I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Offline I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
- Login to post comments
Offline Actually, in the worldview of atheistic materialism, everything is predetermined and therefore preprogrammed. To argue otherwise is to argue for free will. I would think that would be anathema to your worldview.
How is free will anathema to an atheist world view?
That the religious impulse is virtually universal leads me to believe that most human beings share my view. You're the one who's in the minority, not me!I think a good analogy to spiritual intuition is musical aptitude. Some folks have a very good ear while others are almost completely tone deaf. I suspect that atheism is primarily due to "tone deafness."
You can say it any way you want. Reality is not defined by the majority. What is real is not a democracy.
- Login to post comments
Offline I feel quite certain ( spiritually ? intuitively ? ) that Paisley realizes that he has hit a wall on this thread. His rebuttals are now more and more falling upon deaf ears. He is now just a a play thing, a sort of panentheistic toy for the more educated among us.
He repeats and repeats and repeats.....and accomplishes nothing and he's too self-absorbed to even notice. How pathetic.
Thanks to Paisley and his obsessive tendencies I can take some comfort in knowing that I am not the only person on this forum who is need of some intensive psychological therapy.
- Login to post comments
Offline geezzz Let's try to love and help one another 
I really like Paisley's caring charm .....
How's this Paisley? " My religion is LOVE, of zero self separation from god is ONE "
? words are not perfected , Fucking dammit ...... 
Buddha laughed alot !
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:What you call epistemology is just a hierarchy or network of beliefs which ultimately rests on some basic presuppositions. I fail to see why you are harping on my presuppositions when you clearly have your own.Because my presuppositions have advanced knowledge in a demonstrable way. Yours have not.
Because my presuppositions are founded on observable reality. Yours are not.
Because my presuppositions have been proven over and over. Yours have been proven to be FUCKING BROKEN over and over.
That's the biggest one. And I think it bears repeating: your method of gaining knowledge has been proven to be BROKEN as a method of gaining objective knowledge. It. Just. Doesn't. Work. No matter how earnestly or often you say you gain knowledge by faith, it just doesn't work.
My presuppositions do not preclude me from "gaining knowledge" by science. I am not attacking science. And I would ask you to stop making this ridiculous straw-man argument.
So, since you've not been able to demonstrate how it might even work, I can only assume you have no epistemology. "Faith" is not an epistemology, it's a lack of discernment, by definition. It's an acceptance of that which cannot be proven.
Faith is not absolute knowledge. I have been very forthright on this issue. That being said, the pursuit of truth requires faith. It is indispensible, not only in religious matters but also in scientific ones.
Michael Polyani (noted physical chemist and philosopher of science) agrees with me. He explains in the following how faith is required for the scientific enterprise.
Distinguished chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi argued that scientific discovery begins with a scientist's faith that an unknown discovery is possible. Scientific discovery thus requires a passionate commitment to a result that is unknowable at the outset. Polanyi argued that the scientific method is not an objective method removed from man's passion. On the contrary, scientific progress depends primarily on the unique capability of free man to notice and investigate patterns and connections, and on the individual scientist's willingness to commit time and resources to such investigation, which usually must begin before the truth is known or the benefits of the discovery are imagined, let alone understood fully. It could then be argued that until one possesses all knowledge in totality, one will need faith in order to believe an understanding to be correct or incorrect in total affirmation.source: Wikipedia "Faith"
Paisley wrote:My epistemology is coherent. There is nothing in my belief in God that does not cohere with observed phenomena (both external and internal).EDIT: added this section.
It doesn't even come close to being congruent with observed reality. There's nothing in the universe to suggest there is a God. And by definition, there's nothing we can observe that would disprove God. However, every bit of "evidence" for God so far has been defeated as we gain more knowledge about the universe. As we push back the veils of ignorance, we find only more of our own universe. Any congruence with reality in your God is strictly artificial.
Sorry, but you have not provided one shred of evidence how my belief in God is not congruent with observed reality. And by your own admission, you cannot disprove God.
Also, quantum mechanics (regardless of interpretation) provides evidence to suggest that mind is fundamental or is at least on equal-footing with the physical.
Your claim of gaining objective knowledge through introspection is not congruent with observed reality. This is in direct opposition to all the evidence. So, yes, there is something in your belief that isn't congruent with reality.
I believe that contemplative prayer or meditation can lead to non-dual knowledge (this is not "objective" knowledge because in non-dual awareness there is no subject or object (or conversely, the subject and the object become one). But I have explicitly stated that this is a belief that I accept on faith.(By the way, I have experienced "samadhi" (pure consciousnesss) many times. So, I actually do have evidence. However, I do not experience this state continuously. This is why I say that I live by faith.)
As far as internal "phenomena," you claim that your God will somehow cause your consciousness to endure forever and ever. How can you know that, without conversing with your God? Intuition? Based on what data?
Actually, I did not say that God will cause my consciousness to endure forever. Ultimately, there's only one consciousness (God). Ego-consciousness is an illusion. This is a belief that I arrived at intuitively. But you should not criticize the power of the intuition because you have already admitted that scientific theories are formulated based on intuitive insight. What make's you think that I cannot have an intuitive insight on the nature of ultimate reailty?
Paisley wrote:Also, your worldview of materialism is a metaphysical belief that does not cohere with observed phenomena - namely, quantum indeterminancy. The fact is that pantheism coheres more with the scientific evidence than atheistic materialism.Dude, how the fuck do you think we discovered quantum indeterminacy? Science. How are we researching it now? Science. Not by looking inward and going, "Ohh, shiny AND probabilistic. Must be God." By observation, induction, analytical analysis, deduction, and proof. This is how science works. By even referencing quantum indeterminacy as supporting your claim, you are admitting to the validity and efficacy of science. So I say again: the epistemology of science works. It gains us knowledge, in a provable fashion.
I am not denouncing science per se. This is simply a straw-man argument that you continue to make. That being said, science itself is neutral on metaphysical positions. However, we can engage in rational metaphysics and invoke scientific evidence to make an interpretation. And the fact is that quantum indeterminancy is incompatible with materialism. The implication is clear: if some events are without physical cause, then materialism is not true.
How does your epistemology give us knowledge, and how do you know it is valid knowledge? And "faith" isn't an answer. It's a cop-out.
I don't equate faith with absolute knowledge. I have been very clear on this.
Also, I have already explained that all forms of knowledge (with the possible exceptions of ordinary consciousness and mystical knowledge) entails an element of faith. You must invoke faith to engage in the scientific method.
Mystical knowledge or "non-dual awareness" is a form of knowledge that is like the knowledge of "cogito ergo sum." It cannot be denied by those who have experienced it.
Pantheism has nothing more to do with QM than any other theism.
All you're doing is saying, "We don't know a whole lot about QM, so there must be God." You're falling prey to the God of the Gaps. And that is the worst possible reason to believe in God. You bolster it with intuition, but since science (the same method that discovered QM, for which you have such a stiffy) has proven "intuition" is unreliable at providing knowledge, that boat won't float until you've backed it up with something else. (Oh, I know. QM. That's what backs it up.)
No, I have the scientific evidence to back this up. In fact, the standard interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen Intepretation) states that nature is fundamentally indeterminate. I'm not making this up!
Apparently, you would have us believe that mathematical abstractions (i.e.probability waves) are reified objects with causal efficacy or that uncaused events constitute evidence for metaphysical materialism. C'mon. Get real! This is nothing more than a display of pure denial.
Paisley wrote:The bottom-line is that you cannot justify all your beliefs without appealing to intuition.I certainly can, and I have. Over and over again. Our society is where it's at because of the knowledge gained through science. Science has proven itself as an effective epistemology. As you haven't even given me an epistemology (other than "faith" ), you have nothing.
Well, this is not entirely true. All scientific theories must be falsifiable by definition. As such, a sceintific theory can never fully qualify as absolute knowledge.
In science, nothing can be proven 100%. Everything is contingent. Some things are 99.9999% certain (such as the theory of evolution through natural selection), but nothing is proven with absolute certainty. The ontology can shift with the observation of new data.
Bingo! By your own admission, science can never fully qualify as absolute knowledge.
But, things can be disproven with absolute certainty. And one that was disproven many decades ago is the idea of using introspection to gain objective knowledge. Also disproven: that intuition is a reliable source of knowledge.
I'm afraid that you have already gone on record and stated that "God cannot be disproven." Belief in God is not a scientific theory and therefore it cannot be falsified. If God is the conscious-awareness of all truth-relations (e.g. love itself), then it can never be disproven in theory. It can only be validated by knowing or becoming one with God in the mystical union that is divine love.
Don't get me wrong. Intuition is powerful. Modern research suggests most of our thinking happens unseen, unnoticed. We process so much information without ever being aware we are doing so. This allows us to instantly recognize when we can trust someone, like someone, or what-have-you. This kind of intuition is based on observable information.
You have limited your avenue of inquiry soley to the scientific method (this in itself is a faith commitment.) I have not. You have no authority to impose your limitation on me. I have an open-mind. You have a closed-one. That's the difference.
Where intuition most readily fails is when you are intuiting something for which you have no objective information. Here's where it gets dangerous. You claim you have looked inside yourself (introspection) and found God. Here's where your entire philosophy falls short: YOU CANNOT GAIN KNOWLEDGE THROUGH INTROSPECTION.
This is your belief, not mine. The literature of the world's spiritual traditions are replete with individuals who claim that they have.
I know you claim to have a special ability that allows you to do so. That is an absurd, unsupportable claim. Again, science has proven that there is no knowledge to be gained from introspection. Unfortunately, it doesn't even give you knowledge about the one realm to which it belongs: your own mind. People have greater problems figuring themselves out than figuring out others. As Richard Feynman said, "... you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."
Socrates argued that to "know yourself" is the true aim of philosophy and rationalism. This is also known as "spiritual enlightenment."
True rationalism is therefore not simply an intellectual process, but a shift in perception and a shift in the qualitative nature of the person. The rational soul perceives the world in a spiritual manner - it sees the Platonic Forms - the essence of what things are. To know the world in this way requires that one first know oneself as a soul, hence the requirement to 'know thyself', i.e. to know who you truly are.source: Wikipedia "Rationalism"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Still more misrepresentation of what Science and faith are. This is getting old you saying the same thing over and over and ignoring your own pwnage.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline How pathetic. Nigel has left the building 
, as it were, and washed his hands of this thread, yet poor, maniacal Paisley just keeps babbling on in an obsessive effort to defeat him. It's like continuing to debate with someone after they have left the room. Very strange.
I think Paisley is beginning to crack up. 
The humiliation of having his futile doctrines publically refuted over and over is driving him crazy. His oversized ego will not allow him to admit that he completely failed in his mission to demolish the arguments of evil atheistic materialism and our meaningless, "absurd" existence.
What will become of him when this thread finally fizzles out and he has no one left to argue with ? 
( and more importantly who really cares ? 
)
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Paisley wrote:There is scientific evidence that mind is fundamental which presents evidence for pantheism.
Quantum mechanics provides evidence that mind is fundamental (regardless of interpretation).
Also, there are numerous scientific experiments conducted in parapsychology that have demonstrated psi suggesting that mind is fundamental.
However, the most compelling evidence for the existence of God is the phenomenal world. Science cannot account for why there is something rather than nothing. That's the bottom line.
That being said, what conclusive evidence do you have that atheistic materialism is true? Answer: NONE!
That's nice, but it still doesn't work for me. I just don't do mystical.
This is not the mystical; it's science. I guess you allow yourself the luxury of disregarding scientific evidence that does not comport with your preconceived notion of reality.
You injected mystical into the equation when you went from the phenomenal world exists therefore it is evidence god exists.
This isn't mystical. It's called natural theology based on rational metaphysics. One can infer the existence of God based on the evidence that something exists rather than nothing. You may not agree with this argument. But many do.
You have previously claimed you learned of god from within. You have claimed that you have always felt such presence. If that isn't utilizing mysticism what is?
I have definitely stated that I have an innate desire to know God (I call this religious faith). I have never argued that this constitutes scientific evidence. So you insinuation here amounts to nothing more than a straw-man argument.
As I said in my last post, just because something can't be currently answered by science does not mean it will always be left indeterminate. If science had found all of the principles underlying the universe we'd be hopping from star system to star system. There are unknowns that will not be understood in your lifetime. Get used to it instead of creating a warped interpolation of science.
The present scientific evidence (namely, quantum indeterminacy, quantum entanglement, and nonlocality) does provide a basis for a pantheistic interpretation.
The mind is fundamental sounds legitimate at first glance but to exactly what. It really says absolutely nothing of value in your statement. You then jump to your mystical belief it proves pantheism.
It sounds like a legitimate argument because it is. Many prominent physicists have made this argument (it's not my personal invention). And I never said it "proves" pantheism but simply provides evidence for it.
Your use of QM as evidence of the mind being fundamental again is completely warped misunderstanding of the difference between information and mind.
Quantum theory reduces all matter (mass/energy) to probability waves (this is Copenhagen Interpretation of QM). Probability waves are mathematical abstrations, not physical entities. I fail to see how this provides evidence for metaphysical materialism.
The scientific experiments conducted in parapsychology only provide test data that there may be unexplained areas of the human mind not proof of pantheism. As with any other area under scientific investigation time will tell what exactly is the explanation for these events. You instead want to jump to the conclusion it provides evidence that god or pantheism is involved. You have no patience for investigation of the unknown but rather you choose to jump to conclusions with only isolated unrelated strands of data. No connection is made between your claim and reality by claiming it is so. It shows only you have stretched scientific knowledge outside proved concepts to a point where interpretation leads to many paths none of which have sufficient real evidence.
Dean Radin (probably the most prominent parapsychologist in the field) wrote two books - "Entangled Minds" and "The Conscious Universe." He used the theoretical framework of quantum theory (in particular quantum entanglement and nonlocality) to argue for...well..."entangled minds" and the "conscious universe" as fundamental reality.
"Psi supports the concept of a deeply interconnected conscious universe" pg. 293 "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena." by Dean Radin
Paisley wrote:The fact is that there is scientific evidence to support a pantheistic worldview. So, the notion that there is no scientific evidence for some God-belief is patently false.
The only place this evidence exists is in your own warped misconstued reality.
It also exists in the minds of some very prominent physicists/mathematicians.
"Hungurian polymath John von Neumann, Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner, Berkely physicist Henry Stapp, Princeton physicist Freemon Dyson, and Oxford Mathematician Roger Penrose - have expressed a belief that a deep connection exists between mind and quantum matter" pg. 189 - 190 "Elemental Mind" by Nick Herbert (Standford-trained physicist)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Define Love?
"God is love." 1 John 4:7
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Quote:"No one can die unless he chooses death. What seems to be the fear of death is really its attraction." (source: ACIM)Is this what you've been so insistently referencing?
LOL.
Yes, I quoted the source.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Evidently, you did not read the OP of this thread. RRS is advertising itself as having the ability to "fix my God-belief." So, if you identify with the mission statement of this forum, then the onus is actually upon you to "fix" my belief.
Incidentally, atheism has the implicit belief of materialism. To suggest otherwise is to provide evidence of a lurking god-belief.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yep, I know what you mean, and the answer is yes, the panentheistic God is sentient. Panentheism predicts that self awareness is basic, fundamental, not emergent. My explanation for this statement is a fair few pages back now so I'll reiterate.
I do not mean to say that mind is fundamental, panentheists do make the leap to that but it is a greatly misguided one IMHO. A sentient Panendeity requires only that mind be a first order property, it does not have to be fundamental. Information is a first order property, if information is self-referencing then mind is a direct product of fundamental processes.
Leibniz's monads are a good deal similar in nature to Hofstadter's 'strange loop' reality (See Douglas Hoftstadter Goedel, Escher, Bach and I am a Strange Loop). A strange loop is a computer science term which describes a process of going through hierarchies of order to arrive back at the starting point - a wide self reference.
Hoftstadter makes the enlightening point in "I am a Strange Loop" that the largest percentage of an individuals existence is as a process of ideas looping through a world external to the body, this is a major fleshing out of Leibniz's world reflected in a monad "human entity". So while Leibniz predicts that the human entity is a monad, Hofstadter gives it an ontological referent, the human being exists literally as the world, in having existed at all.
Leibniz put forth his monads in direct competition with atomic theory. Atomic theory, clearly, has enjoyed the greater historical success, however, in it's success it has lead us back to the monads.
For example, we have seen Leggett's formula violated - what this formula says is that if you take the assumption of objective realism and couple it with the assumption of non-locality, you can experimentally prove it by a correlation of observable states of quanta - an experiment according to this has been done and the result was that an assumption of non-locality is not enough to correlate the results. The observables did, however, agree with an assumption that there was no real objective state. Atomic theory predicts an objective state, monads predict the opposite and we have the opposite coming from this experiment.
Anti-realism is taking shape, and an excellent non-realist approach to quantum is RQM, it further makes predictions that are not unlike the monads, the most important here being that information is self referencing, the universe in all it's complexity arises directly from a fundamental process of 'self' measurement, the defining of a bound. This bound is a material bound, to which end, matter and awareness are intrinsically conjoined, they are the same phenomenon manifested as one. From this we can say that mind is a first order property, two particles literally constitute a sentient whole.
This also tells us that mind is not 'special', but completely natural. And this brings us even more in line with a monist philosophy than even emergence can, for we literally have the same mental composition of the world that we belong to, just as we have the same atomic or physical composition, we are 100% arranged bits of universe, body and mind.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Evidently, you did not read the OP of this thread. This particular forum (The Rational Respone Squad) is advertising itself as having the ability to "fix my God-belief." So, if you identify with the mission statement of this forum, then the onus is actually upon you to fix my belief.
Incidentally, atheism has the implicit belief of materialism. To suggest otherwise is to provide evidence of a lurking god-belief.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Thanks Eloise. I will have to do a little ( or a lot ? ) of detective work to familiarize myself with the particulars of your explanation. I am 28 years out of college plus I was a liberal arts major....as you would expect, there's not much overlap between the works of Edgar Degas and Douglas Hoftstadter. That puts me at a distinct disadvantage.
Cheers.
Evidently you are asking the wrong questions because you have a basic misconception of pantheism. Pantheism is the view that there is an all pervading consciousness which permeates the phenomenal world. So, the question to ask is if all biological organisms have conscious-awareness.
My God-belief is sexy - much more sexier than the atheistic worldview.
The purpose of Love is to create or extend itself.
It's not uncommon for lovers to experience a mystical union where the two become one in mind and soul. In the mathematics of the Spirit, one = all.
Also, the religious mind is much more apt at embracing the paradoxical than the scientific one.
Dreams are ephemeral and illusory. But dreams themselves do pressuppose a mind that is dreaming.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Evidently you have problems with interpreting language.
Its not surprising your fantasy world bleeds into everything you do.
I havent responded to your op, I'm responding to your error of shifting the burden of proof.
Atheism MEANS no belief in 'god' (what ever the hell that is).
Everything IS material until it is proven otherwise
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Wow, this may be the record for longest time from original post to winding up in trollville.
What are your credentials for handing out grades?
Quantum indeterminacy is about indeterminism. Indeterminism is the view that not every event has a cause.
Materialism is the view that all events have physical causes.
The bottom-line, materialism and indeterminism are incompatible worldviews.
Probability waves are mathematical abstractions, not reified objects existing independently of subjective experience. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Virtual particles not only pop in and out of existence but temporarily violate the conservation of energy law.
I use the term "atheistic materialism" to define a worldview that is incompatible with other forms of atheism - namely, those forms of "atheism" that actually harbor a lurking God-belief.
By the way, there is a form of materialism known as theistic materialism, but now I digress.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The God I present is separate from the ego (or should I say the ego is separate from God). But this is in tune with Buddhism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I don't believe my God-belief is broken. And I'm glad to see that you don't see it as broken either.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
In my first reply, I stated...
"No, you can't. You can only delay your realization of this truth."
Where's the contradiction?
You are making an argument; you are arguing that my argument is flawed. However, you have not clearly identified what the flaw is. I suspect that you are referring to some "deterministic vs. free will" angle. However, when I pressed you for more information, you decided to take an evasive posture.
Whatever.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Paisley:
Why are you still here ? Are you too stupid to recognize an impasse ?
( ps, just in case you can't figure it out, the question is rhetorical. I'm really not interested in your answer )
The point is that you are arguing that empiricism and belief in God are incompatible when the father of philosophical empiricism says it not!
Two points:
1) You are the one who was arguing for evolutionary quantum computation, specifically to counter my assertion that quantum indeterminacy can be interpreted as an exhibition of conscious free will.
2) I have provided you with a leader (Ben Goertzl...apparently the name of a leader escaped you in post #666 on pg. 22) in the field of evolutionary quantum computation who is arguing for panpsychism (the view that all is mind or minds) on the basis of quantum indeterminacy.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Evidently, this is the tack that RRS takes when it is losing an argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What argument?
The point is that we both share in a spiritual worldview. In fact, the religious impulse is so strong that I see advertisements on RRS for "agnostic and atheistic spirituality." Go figure.
Panentheism? All the mystical traditions of the world (this would include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc.)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
And as an atheist, this should impress me ? Superstition, whether practiced by one or by millions, still remains superstition.
Haitian Voo Doo and West African Muti also share a spiritual world view ( which includes human sacrifice ) would you like to embrace them as your spiritual brethren as well ? Seems as if that god-impulse has a few homicidal urges lurking below the surface.
"Evidently"? Since when did you start relying on evidence?
Evidently you have the wrong questions, because you have a basic misconception of Reality.
AND, evidently, you have no scruples about employing non-sequiturs, yet grow quite critical when they are lobbed at you.
And the answer to that would be "No."
So apparently your god-belief is a means of coping with sexual deprivation. Reality (material universe with no god) may not always be sexy, but it remains Reality.
Does your god-belief make you "extend yourself"?
Anyway:
1. I have lack of faith and lack of faith seeks evidence.
2. It is the intrinsic nature of god to not exist.
You failed to address this. Quit dodging or quit posting, please.
If you're talking about sexual climax, it may certainly feel "mystical" to some, but there's a perfectly physical explanation for it (in keeping with materialism). In the mathematics of Reality, 1 =1, and there is no spirit. Quit using fuzzy math, or quit posting, please.
Agreed. One such paradox would be..., hmm, let's see: "god-belief is rational. No, wait. It's non-rational!"
In other words, the religious mind is more apt at accepting logical contradictions than the scientific one. Which you have been beautifully demonstrating this whole time -- and very likely will continue to.
god is entirely illusory. god-belief itself presupposes a mind that is irrational. Such as yours.
"god is but illusion. Period." (source: Reality).
Your god-belief has been fixed. You're welcome.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Posting the same shit over and over again after it's been thoroughly refuted isn't winning an argument.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
--- I like that. Reads like the end of "spiritual" hocus pocus god separation. GOD is ATHEIST ! No Master, all is one. "G 'A W E' D - SOME" this is. Go science, go intuition. Spread and teach this "good word" of higher enlightened AWE. The end of superstition, fear and guilt.
"Atheism is Myth Understood."
Atheism Books.
Yes, that is painfully obvious to every other person on this thread; unfortunately the only individual who is unable to grasp that simple truth is Paisley.
By the way, the RRS doesn't get to pick and choose what Google ads are displayed, assbreath.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Nonsense! All epistemological systems are based on beliefs. This is indisputable. The only real question is whether a particular belief is justified.
The scientific method is based on induction. And induction itself is based on an assumption or a belief that cannot be justified except inductively.
Absolute certitude is an attribute of true knowledge.
I realize that this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. But probabilistic events cannot be PREDICTED by definition!
As I have argued successfully, we cannot function without faith. The very notion that we can is completely absurd. Faith underlies rationality itself.
If it is based on uncertainty, then it cannot possibly be proven. This is the basic flaw in your reasoning.
Yes, I can. And if the "four basic tenets" were originally accpeted as true (this is your argument), then they were accepted on the basis of faith.
Also, I must repeat myself. Science is not the sole possession of atheists. And I would ask you to stop assuming that it is. My argument is not against science per se. My argument is that rationality itself entails faith.
Agreed. I like beautiful women because I am naturally inclined to do so. Note: This is also a subjective, not an object position. What's your point?
I think what you are attempting to ask is how can I know that this "intuitive sense perception" can actually be fulfilled. I can't. This is why it is called faith.
I have said it before and I suspect I will say it again. I live by faith. I do not deny this. Indeed, I embrace it. Faith is paramount in the quest for truth.
Incidentally, I object to your relegation of religious faith to trivial matters. Faith is of ultimate concern. And what is of ultimate concern is none other than absolute truth. So please don't trivialize it. There is no higher calling.
You have already admitted that science itself is dependent on the intuitive - that aspect of the mind that synthesizes and sees the whole. So what exactly has been disproven? The intuition of that which I call God?
The idea of God is not a scientific theory that can be falsified. Most atheists will concede this point. I surprised to learn that you believe that it can.
Most people have some type of spiritual belief. This is a fact.
I would say that faith is the desire to know God who is the conscious knowledge of all truth relations.
This shows the irrationality of your position. You would have us believe that uncaused events (pure chance events are without cause by definition) are the result of a mathematical abstraction.
Sounds like faith.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Darn words. "God" being the messiest. "Faith" seems a close 2nd.
"Formal usage of the word "faith" is largely reserved for concepts of religion .... Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad"....
'Criticisms of faith'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#Criticisms_of_faith
Ummm ? God = reality. Do we have faith in reality ??????
Language and math need alot of improvement, that much I know, without faith ....
Will we all as a whole, ever move past the barriers that divide us ? Would "Faith" help ?????
This thread is indeed a lesson, and both encouraging and depressing ..... Something is obviously fucking wrong with us .... ummm , what's to blame, or to accept ?????
Atheism Books.
Faith is not an epistemology just because epistemology requires beliefs. Faith is, basically, a state configuration required for assumption, which is belief, and this 'belief' is required for epistemology, but this is not the same as faith being an epistemology.
The scientific method is an epistemology because it clearly delineates a criteria for truth. Faith, no matter how you relate it to the scientific method, does not stand alone as an epistemology because belief, essentially, doesn't require testing in order to be. One can believe the grass is green and not test that, then one has faith that the grass is green, but not knowledge. Epistemology takes this basis and adds a logical qualification. Such qualification is not entailed by faith and that's the bottom line on that issue. Faith is not epistemology. Faith is prerequisite to epistemology. To claim an epistemology you need more than faith, you need a criteria which formulates a coherent ontology.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
So why do you keep responding?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Because as wrong as it is, it's still fun making fun of the retarded.
Actually, Paisley, the phrase 'we can fix that' expresses the possibility ("can"
, not the certainty ("will"
. It's like when a mechanic says he "can" fix your car... if you pay him and leave the car overnight. If you're willing to critically and relentlessly question your beliefs, force yourself to prove your certainty to yourself without any possibility of doubt, and do so honestly... then yes, we "can" fix your car.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God. It does not require an active disbelief in God (or as you might say, an active belief in no-God), though that is certainly one expression of it. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in anything, materialism included. I hold, as I have through this conversation, to the simple statement: I don't know. And nothing you have said does anything to dispel the simple truth that you don't know, either. You like to think you do, but all you have is based on untested intuition; a hunch, a hope that you cling to desperately with no way to verify it.
What's really sad is that you've closed yourself off to that which comes closest to divinity: learning. In learning, we become more than we have been, we expand our horizons, and open ourselves to more wondrous possibilities than any holy text has ever imagined. What prophecy has ever dreamt of wonders like those we use every day, from computers to hydroelectric dams to modern medicine? What holy man, clinging to dogma, could have conceived of neutron stars, supermassive black holes, or the transcendent beauty of the images produced by Hubble?
All of that stems not from rote acceptance of what others tell you as facts... but from the simplest of statements: "I don't know". In not knowing, we seek to learn. In not knowing we remain open to the possibility that even things we think we understand may yet hold wonders unimagined.
Your certainty, your dogmatic faith... closes that door, leaves you sitting in the garden/nursery, naked and sucking your thumb, waiting for DaddyGod to spend time with you again.
I want to see the wonders of existence, from the rings of expanding gas in the wake of a supernova, glowing red-hot as they move through space... to the taste of an apple.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
It seems that Nobel Laureate physicist Eugene Wigner disagrees with you...
You are mischaracterizing what I said. I did say that the existence of the phenomenal world does present evidence for the existence of God. But I did'nt say this constituted scientific evidence.
Also, parapsychology is a science. It's accepted by the AAAS (the largest scientific society in the world).
This is something that you apparently have not been able to fully grasp. Whether observed phenomena is "physical stuff" or "mental stuff" or some combination thereof is a philosophical and metaphysical issue, not a scientific one!
Just FYI, Alfred Ayer held the view of neutral monism (basically, the view that ultimate reality is 'some combination thereof').
I find it interesting that two of the most prominent proponents of logical positivism were dangerously flirting with pantheism. What do you think? By the way, if I'm not mistaken, I believe you identify yourself as a positivist. Right?
What's offensive is that individuals like yourself would have us believe that mathematical abstractions (e.g. probability waves) are reified objects. And what's even more offensive is that individuals like yourself would have us believe that these same mathematical abstractions are causally efficacious!
The real reason that individuals are posting in this thread is because they know that I am making points.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Or arrogance.
No, you haven't. You haven't argued it successfully at all. You may have satisfied yourself with your argument (and in fact, I would expect you are quite self-satisfied with most everything you say), but I still remain here, rational, functional, and utterly without any faith in that which I perceive, only a willingness to interact with it according to the rules that seem to be in effect, because there is nothing else I can interact with, and no other way to interact with it.
Until you change that, you haven't argued this point successfully at all, you've just jerked off all over your keyboard again.
Most people lie to themselves every day, living in denial and deluding themselves as to the level of relative safety in which they believe they live their lives. They're wrong about that, too. Once more: Just because most people think something doesn't mean they're right.
Sounds more like pragmatism to me. You claim to have Ultimate Truth, we don't. We just claim to be willing to work with the bits and pieces that offer themselves up.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
The real reason Paisley is posting in this thread is because he knows that we are making points.
I'm sure it's been pointed out to you before, but faith and belief are two different things.
Well, not to speak for Will, since the Hive Mind of Williamousity is currently down for refurbishing, but I think it all just goes to show that people can get so much right, and still get other things wrong. Shocking, huh? Or do you believe that anyone who espouses one part of your worldview is necessarily 100% accurate and correct in all things, and so you must conform your beliefs to theirs?
If so, please let me know so that I can purport to espouse your beliefs, and then make all sorts of utterly self-contradictory bullshit claims that... wait, you're already doing that. NEVERMIND.
Nah, I think Matt's closer to nailing the real reason. Poking cripples with sticks isn't socially acceptable anymore, so we all come to Teh Intarwebs to do it on webforums. All of us. Even you. Else why would you keep replying?
I mean, for the love of MLT (a nice mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, you know, when the mutton is lean and the tomato... sorry, I digress), you're perpetuating (and have been for over a month now) an argument on an internet forum... do you really think anyone has any chance to win? And what's worse, it's an argument whose resolution, were it even possible would have no actual effect on your life whatsoever. You're not going to change, and you came into this thread, nay, began this thread with the express intent of refusing to change.
It's an argument on an internet forum. It is, by definition, pointless. The only thing sillier than trying to win is that on a site dedicated to such arguments (which are by nature trollish), there's an area called 'trollville' which is supposed to express disapproval, and not merely an acceptance of the fundamental nature of internet forum arguments.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
It seems that our dear friend Paisley doesn't know the difference between a human being and some "absolute-authoritative-intuitive-god thingy". In other words: Would it be OK with you Paisley, if we happen to disagree with Wigner on something? I mean, he's not god or anything. Unless you believe otherwise?
By the way, Symmetries and Reflections- Scientific Essays doesn't appear to be a scientific journal.
What an interesting turn of events in the '60's indeed. But while we're quoting wikipedia:
The ellipses (...) skip quite a bit, and that whole section contains references. Point being, is that Paisley's quotation offers little to comfort his view. Is anyone surprised?
Thanks for showing up ctressle
BMcD writes: "I hold, as I have through this conversation, to the simple statement: I don't know." /////
Yeah, ain't that truth ! As if we know jack shit ....
Pick one, Science or Dogma. NO, you can't have both ..... oh but we do ..... sheezzzz 
Atheism Books.
For the same reason people slow down in traffic to get a glimpse of a horrible car crash...to view a gory disaster.
( how hilarious that you would ask why I, or anyone, would keep responding........ irony anyone ?
)
I see the intuitive as an internal source of guidance, not an external source.
Actually, in the worldview of atheistic materialism, everything is predetermined and therefore preprogrammed. To argue otherwise is to argue for free will. I would think that would be anathema to your worldview.
I think a good analogy to spiritual intuition is musical aptitude. Some folks have a very good ear while others are almost completely tone deaf. I suspect that atheism is primarily due to "tone deafness."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm sure you do.
Actually, in the worldview of atheistic materialism, everything is predetermined and therefore preprogrammed. To argue otherwise is to argue for free will. I would think that would be anathema to your worldview.
Except that we've already covered, in all of your attempts to assert that I actively believe something and so operate on faith... you know, the ones you failed at, that you don't have the first clue when it comes to understanding my world view. Nice try.
Except that musical expression is an art form. Truth v fiction is not. How about we say 'some people are willing to take existence at face value, while others need to find reassuring delusions to cling to'? In the end, it doesn't matter what analogy you use, or how you try to phrase it, your statement amounted to 'I'm right because most people believe in God'. Mine amounted to: 'Just because 'most people' believe something doesn't mean it's right.'
Let's face it, 'most people' are comfortably, willfully, idiots. It's just easier to accept things you're told, especially when they can't be conclusively disproven, than to think for yourself.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid