses nature has afforded to you[;)] Are we about to sidetrack into some discussion on everything as we know it being a dreamworld concocted by our minds to escape the true reality? Because I saw the Matrix-been there, done that. I mean I deal strictly in reality. While it's not absolutely impossible for this to be, it's about as likely as the explanation that we are all actually robots controlled by aliens and Elvis is/was thier leader...

We can only go by what our mind registers from our external sense about the surrounding world. Nothing else can be considered "real" as it is not something that can be verified through trial and error, or confirmed by a 2nd source, IE someone else. Real is what the electtrical impulses transmitted to our brain via our senses percieve it to be. And until it's proven otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
The third option is still deterministic and not within our human control. Unless the physical structure of our brain changes as we think in response to or along with creating new thoughts there is no room for new creative thoughts because the physical structure of our brain is hardwired and the know laws of physics and chemistry cannot change.
If the structure of our brain does change with each thought then what drives this change.
Your third alternative is just a rewording of the first alternative. The result is the same.

Either the physical and chemical activity is drive by our thoughts or it drives our thoughts. Since the physical and chemical properties of our brains cannot be willfully changed then our thoughts are determined by physics and chemistry on not by our will. Thus our thoughts are determined and we are robots of physics and chemistry.

We are at the very basic, deepest level of philosophy here. We are debating or discussing consciousness and thought itself and how it may or may not come about. Right along with it and inseperable with it is freewill vs determinism. This has been debated for centuries by greater minds than you or me.

Whether the action is random or controled and directed by the physical structure of our brains and the laws of physics and chemistry, or whether the action is controlled and directed by our will and our thoughts is the basic question here. Either we are controlled or we control is the secondary issue.

First off, what's wrong with determinism? We are sort of stuck with it. Your problem with it strikes me as very emotional.("Oh no, I'm not gonna be a robot, no SIR!')

Ok, call the third option 'restricted free will', and go from there. It is what all evidence suggests on every level, anyways. Consciousness is not a completely random process, because it is created by the physical workings of the brain. However, there is a semi-random 'wiggle-room' or different pathways a thought can take in the brain. It is like bring forced to stay on the road in your car, but having a few different roads to choose from.

And this 'basic question' doesn't have anything to do with much except what appears to me to be fear and control issues for you, and nothing external or based on logic.

[Royce]

You presume too much, Zero. I am not responding in an emotional way but only on and intellectual, philisophic way.
I have no fear or determinism or control. I just don't believe it. Think how free of guilt, indicision and responsibility we would all be if it were a deterministic world. Instead of saying; "The Devil made me do it we could say; "Physics and Chemistry made me do it."

Restricted free will sound more near the truth. None of us are really free. We all have buttons that can be and are pushed to make us respond in set patterns. In at least that sense we are hardwired.
Every once in a while one of us jumps out of the box and does some really creative thinking or performs some really beautiful creative
act. We can't account for that happening yet.

I am as stubborn and convinced that I am closer to the truth as you are. I see no way out of the dilemma other than calling a truce or cease fire. I know there is no way either of us will agree that it is a draw but maybe a stalemate?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
You presume too much, Zero. I am not responding in an emotional way but only on and intellectual, philisophic way.
I have no fear or determinism or control. I just don't believe it. Think how free of guilt, indicision and responsibility we would all be if it were a deterministic world. Instead of saying; "The Devil made me do it we could say; "Physics and Chemistry made me do it."

Restricted free will sound more near the truth. None of us are really free. We all have buttons that can be and are pushed to make us respond in set patterns. In at least that sense we are hardwired.
Every once in a while one of us jumps out of the box and does some really creative thinking or performs some really beautiful creative
act. We can't account for that happening yet.

I am as stubborn and convinced that I am closer to the truth as you are. I see no way out of the dilemma other than calling a truce or cease fire. I know there is no way either of us will agree that it is a draw but maybe a stalemate?

I think we have found all the common ground we're gonna get in this statement: " Restricted free will sound more near the truth. None of us are really free. We all have buttons that can be and are pushed to make us respond in set patterns. In at least that sense we are hardwired."

Otherwise, I think we are done, don't you?

[megashawn]

wow, I thought I was never gonna get to the end of this thing.

Royce, I think this was said on page 6 or 7:

Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?


Ok, these millions of peoples had 10,000 years or so to improve life. Up until just a few started making miraculous breakthroughs, did life actually start to improve.

Tell me something, whats more important to mankind, having a religous belief or a refrigerator?

[Zantra]

Originally posted by megashawn
wow, I thought I was never gonna get to the end of this thing.

Royce, I think this was said on page 6 or 7:



Ok, these millions of peoples had 10,000 years or so to improve life. Up until just a few started making miraculous breakthroughs, did life actually start to improve.

Tell me something, whats more important to mankind, having a religous belief or a refrigerator?

fridge

[Royce]

Absolutely! Fridge, car maybe house. Man cannot live on beer alone. (thus the prime imporance of fridge.) He must have wheels.

Yeah, Zero, I think we have exhausted the subject, at least ourselves of the subject. Thanks. Good game.

[megashawn]

Absolutely! Fridge, car maybe house. Man cannot live on beer alone.

Thats not completly true. There are enough essential vitamins and nuttrients in a beer to supply the human body with its daily needs.

Why do you think alcoholics develop a beer belly?

Of course, you'd die eventually if you drank beer to live.


But do you not see my point? You stated that for thousands of years many people have believed in God. What has it done for us? Where has it taken us? How has it improved life on earth?

Nothing, nowhere and notta. Although I have to give credit to these foundations which try to feed and school children in foriegn countrys. But even without advances made in a very short amount of time, it would not be possible.

I mean, if your trying to build a dog house, the same way your daddy and his daddy built them, and it takes you 15 hours to get the frame together, well, that would suck.

But then, you notice your neighbor who is doing it in 10 minutes. Would it not be sensible to learn the method which, although is nothing like the old method, is so much better, and has proven this, in just a short amount of time?

I mean, think about those millions of believers over time, how many of them died from something simple, like the Flu, or chicken pox, a cavity, etc. Life expectancies were half(being conservative) what they are now, and the general comfort of life was not comfortable at all.

We don't know how good we got it now if you ask me. And I actually know people who thank god for a new piece of technology. Not knowing that the principles that go into developing that technology could offer evidence of non-existance of a god. Think about before we had refridgeration, we kept ice chests to store our meat. If the ice melted, you was out of dinner. Also the ice would not keep the meat cold enough, allowing bacteria and such to infect the food, also leading to more deaths.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
But do you not see my point? You stated that for thousands of years many people have believed in God. What has it done for us? Where has it taken us? How has it improved life on earth?What is the point in believing in God? I understand that the Ancients who, communicated directly with the angels -- before passing on and becoming angels themselves -- live in the highest heavens and are therefore most "innocent." [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is the point in believing in God? I understand that the Ancients who, communicated directly with the angels -- before passing on and becoming angels themselves -- live in the highest heavens and are therefore most "innocent."And if you don't believe I have the means by which to ascertain this for myself, guess again. [;)]

[heusdens]

And since there seems to be nobody around anymore that takes Iachhus32 ideas serious, he defaults now to talking to himself....

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
And since there seems to be nobody around anymore that takes Iachhus32 ideas serious, he defaults now to talking to himself.... Yes, what is the point in believing in God?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, what is the point in believing in God?

Is that a rethorical question or an actual question? Do you ask this in general, or are you just asking yourself?

If you want or need my opinion on that:

There is no point in believing outside believing itself. The belief is purpose in and for itself, and has no relationship to any outside objective reality. Believing in God does not make any practical real life any better, it does not improof any one's life.

But if you belief in God, actually the fact that that is untrue is not acknowledged by the believer, since it is believed that it actually does have some meaning.

[Isotope]

I used to beleive in god, but then I just stopped, t'was a few years ago, woke up one morning, not beleiving. And its not helping that some of my religious neighbors are very very nosey and I sometimes wish to destroy them, one by one, by cutting off their fingers, replacing them with razors, then throw them in a large tub of salt and itching powder. Anyway, I probably never will beleive in god again. Its ok though.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Is that a rethorical question or an actual question? Do you ask this in general, or are you just asking yourself?Am just reiterating the general question posed by megashawn which was included in my "first reply" above ... just to be sure you knew "who" I was talking to, that is. [;)]