To call your interpretation a tu quoque would be charitable to it. Operating on the premise that things will continue in a certain fashion due to prior experience assumes that prior experience is meaningful; which could be false, in spite of the entirety of science and logic thus far seeming to support certain notions. This is not an equal proposition to something not supported, or even suggested, by anything. Your position, in other words.

I haven't seen a basis thus far.

So, are you an idiot that doesn't understand what people say, or are you an asshole that misrepresents them? That's not what I said. I didn't take issue with the statement that a balanced mind is one in which the two sides complement each other. I agreed with that totally.

What I disagree with is the statement that your mind is balanced. You are delusional. Period. You think God speaks to you. That's delusion. You think we're the irrational ones, yet you can't even describe the epistemology that supports your metaphysics. You attack ours (logic, empiricism, and the scientific method), but you have nothing with which to replace it. (Let me give you a hint: introspection isn't enough. You have to have a logical foundation on which to base it. An epistemology. Do you need me to quote the Wikipedia entry for you? Or do you think you can find it on your own?)

You are falling, and you think you're flying.

The foundation on which you build it is irrational. Therefore, any conclusions from that foundation are also irrational, irrespective of the logic of the construct. You have nothing to support a rational "formulation."

Logic? Oh, logic works now, does it? Funny how any time a logical argument arises, you wiggle around that hook. Even if I have no logical basis, I looked inside myself, meditated, and came to the conclusion that you are an idiot. ( Now that's an ad hominem, coupled with a little reducto ad absurdum.)

Yes, I do have evidence. Your entire argument is based on the idea that God talks to you. There's nothing analytic about that. Period. Full stop. You can rationalize all you want, but all you have is intuition, which has been proven to be subjective and highly unreliable. And when presented with empirical evidence that it is subjective, you try the One True Scotsman fallacy. And when that doesn't work, you try to attack empiricism and logic, by appealing to solipsism-that-isn't-solipsism.

I have much evidence that you squelch your analytical mind in preference to your intuitive. The fact you think you have supported any of your many irrational statements indicates you prefer to live in Paisleyland rather than in the real world.

Which is fine. I don't mind personal spirituality. I think it is admirable. What I don't find admirable is your constant misrepresentation of the opposition, misunderstanding of many things (QM, for instance), and misuse of the English language to "support" your unsupported claim that atheism is irrational, but your beliefs are rational.

I'm glad you've finally given up the claim that your belief is rational, at least.

Science works. It has taken us to the farthest reaches of our solar system, given us transportation, methods of efficiently destroying the planet, and other useful gadgets. Science has also proven that your method of determining the existence of God is bunkum. Complete and utter bullshit. It's worthless as a method of gaining external knowledge. I'm not slamming the usefulness of the intuitive mind; most great scientists are highly intuitive. However, they are also highly analytic. All I'm saying is that this method you describe, introspection, has been tried, tested, and proven to be ineffective as a method of gaining knowledge.

What you describe is about as useful as tincture of mercury, or bleeding a person for the flu, or basing your financial decisions on the astrological position of the planets.

Science works. It has given us pretty much everything we have today. What does your epistemology give? (Actually, what is your epistemology?)

You know, I was going to say something about this as probably being an effect of his faith rather than an independent conclusion, but my head gave out before I ran out of wall on which to bang it.

If I had less impulse control and bigger muscles I would get this tattooed on my arm.

You, sir, rock.

The following is the definition of "absurd" according to Merriam-Webster:

An absurd worldview is one that is "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous."

An absurd worldview is one that has "no rational or orderly relationship to human life."

An absurd worldview is one that is "meaningless and lacking order or value."

I have already stated that my belief in God is not completely reducible to a deductive argument. It is an insight that stems from spiritual intuition.

The atheist claims that faith is belief without evidence. But the believer does not actually see it this way. Faith itself is the evidence. Religious faith is actually a form of sensing or seeing.

Both empiricism and the scientific method are based on inductive reasoning - the view that inferences can be drawn on the basis of observations. Just because a sequence of events occurred repeatedly in the past does not necessarily imply that they will continue to occur in the future. The belief that they will is simply made on the basis of faith (belief without evidence).

The fact is that you are operating on an element of faith (faith as the atheist defines it - belief without evidence). 

Intuition is non-rational. It is knowledge obtained by immediate insight, not by deductive reasoning.

I do have empirical evidence - my own personal experiences.

The analytical mind is basically the domain of the ego. The ego cannot know the Spirit and is actually at enmity with it.

  Paisely; do you have any tips that might help the atheists know the "Spirit" you speak of ? Is it a joyful knowledge?  Could you please give us your thoughts on icons Jesus and Buddha, as well ?

Do it for our kids, and all reading this ..... so this thread may become more meaningful to improving the now .... A relevant usable message would be nice. What are the bare basics of your advise to the world ?    

What is the irrationality of my position?

You have already assumed that there isn't.

The point is that there is evidence. Our first-person experience.

I believe thee article although not named specifically was referring to Higgs boson

Which is hypothetical, and should be confirmed shortly by experimentation at the LHC particle accelerator

Although you are correct about our primitive mathematics and understanding on a quantum level

Paisley may be correct, time will tell

As I haven't read this entire monstrous post, I am unsure of what Paisley wishes to assert using quantum theory ? could you elaborate Paisley

Experience isn't empiricism. Thoughts, no matter how derived, are not empirical.

What you have is personal impressions and subjective conclusions. Empiricism requires quantifiable sensory observation. With which sense did you observe God, precisely? Touch, taste, smell, sound, or sight?

What empirical evidence do you have that supports "spiritual faculties," and the variance of these faculties among individuals?

That's nice. That, however, clearly wasn't the definition the word was used under:

So, while you might choose to believe the usage was synonymous, as was made very clear both in and by the usage itself, it was not.

No, I've asked you for valid evidence without committing to the existence or nonexistence of 'free will'. I don't know if it exists, I don't know if it doesn't exist. Given that, I would need to see valid, convincing evidence one way or the other before making up my mind. You're not providing it.

Except that subjective experience isn't valid evidence. After all, first-person experience would say (and has) 'gee, the Earth sure looks flat', and 'gee, I didn't see any eggs laid on that meat, the maggots must have arisen from the rotting meat itself!'

Hang on a second, though, before you attempt to twist words around again. Let me demonstrate what your posts look like to everyone else:

You're not even arguing for the ability to choose freely, you're arguing for the ability to believe you could have chosen differently. "I would argue that the vast majority of human beings believe they have free will" and "Free will is being defined here as the belief that, given the same situation and circumstances, one could have chosen otherwise" condense to: "I would argue that the vast majority of human beings believe that they have the belief that, given the same situation and circumstances, one could have chosen otherwise." So people believe that they hold this belief? Does that mean they don't really hold the belief, they only think they do?

Now, blatantly, that's all bullshit, and we can tell what you meant despite the poor phrasing, but so far we've really tried parsing what you've meant instead of making you look like an utter fool over poor editorial skills, but in return, it would really be nice if you stopped attempting to resort to revisionist tactics and obfuscation.

Actually, I'm right. Quantum information does not resolve the issue of indeterminism. If "Nature" collapses the probability wave during an interaction, then nature (or the elementary particle in question) has made a "choice" among different possibilities. The bottomline: As long as you have a probability wave, then you have indeterminism.

In mysticism, the goal is divine union or what is called "nondual awareness." In such a state, there is no subject or object. And in contradistinction to your assertion, the evidence suggests that this is a universal experience that has been described by mystics from disparate religious traditions.

I think that you are really sad because I don't share your pessimistic, morbid outlook on life.

Correction. You cannot give life eternal meaning unless you live eternally.

Golly, that sounds like a threat !!!

                                                                     (ps.... have fun with that . )

If that doesn't float his boat, he may want to check out TimeCube.

http://www.timecube.com/

I was almost convinced.... hahaha

Dear Paisley, I frequently lurk on the RRS web-site to examine the quality of the theistic counter arguments so that I can always be up to speed in debates against my opponents.  Be that as it may I have been following your fascinating and masterful rebuttal of atheistic materialism and based upon your eloquent defense I have decided to completely abandon my association with the atheist community.

I have decided to leave my quasi-spiritual position to become a dedicated panentheist.  Thank you for saving me from a life of meaningless atheistic, materialism.

                                      sincerely, Sam Harris. 

 (ps, keep up the good work ! )

Quantum mechanics?

What have I stated about quantum mechanics that is not true? That the collapse of the wave function is a probabilistic event and as such is without physical cause?

Ooops !  my bad, triple post.   

( but considering how many times Paisley has repeated his panentheistic "clap trap" over and over and over  ......whose gonna notice a little more redundancy....right ? )

No, I'm saying that atheists have an absurd worldview because they view life as ultimately being without purpose and meaning.

Also, the atheist cannot accuse the believer of irrationality because he lives by faith when the atheist is guilty of doing the same.

No, you are quite wrong.

Where you are wrong is in calling the collapse of a probabilistic wave form "free will."  Nobody disputes the indeterminate nature of a quantum event. You seem to be making a big deal of it, while the rest of us just accept it. There is no "choice" (meaning "decision from free will" ) with quotes or without. It's a physical event involving the exchange of information. No more, no less.

And since we don't even understand the nature of the waveform, you are merely invoking the God of the Gaps. As far as we know, all of QM could be several simple deterministic processes interacting in a chaotic manner.

Although QM has inspired a lot of mystical talk, QM itself is not mystical. Chaos is not mystical. Indeterminism is not mystical, especially when bounded by probability functions and triggered by natural events.

How does this come close to supporting you? This says exactly what I've been saying all along. That is, unless you think he means "chooses" as a conscious decision. He put it in quotes because it's not a choice. It's merely the collapse of a chaotic state bounded by a statistical process. Note also the talk about information transfer, and that "nature is constantly performing measurements." This is exactly what I described, in very similar terms. I used the term "physical" instead of "nature."

You are again misrepresenting meaning by wrongly interpreting a word. In this quote, "chooses" (being in quotes) does not mean "choice by free will." Nor does it imply intent. It implies a measurement may go one way or another in a bounded, chaotic fashion.

Again, you are arguing against something I did not say.

I did not deny there is a subjective state attained by meditation or other methods. The fact this state is often similar among those who practice meditation is no more startling than those who experience love or hate describe those emotions in similar terms, independent of their cultural upbringing.

What I said was this: not all who meditate experience the same God. There is more than one description of God given by those who experience this state. Many describe it as you do, as if the universe itself treasures us, and will keep us forever, and we are all "one" with the universe. Others, however, have reported a cold, emotionless God who cares nothing for us. Some have even reported experiencing an evil God who wishes us ill. My point is, if there were an objective God, there would not be differing experiences.

And this is giving the technique the benefit of the (rather huge) doubt. I assume for a moment that what you describe is real. I create an hypothesis that there is an objective God that we can detect if we meditate, or perform other acts of intense introspection. (This state can also be achieved by some through hypnosis. There are those who believe meditation and self-hypnosis differ only in technique, not in the final state.) My conclusion is that the descriptions of God would all be essentially identical, as this is an objective God that can be sensed. However, as a non-trivial subset of the self-reporting test group reports different sensations of God, the hypothesis is invalidated.

In the end, there is no empirical evidence to support this as a valid method for attaining knowledge, outside of self-knowledge. (Now, here's a subject I could seriously discuss with you -- using this method as a tool for self-knowledge.)

What I find most interesting is the experience reported by many who practice meditation is similar to the state experienced by those who consume hallucinogenic mushrooms. Again, I refer you to Bill Hicks as the world's funniest comedian, who also shares your theistic views. He attained his self-knowledge through the use of drugs, and came to the same conclusion as you. (This is not an argument. It is merely a fascinating connection.)

How is calling God non-existent a Freudian slip?

Bwaa?

This is the weirdest thing I think you've ever said. First, let's cover the easiest part. "Wisdom" is not the mystical knowledge of divine love, especially with reference to philosophy, which references definitions 1 and 3a in the following:

Second, the "love" part of philosophy has the implication of esteeming, or having an avid interest. God's love is completely different. In fact, I think this quote is perfect:

What the hell does that mean? It's all poetical and all, but it doesn't mean a damned thing. If it's pregnant with meaning, it's stillborn.

First, I don't think Einstein's views of the mystical align with yours, so bringing up his deistic beliefs won't bolster your argument in any way. He was a deistic panentheist, not a theistic one. His concept of "the mystical" is more along the lines of, "the mystery of the universe," not, "TOE == love".

Second, I don't care about Einstein's personal beliefs. He certainly didn't try to prove everyone else was irrational, nor did he try to prove that his beliefs were rational. Lots of great minds had (or have, if they are still alive) beliefs in irrational things such as Gods and whatnot. Thomas Edison believed in ghosts. That doesn't make me think less of his achievements.

You have a long way to go to support your assertion that a Theory of Everything is equivalent to a universal love-force. First, you have to prove that love exists, and is a force. Second, you'd have to prove that it pervades the universe. Third, you'd have to prove that it's equivalent to a currently non-existent Theory of Everything.

I'd rather you come up with some real support for your assertion that the atheist worldview is irrational, but your belief in God is rational. So far, you're still arguing around that one, without really addressing it. You still have the problem of a lack of coherent epistemology, and the whole worldview as a rational model of a "meaningless" universe bit.

Just so you know, once that's addressed, we still have to talk about "meaninglessness" from a metaphysical standpoint. So you'll want a pretty comprehensive epistemology to support your proposition of meaning with respect to your metaphysics. Do you have a timeframe when that might be ready?

This really is a difficult sticking point for materialists, Nigel. The important thing to note is that rudimentary sensory awareness is fundamentally present in nature. The main issue for materialists here is that such contradicts emergence of consciousness, if rudimentary computational activity exists fundamentally in nature then consciousness, as defined by materialism, is not emergent, it's inherent,  inevitable and original.

Now before we get all mystical about that idea, or someone accuses me of it, I will qualify this with the RQM notion of completeness in Quantum theory. RQM follows through on this rudimentary awareness and gives it no unwarranted special position, by concluding that the boundary or 'cutoff ' of the self contained awareness is arbitrary. What's on the other side of the 'cut' is bounded statistically and is relative to the self contained awareness.  If you move the cut the aforementioned awareness measures a completely different state outside of its 'self' because it is a different 'self'.

This may be difficult to grasp at first, so I'll use an analogy. Lets say you have an atom and a molecule. The atom possesses a rudimentary state of self awareness within the molecule and performs measurements at the bound or 'cut' between its self and it's ~self.  (NB: This bound is given by the electron orbital which is probabilistic also so the bound is not static and that makes this analogy slightly flawed, but still useful, I think, if you don't take what I am saying for granted as a description of atoms. ) At the bound the measurement of the atom's ~self gives a description of the rest of the molecule which is to say the interaction between the atom and molecule is relative to the divide of internal inherent awareness of both, where the atom ends the molecule begins, the atom has many end points ranging deep into the atom itself and out to unity with the molecule, each end point is separate cut defining a separate 'self' part of the atom. So within bound of the molecule, which includes the atom, the system has the same form of rudimentary awareness, to this end, because there are lots of probabilistic electron states within the atoms within the molecule, the actual number of states we have inherent in the molecule is very very large. Each of these states is an 'aware self', only in that it is a self defined by a contiguous ~self beyond the boundaries of its apparent actualisation. This is to say that there is nothing special about the awareness of one "freeze-frame" state of the molecule or any atom within it, it has a state because 'awareness', but awareness itself in this way is not more than the actuality of one probable state among many. 

So then if awareness is explainable as an inherent auto-responsive trait of material nature, it can never have needed to emerge from a material substrate. Problem for material monists there. But then neither does this support any form of reflexive monism - consciousness and material by this description are the same thing, there is no conscious substrate either. The definition of materialisation from probabilistic states is the same as the definition of awareness.

In any case, nature doesn't insomuch 'choose' a state. If you take the relativistic approach to Quantum no states are 'chosen', states simply appear relative to whatever slices up matter and awareness (in the sense that they are the same thing).

Upon understanding that, you can probably get a little mystical, IMO. But I'm not sure I've explained it quite well enough.

>>>

I'm new, so I probably shouldn't step into this pile (of crap) until I know how deep it gets.  However, (throwing caution to the wind) might I suggest actually reading the bible.   That pretty much convinced me that christianity was a crock.  If that doesn't work, I recomment thr Freedom From religion Foundation in Madison Wisconsin @ http://www.ffrf.org/.

I'm assuming 'paisley' is a female identifyer.  Here's a few biblical references:

Genesis 3:16 2:22 Women created from Adam's rib (lie); woman cursed (by god) maternity a sin (but humans told to 'multiply'; marriage a bondage (for women)

Need more?

Genesis 19:1-8

Rape virgin instead of male angels (man gives daughters to crowd to sexually abuse)  Question:  Would an angel really have to worry about being sexually abused?

Exodus 21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"  (don't get me started on the inquisition)

Exodus 38:8 Women may not enter tabernacle but they must support it.

More?

Levitivus 12:1-14 Women who give birth to a son are unclean for 7 days, but if a girl are unclean for 14 days (yea, right)

Lev 15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean

19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, SHE shall be scourged

Enough of the 'old' testement?

Mathew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child (we know men are never 'with child'.)

Luke 2:22 Mary unclean after birth of Jesus

1 Corinthians 11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in god's image

14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only frrom husbands (oh now there isa real good idea)

Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit..." (guess that's why I didn't make a good wife)

Colossians 3:18 more of 'wife submit' crap

1 Timothy 2:11-14 Eve was sinful, Adam blameless

If a woman...the holy books from torah, old/new testement to quran are against you.  Run.  Run as fast as you can from these so called 'religions'.  Get politically involved to make certain your rights aren't abrogated by some religious 'freak' trying to protect you from the big bad wolf. 

IMHO: RUN, get safe, protect yourself.  Don't listen to the barf bags who talk about their 'god' being the best.  They all lie.  It's just another way of trying to control others. 

Read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion".  Get a clue and quit being a victim.

 Eloise  wrote,

"In any case, nature doesn't insomuch 'choose' a state. If you take the relativistic approach to Quantum no states are 'chosen', states simply appear relative to whatever slices up matter and awareness (in the sense that they are the same thing).

Upon understanding that, you can probably get a little mystical, IMO. But I'm not sure I've explained it quite well enough."                     ____________________________________      Way Cool ! 

   Pretty darn well said,  I'd say. You is so heavy Eloise , ( a Beatle song, "She's so Heavy" )  You rock me  ! and thanks ..... I feel better, knowing you are !