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 And now, with corrected attribution...
HisWillness wrote:Oh, I see. Do you have any idea how simple the scientific method actually is? Would you doubt your ability to use a hammer and nail? Would you have to have "faith" that the hammer would drive the nail? No. The hammer just drives the nail. No faith required.No, this is not true. I would have to have confidence or faith in my ability to use the hammer. Once again, I have demonstrated that we all operate on an element of faith. Indeed, without faith, we would not be able to function at all.
Not true. You simply need an expectation for the hammer to function the way you want it to. This expectation need not translate into any surety whatsoever.
HisWillness wrote:Paisley wrote:Therefore, the atheist lives in a hopeless state because he lives without faith.The fact that any of us continue this conversation is a good argument that atheists have hope.
Okay. Have it your way. Atheists live on hope and therefore faith.
Except, of course, that hope and faith are far from the same thing. In fact, faith, real faith, almost precludes. Faith/belief is an assertion of knowledge that no matter how it may appear, things truly are as you expect them to be. Hope is a wish/desire for that which you do not expect to occur. If you expect it, then you don't have to hope for it. If you have faith that you will live forever, then expect to be immortal. Hope comes into play when you don't expect it.
You don't say 'damn, I hope my car keys will start my car', to borrow Will's example... you expect it will, so there's no point hoping for it. Hope comes into play when we are unsure. Faith is surety. I have a lot of hope. I have no faith.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Faith is belief without evidence.
Faith is therefore defective reasoning.
Faith is a mental defect made into a virtue by those with an agenda to validate their own irrationality.
I don't need 'faith' to use a hammer, walk across the street or start my car or any of the other stupifyingly innane assertions made by the theistically impaired to excuse their own intellectual weakness.
Belief may be backed by evidence or not (In which case it is by any definition, irrational)
Knowledge is the (subjective) point at which enough evidence is aquired to turn belief into 'fact'.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
- Login to post comments
Offline (meaning governed by Newtonian mechanics, from the way you use the word "materialism" ) or "God."
Oh, is that what's happening here? Strict Newtonian materialism? No way! That's what Paisley's on about?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Excuse me, but you've just attributed to me an entire post by His Willness. He and I are not, as of the last time I checked, a hive mind of Williamosity (yes, the 'B' is 'Bill'). Although... (heh) I could be wrong.
If there were such a thing as Williamosity, though, it would eclipse even Chuck Norris in terms of roundhouse kick greatness.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline The Universal Mind...What are its attributes? What are it's thoughts and philosophy? Could the Universe pass the Turing test? The wonderful thing about claims for a nebulous, ill defined god figure is it's lack of specificity. It allows the adherant to make any statement they please because they are truely making it up as they go along. I would ask for your evidence, sir, that this mind exists.
Theology is faith seeking understanding. The evidence is the faith itself.
"To those who have faith, no evidence is required. To those who are without faith, no evidence will suffice."
The Atheist Worldview...I don't 'have' an atheist world view.
Yes you do. You have a worldview that does not include God. As such, we can deduce that you have a materialistic worldview.
My view of the world is colored by over 50 years of life experience, of which my lack of superstition is but a small part. If life has an 'ultimate purpose' (I love the hyperboli) it is to assure the continuence of itself.
It's not hyperbole. Either life has an ultimate purpose or it does not. It's that simple. And if you argue that life has an "ultimate purpose" (which you have just done in the foregoing), then you are actually making a teleological argument for the existence of God. In the worldview of atheistic materialism, life does not have an ultimate purpose. Hence I will ask you to be logically consistent with your worldview.
Yes, mundane as it seems, we are all just the transport system for mitochondria... If you want 'meaning'... you must make it for yourself. By the way, having a cosmic puppetmaster doesn't equate to meaning, it's just fanciful thinking.
How can you ascribe eternal meaning and value to your personal life when you deny the only source that can possibly give it eternal meaning and value?
Based on the worldview of atheistic materialism, your eternal fate is to simply cease to exist. You have no reason to believe that your life will have eternal meaning and value. To argue otherwise would be to invoke faith. And faith in an eternal, transcendent mind is something which your worldview does not permit you to embrace.
Oh, and sonny, I'm in the middle of a long and interesting life. I've been an observer (sometimes passive, sometimes not) of some of the most stupendous events in our history. I've known the horror of war and death up close and personal, I've felt the ultimate joy of life in it's renewal.
Unfortunately, your worldview does not permit you to believe that life will be eternally renewed. So, in the vast scheme of things, your personal life is ultimately meaningless and asburd. Everything you lived for, everything you worked for, everything you suffered for, will eventually be for naught.
I sleep with a goddess
Correction. You do not sleep with a "goddess." In the atheistic worldview, there are no gods or goddesses. I will ask you to be more consistent with your worldview.
Your arrogance in proclaiming MY life to be "ultimately be meaninglness and absurd" while you waste your intellect on fantasies, is to say the least, insulting.
If you want your life to have eternal meaning and value, then you will have to borrow from my worldview. Until then, I will describe your worldview as it is....a morbid worldview with the only hope of eternal annihilation.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Excuse me, but you've just attributed to me an entire post by His Willness. He and I are not, as of the last time I checked, a hive mind of Williamousity (yes, the 'B' is 'Bill'). Although... (heh) I could be wrong.
You are correct. Sorry.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Damn, how many logical fallacies, irrational arguments and baseless assertions can you make in one thread?
Shame on you for using the ridiculous "atheists have faith too" one (ie Ha Ha! You're just as irrational as we are.)
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 Unfortunately, your worldview does not permit you to believe that life will be eternally renewed. So, in the vast scheme of things, your personal life is ultimately meaningless and asburd. Everything you lived for, everything you worked for, everything you suffered for, will eventually be for naught.
So? What's absurd about that? Meaningless, perhaps, but not absurd.
And how is that irrational if it's true?
If you want your life to have eternal meaning and value, then you will have to borrow from my worldview. Until then, I will describe your worldview as it is....a morbid worldview with the only hope of eternal annihilation.
No, thanks. I'd like "rational" to mean, "Correlates logically with reality," rather than, "So frightened of death you have to make up divine life support." Then I can be sure to live my life in the way that best makes it worth something. Morbid? Perhaps, though I don't think so.
In the end, even a pantheistic/panentheistic God is subject to the entropic heat death of the universe. The only way even a supreme being can avoid that is by not being a part of the universe, which is contrary to both pantheism and panentheism. So even your God is ultimately meaningless, as it will die with the universe, and in exactly the same way that the atheistic worldview is meaningless.
Y'know, "morbid" and "absurd" are subjective value judgements, and not logical positions. My biggest compaint about your metaphysics is the epistemology that's required to support it. It seems to give only comfortable illusions, rather than logical, testable truths.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't. I operate on perception. I can only interact with the universe I perceive. I have little choice but to accept that if I wish to do anything, I must do it within the framework of the universe I can interact with. This does not mean I believe that my perceptions are true, only that I cannot interact with anything beyond them. In fact, I don't know if what I perceive is true. I could be completely wrong. I could be delusional. I could be the victim of a grand deception. I simply don't know, and so I can form no actual beliefs.
To operate on perceptions is to operate on beliefs.
Actually, since the scientific method requires us to question all conclusions, including those regarding the effectiveness of the scientific method, that would seem to undermine the kind of 'faith' people hold in religion.
So, you don't believe that the scientific method can enable scientists to make certain predictions about natural phenomena?
Again, this makes no sense. I have no faith. I have hope. For example: I hope my perceptions of reality are at least somewhat in alignment with reality. I don't know that they are, but I really would like it if they turned out to be right, and I dearly hope that they are. But I don't have faith that they are. I simply don't know.
To have faith is to have hope. Both faith and hope entail belief.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Because by my observation, your "stating the logical conclusion of the atheistic worldview" stands in as your refutation of the "atheistic worldview". While you have never explicitly said "...therefore god exists", your prosecution of the "atheistic worldview" does not go past the "logical conclusion" that life is absurd. You have not shown how the conclusion that life is absurd is itself fallacious or contradictory (although I did entreat you to do so). As you have not done this, it appears to me that you are content to present this as your refutation of atheism, and therefore your premise for believing in god.
If one assumes the materialistic worldview, then one would logically conclude that life is ultimately absurd. Therefore, the conclusion suggests that something is wrong with the premise.
Paisley wrote:1) Because I have faith and faith seeks understanding. Theology itself is often defined as "faith seeking undertanding."2) It is the instrinsic nature of God to love.
This is effectively an admission of a circular argument.
Why is it?
Did you mean to ignore the 3rd point, or did you need more time to address it?
What is the third point?
Paisley wrote:Please articulate your position.My position is irrelevant to the fallacies in your argument, but since you asked: Yes, life is ultimately meaningless, or if you prefer, absurd. The material universe is all there is. I am not so overcome with anguish at this absurdity that I feel a need to concoct some higher consciousness to petition for a purpose-driven life.
What is the logical fallacy in my argument? It would appear to me that you agree that a materialistic worldview implies that life is ultimately meaningless and absurd.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. Your first hand experience? I have no idea what story you're referring to, since I've only been reading our exchanges, but an isolated subjective experience doesn't hold much weight toward the kind of conclusion you're vainly groping at.2. Who made the case that a thought was "a physical object?" Sounds strawman-ish.
Do you believe that "thoughts" are physical?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Unfortunately, your worldview does not permit you to believe that life will be eternally renewed. So, in the vast scheme of things, your personal life is ultimately meaningless and asburd. Everything you lived for, everything you worked for, everything you suffered for, will eventually be for naught.
So? What's absurd about that? Meaningless, perhaps, but not absurd.
And how is that irrational if it's true?
Quote:If you want your life to have eternal meaning and value, then you will have to borrow from my worldview. Until then, I will describe your worldview as it is....a morbid worldview with the only hope of eternal annihilation.
No, thanks. I'd like "rational" to mean, "Correlates logically with reality," rather than, "So frightened of death you have to make up divine life support." Then I can be sure to live my life in the way that best makes it worth something. Morbid? Perhaps, though I don't think so.
In the end, even a pantheistic/panentheistic God is subject to the entropic heat death of the universe. The only way even a supreme being can avoid that is by not being a part of the universe, which is contrary to both pantheism and panentheism. So even your God is ultimately meaningless, as it will die with the universe, and in exactly the same way that the atheistic worldview is meaningless.
Y'know, "morbid" and "absurd" are subjective value judgements, and not logical positions. My biggest compaint about your metaphysics is the epistemology that's required to support it. It seems to give only comfortable illusions, rather than logical, testable truths.
That's where the 11-vector-string god comes in. It keeps track of all of the pantheistic god's stuff when it dies. Because we all know meaning doesn't rely on the perception of a given subject, but the eventual fate of a given thing. I've stopped eating cupcakes, because I know that once I eat them, they cease to be cupcakes; and I'd much rather recall the image of a cupcake ad infinitum than impose meaning via the subjective and temporary experience of tasting and subsisting.
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:1. Your first hand experience? I have no idea what story you're referring to, since I've only been reading our exchanges, but an isolated subjective experience doesn't hold much weight toward the kind of conclusion you're vainly groping at.2. Who made the case that a thought was "a physical object?" Sounds strawman-ish.
Do you believe that "thoughts" are physical?
The result of physical processes would be the probable answer, unless demonstrated otherwise. Odd for a supposed pantheist to head into dualist territory.
- Login to post comments
Offline If one assumes the materialistic worldview, then one would logically conclude that life is ultimately absurd. Therefore, the conclusion suggests that something is wrong with the premise.
Absurd only because you seem to need an immaterial third party opinion on your life. Your arguments are absurd, I'll give you that.
So far you've given us:
- God is love
- The materialistic worldview is absurd
- Life only has meaning when appreciated by God in some way
We get it.
The only problem here is your main character. God still probably doesn't exist. Rationally, given that there is zero evidence for the existence of a really important part of your arguments, what makes you think you have a leg to stand on? Spiritual intuition, maybe? Without placing value on spiritual intuition, you must see that it's not rational. You can say "extra-rational" if you feel as though "irrational" is insulting. But no reason is used in the conclusions reached by spiritual intuition.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Sam Harris, speaking in regards to misconceptions that theists apply to atheism stated:"On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now, they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness...well...meaningless."
Yes, Harris does states that life has meaning. But the above quotation was clearly made in reference to atheists....and if you recall, atheists by definition reject all forms of religious / spiritual / metaphysical / belief systems.
However, Sam Harris doesn't reject all spiritual systems. (At least he didn't reject them at the time of the publishing of his first book.)
Harris states in "The End of Faith" that the "world you see is nothing more than the modification of your consciousness." In Eastern religions, this is called "maya" (illusions).
The claims of mystics are neurologically quite astute. No human being has ever experienced an objective world, or even a world at all. You at this moment are having a visionary experience. The world you see is nothing more than the modification of your consciousness, the physical status of which remains a mystery. pg. 41 "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline I think since all I have read would help to convince someone rational, I suggest you close your eyes and let someone slap you really hard in the face and shock the shit out of you. Hope that helps Jay
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:Sam Harris, speaking in regards to misconceptions that theists apply to atheism stated:"On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now, they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness...well...meaningless."
Yes, Harris does states that life has meaning. But the above quotation was clearly made in reference to atheists....and if you recall, atheists by definition reject all forms of religious / spiritual / metaphysical / belief systems.
However, Sam Harris doesn't reject all spiritual systems. (At least he didn't reject them at the time of the publishing of his first book.)
Harris states in "The End of Faith" that the "world you see is nothing more than the modification of your consciousness." In Eastern religions, this is called "maya" (illusions).
Quote:The claims of mystics are neurologically quite astute. No human being has ever experienced an objective world, or even a world at all. You at this moment are having a visionary experience. The world you see is nothing more than the modification of your consciousness, the physical status of which remains a mystery. pg. 41 "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
Actually, Harris is free to be as mystical as he sees fit. Perhaps he even has a bent to create his own spiritual system ala L. Ron Hubbard ? Wouldn't be the first time, would it ?
BEST FRIENDS ?
- Login to post comments
Offline That's where the 11-vector-string god comes in. It keeps track of all of the pantheistic god's stuff when it dies. Because we all know meaning doesn't rely on the perception of a given subject, but the eventual fate of a given thing. I've stopped eating cupcakes, because I know that once I eat them, they cease to be cupcakes; and I'd much rather recall the image of a cupcake ad infinitum than impose meaning via the subjective and temporary experience of tasting and subsisting.
Thank you for that. A very welcome summation. I'm guessing it's going to go over someone's head, though. I'm not naming any names, I'm just saying ...
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:magilum wrote:1. Your first hand experience? I have no idea what story you're referring to, since I've only been reading our exchanges, but an isolated subjective experience doesn't hold much weight toward the kind of conclusion you're vainly groping at.2. Who made the case that a thought was "a physical object?" Sounds strawman-ish.
Do you believe that "thoughts" are physical?
The result of physical processes would be the probable answer, unless demonstrated otherwise. Odd for a supposed pantheist to head into dualist territory.
Why not assume that they are nonphysical until proven otherwise?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline I have never denied that I live by an element of faith. Why is this irrational? It's not.
I never said that it was wholly irrational after the initial infraction, however, you already seated yourself with a concept that states rationality and logic aren't how you go about gaining knowledge or maintaining the truth of the claims put forth. (Fideism)
Reason and belief mutually entail each other.
The basis for the initial premise is where your falling short. You've given no reason to believe consciousness is eternal. It's a matter of 'you want it to be', therefore you assume it is. There's also the problem that even if consciousness is eternal it doesn't suggest God as a necessary component.
Without belief, there is no critical thinking.
Blind faith can't be claimed as being something grounded in critical thought. Also, rational belief should follow critical thinking, not the other way around.
Every logical argument begins with a premise or assumption that is believed to be true.
It's a matter of how you went about forming a premise. Just because an argument logically follows it's premise doesn't mean the premise is grounded in what we perceive as reality. I.E. It's a baseless assumption.
Problem solving requires not only logical analysis but also intuitive input. This notion that faith and rationality are incompatible is simply false.
Depends on your use of the word faith. Belief without proof isn't compatible with the concept of being rational. You can however be rational after the initial infraction. But.... Just like before, you have seated yourself with a position that states logic and rationality aren't the tools of theism.
If there is no eternal mind , then your personal life is ultimately without meaning and value because only an eternal mind can appreciate and value your life eternally.
Again, this statement is designed to be misleading. Life is not valued eternally by the universe, life however is valued by those who posses it. That is the only relevant position concerning the question when consulting an atheist. If the universe is indifferent then it doesn't follow that the ultimate meaning of life be a question that is asked outside of our existence. Ultimately, as in, 'in the end' the value judgment concerning life only makes sense when asked what life means to 'us' during our existence.
You use the word "ultimately" as if there is a truth beyond the only relevant answer. All your really saying is that the non-existence of life has no value which in turn doesn't address life in the context of it existing.
I would also like to address:
God is love. The purpose of God is to love.
Which makes God's existence arbitrary at best and inherently unnecessary to say the least.
As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Quote:"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life." pg. 16 "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris...and in the very next sentence Harris stated:
"But we will find that it requires no faith in untestable propositions----Jesus was born of a virgin; the Koran is the word of God----for us to do this"
This statement unequivocally slams the door on any metaphysical / spiritual approaches to a "higher purpose".
Oh, really? The following excerpts smack of something religious to me.
"At the core of every religion lies an undeniable claim about the human condition: it is possible to have one's experience of the world radically transformed." pg. 204"Jesus was a man who transformed himself to such a degree that the Sermon of the Mount could be his heart's confession." pg. 204
source: "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Objective immortality is that which exists in the divine memory; it's not extended in time or space.Will's comment seems appropriate as you continue to discuss that which you can't know or substantiate.
Faith is not contingent upon a perfect theology.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Objective immortality is that which exists in the divine memory; it's not extended in time or space.Nonsense. Immortality itself requires time, as does memory.
Okay. It's everlasting in time.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:Paisley wrote:Quote:"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life." pg. 16 "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris...and in the very next sentence Harris stated:
"But we will find that it requires no faith in untestable propositions----Jesus was born of a virgin; the Koran is the word of God----for us to do this"
This statement unequivocally slams the door on any metaphysical / spiritual approaches to a "higher purpose".
Oh, really? The following excerpts smack of something religious to me.
Quote:"At the core of every religion lies an undeniable claim about the human condition: it is possible to have one's experience of the world radically transformed." pg. 204"Jesus was a man who transformed himself to such a degree that the Sermon of the Mount could be his heart's confession." pg. 204
source: "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
SEE POST #368 
- Login to post comments
Offline zarathustra wrote:Because by my observation, your "stating the logical conclusion of the atheistic worldview" stands in as your refutation of the "atheistic worldview". While you have never explicitly said "...therefore god exists", your prosecution of the "atheistic worldview" does not go past the "logical conclusion" that life is absurd. You have not shown how the conclusion that life is absurd is itself fallacious or contradictory (although I did entreat you to do so). As you have not done this, it appears to me that you are content to present this as your refutation of atheism, and therefore your premise for believing in god.If one assumes the materialistic worldview, then one would logically conclude that life is ultimately absurd. Therefore, the conclusion suggests that something is wrong with the premise.
You have not shown how the conclusion that life is absurd is itself fallacious or contradictory (although I did entreat you to do so).
zarathustra wrote:This is effectively an admission of a circular argument.
Why is it?
I asked you how you deduced that "the purpose of God is to love". You responded:
Because I have faith and faith seeks understanding
If you do not yet realize that fides quarens intellectum is a circular argument, you really ought to inform yourself on the basics of logic. Essentially you are saying, "In order to logically deduce X, you have to first have faith in X". I could just as easily ask you to take it on faith that there is no god, and from there logically deduce there is no god. But I wouldn't do that, because that would be .... a circular argument.
zarathustra wrote:Did you mean to ignore the 3rd point, or did you need more time to address it?What is the third point?
The one labeled #3, which immediately followed #2:
3. If it suffices for you to say "The purpose of god is to love", does it not suffice for me to say, "My purpose is to respirate" -- in answer to your charge that the with atheistic worldview we ultimately have no purpose?
What is the logical fallacy in my argument?
One is explained above. Add to that several non sequitur responses (e.g, "why is there something rather than nothing" ), and how you spontaneously went from defending the rational basis for your god-belief (rather weakly), to saying it wasn't rational after all.
You previously charged me with mischaracterizing your statements. When you repeatedly fire off tersely, incomprehensible non-answers and unscrupulously switch your premises in mid-argument, mischaracterization is altogether impossible to avoid -- your statements deny any lucid characterization in the first place.
It would appear to me that you agree that a materialistic worldview implies that life is ultimately meaningless and absurd.
I have said as much. Life is ultimately meaningless. You are yet to show how this is wrong, other than to say that you find it "morbid". Your spinelessness at this prospect does not serve as a refutation, much less as a sound premise for your god-belief.
N.B. Some simple and direct points which still go without answer:
- Quote:-- I'm sorry, but your non-answer does not clarify the requested distinction.
What, pray tell, is the irrational then, such that it is distinct from the nonrational?
- Quote:When last I drew your attention to this, you said I would have to be more specific. Given the level of specification you have adhered to across these 300+ posts, this is quite the hypocritical request. Yet let's try again. The passage you voluntarily cited as scientific support for god-belief, attributes "sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mystic experiences, or more specifically spirituality" to "a physiological arrangement". Which is to say your own chosen citation undermines your argument (that consciousness, and your "intuition" of god's existence, is something other than material in origin). Your argument has a problem. Please try to deal with it.
It appears that this hypothesis (which you yourself are proffering as scientific support) suggests that belief in god is physiological....which would mean that it is material in origin.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline That's where the 11-vector-string god comes in. It keeps track of all of the pantheistic god's stuff when it dies. Because we all know meaning doesn't rely on the perception of a given subject, but the eventual fate of a given thing. I've stopped eating cupcakes, because I know that once I eat them, they cease to be cupcakes; and I'd much rather recall the image of a cupcake ad infinitum than impose meaning via the subjective and temporary experience of tasting and subsisting.
This is where you are mistaken. Faith is not assent to a particular theological system. It is a mode of existence.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:magilum wrote:1. Your first hand experience? I have no idea what story you're referring to, since I've only been reading our exchanges, but an isolated subjective experience doesn't hold much weight toward the kind of conclusion you're vainly groping at.2. Who made the case that a thought was "a physical object?" Sounds strawman-ish.
Do you believe that "thoughts" are physical?
The result of physical processes would be the probable answer, unless demonstrated otherwise. Odd for a supposed pantheist to head into dualist territory.
Why not assume that they are nonphysical until proven otherwise?
Because all that we know is physical. By definition, nothing non-physical or supernatural can be considered scientifically, or even logically. Such a conclusion is a non-sequitur and argument from ignorance. We may well encounter things that no physical model can account for, but the most we can articulate about such a thing is that we don't know how it works. Something that would defy physical models in earnest would not be differentiable from something that is unknown, so any conclusion drawn from it would be fallacious. The idea can either become explainable, or hang forever in epistemic limbo.
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:That's where the 11-vector-string god comes in. It keeps track of all of the pantheistic god's stuff when it dies. Because we all know meaning doesn't rely on the perception of a given subject, but the eventual fate of a given thing. I've stopped eating cupcakes, because I know that once I eat them, they cease to be cupcakes; and I'd much rather recall the image of a cupcake ad infinitum than impose meaning via the subjective and temporary experience of tasting and subsisting.This is where you are mistaken. Faith is not assent to a particular theological system. It is a mode of existence.
Red herring.
Good on a bagel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Why not assume that they are nonphysical until proven otherwise?
Why would that be reasonable behaviour? Decide that something is magic until it's proven non-magic? Who thinks like that?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline The only problem here is your main character. God still probably doesn't exist. Rationally, given that there is zero evidence for the existence of a really important part of your arguments, what makes you think you have a leg to stand on? Spiritual intuition, maybe? Without placing value on spiritual intuition, you must see that it's not rational. You can say "extra-rational" if you feel as though "irrational" is insulting. But no reason is used in the conclusions reached by spiritual intuition.
Intuition is "nonrational," not irrational. There is a difference. A balanced mind is one in which the analytical and the intuitive complement each other.
Whatever its stigma, "intuition" is a term that we simply cannot do without, because it denotes the most basic constituent of our faculty of understanding. While this is true in matters of ethics, it is no less true in science. When we can break our knowledge of a thing down no further, the irreducible leap that remains is intuitively taken. Thus, the traditional opposition between reason and intuition is a false one: reason is itself intuitive to the core, as any judgment that a proposition is "reasonable" or "logical" relies on intuition to find its feet. pg. 183 "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Why not assume that they are nonphysical until proven otherwise?
Why would that be reasonable behaviour? Decide that something is magic until it's proven non-magic? Who thinks like that?
Why should I assume that consciousness is physical?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline So ... faith seeks understanding of what, now? And how do you know the intrinsic nature of God?Wait ... ARE you God?
Faith seeks to know God. And the intuitive mind is the source of spiritual insights.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Intuition is "nonrational," not irrational. There is a difference. A balanced mind is one in which the analytical and the intuitive complement each other.
Sure, nonrational. God still probably doesn't exist.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Intuition is "nonrational," not irrational. There is a difference. A balanced mind is one in which the analytical and the intuitive complement each other.
You learned your definition of "balanced" from Fox News, didn't you?
Of course a balanced mind is one in which the intuitive and analytic complement each other. In science, the intuitive mind allows one to think up new hypothesis when confronted with unexplained data. However, that hypothesis isn't supported until the analytic mind can come up with a rational test for the intuitive hypothesis, and the rational test supports the intuitive hypothesis.
You've subjegated the analytic mind to the intuitive mind. That isn't balance; that's delusion.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Why should I assume that consciousness is physical?
Nothing to do here but quote magilum:
Because all that we know is physical. By definition, nothing non-physical or supernatural can be considered scientifically, or even logically. Such a conclusion is a non-sequitur and argument from ignorance. We may well encounter things that no physical model can account for, but the most we can articulate about such a thing is that we don't know how it works. Something that would defy physical models in earnest would not be differentiable from something that is unknown, so any conclusion drawn from it would be fallacious. The idea can either become explainable, or hang forever in epistemic limbo.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Intuition is "nonrational," not irrational. There is a difference. A balanced mind is one in which the analytical and the intuitive complement each other.
You learned your definition of "balanced" from Fox News, didn't you?
Hehe. So good. I got a little tear of joy from that one.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Why not assume that they are nonphysical until proven otherwise?Because all that we know is physical. By definition, nothing non-physical or supernatural can be considered scientifically, or even logically. Such a conclusion is a non-sequitur and argument from ignorance. We may well encounter things that no physical model can account for, but the most we can articulate about such a thing is that we don't know how it works. Something that would defy physical models in earnest would not be differentiable from something that is unknown, so any conclusion drawn from it would be fallacious. The idea can either become explainable, or hang forever in epistemic limbo.
Conscious-awareness is not always awareness of something.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey Paisley, you might also enjoy this current RRS thread. "Proof that god exists" ((( primarily arguing about acceptable god "definitions" ..... right up your alley .....
Paisley wrote: This is where I start: "What constitutes ultimate reality?"
1) consciousness
2) mindless mass/energy/spacetime
3) a combination thereof
Number 2 implies a materialistic worldview. Numbers 1 & 3 entail some kind of "God-belief." This is where I start.
___________________________
Hey friend, I don't think anyone or thingy can ever know/answer "ulimate reality", which is a pretty common definition of god for many, and so we have a god word, that will never ever go away ( as there was no beginning )
That is why I write about god the way I do. I AM an atheist in awe and comfortable with the gawed word. But I flatly scoff at all religion dogma God concepts. And so to all theists, by general common definition, I say absolutely no to your god.
If anyone, atheists included say, I am not god, .... as YOU as is ALL existence, then I say the god you are referring to is dogmatic, and not the god I refer to, as God = ONE as nothing is separate. Dogmatic god believers need be defeated / healed. Jesus/Buddha tried ....
So to the 1,2,3, I have no objection, as in combination you again have a common simple god definition. Like saying God is what is, or this. No problem .....
I keep barking at you because of the dogma you invent for our awe. We ALL have awe, consciousness, and everyone can write poetry, song, tech manuals, science fiction, and foolish dogma.
Ask, study, dream, be a scientist, a philosopher, but don't make dogma stuff up and peddle as helpful or wisdom.
Is consciousness some sort of energy form ? Can it exist in a perfect vacuum ? Is there such a thing as nothing ? ETC. What more we will figure out about C will be thru science and our imagination, not by re-inventing dogmas. Stop it mr. P ...... please ..... your dogma is my enemy to heal. I AM GOD, I love/hate you .... WE are ONE ....
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:Why not assume that they are nonphysical until proven otherwise?Because all that we know is physical. By definition, nothing non-physical or supernatural can be considered scientifically, or even logically. Such a conclusion is a non-sequitur and argument from ignorance. We may well encounter things that no physical model can account for, but the most we can articulate about such a thing is that we don't know how it works. Something that would defy physical models in earnest would not be differentiable from something that is unknown, so any conclusion drawn from it would be fallacious. The idea can either become explainable, or hang forever in epistemic limbo.
Conscious-awareness is not always awareness of something.
Your strategy of terse, unsubstantiated remarks is an interesting one.
- Login to post comments
Offline Actually, Harris is free to be as mystical as he sees fit. Perhaps he even has a bent to create his own spiritual system ala L. Ron Hubbard ? Wouldn't be the first time, would it ?
Isn't he one of the leaders (along with Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens) of the "New Atheist" movement?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Conscious-awareness is not always awareness of something.
Your strategy of terse, unsubstantiated remarks is an interesting one.
Not just terse, unsubstantiated remarks -- terse, unsubstantiated, vague and meaningless remarks. For one who seems preoccupied with ultimate meaning, Mr. P (as iGod referred to him) surprisingly lacks meaning.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline You are presenting an implied false dichotomy. Our choices are not limited to "materialistic" (meaning governed by Newtonian mechanics, from the way you use the word "materialism" ) or "God." There are other options, most of which are far more logical than "God."
Please present the alternatives to materialism.
The problem comes when that faith interferes with the science and knowledge, such as the case with Behe. His faith guides his research, and though he has been disproven many times, he still presents his unscientific assertions as scientific hypothesis.
What does this have to do with me?
Here's my biggest problem with your use of metaphysics: you seem to think you can make broad wise-sounding statements without any kind of evidence. Also, you get to conflate "knowledge" and "faith" willy-nilly. If that is what metaphysics gives us, I'd rather have outright ignorance than a false sense of knowledge.
I'm afraid you already have a false sense of knowledge if you believe that reason and belief are mutually exclusive terms.
You know, you can contingently assume something is true long enough to test its truth. That isn't faith in that something. That's giving something the benefit of the doubt for a short time, long enough to either support itself or not support itself.
That you believe you can give "something the benefit of the doubt" is a belief.
You As far as out ability to function without faith: planera don't have faith, but they seem to function quite well.
Are there any planera (water elms) who are members of RRS?
Dude, you know that hope != faith, right?
No, I didn't know that.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline Faith is not contingent upon a perfect theology.
You have said that you arrived at your faith as follows:
I will acknowledge that my basic belief in God is probably "not rationally derived." This is not to say that it is irrational. I distinguish between the terms irrational and nonrational.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline BMcD wrote:I don't. I operate on perception. I can only interact with the universe I perceive. I have little choice but to accept that if I wish to do anything, I must do it within the framework of the universe I can interact with. This does not mean I believe that my perceptions are true, only that I cannot interact with anything beyond them. In fact, I don't know if what I perceive is true. I could be completely wrong. I could be delusional. I could be the victim of a grand deception. I simply don't know, and so I can form no actual beliefs.To operate on perceptions is to operate on beliefs.
To operate on beliefs requires beliefs.
BMcD wrote:Actually, since the scientific method requires us to question all conclusions, including those regarding the effectiveness of the scientific method, that would seem to undermine the kind of 'faith' people hold in religion.So, you don't believe that the scientific method can enable scientists to make certain predictions about natural phenomena?
No. I accept that it appears to, and I expect that within the framework that my perceptions seem to be offering, it will continue to, but I must also accept that these perceptions may all be falsehoods, and so cannot assert belief in them, or in the veracity of the scientific method they seem to validate. Just as, in the end, I can assert no belief in your existence. Or your nonexistence. I can only interact with the universe I perceive, which includes your apparent existence.
BMcD wrote:Again, this makes no sense. I have no faith. I have hope. For example: I hope my perceptions of reality are at least somewhat in alignment with reality. I don't know that they are, but I really would like it if they turned out to be right, and I dearly hope that they are. But I don't have faith that they are. I simply don't know.To have faith is to have hope. Both faith and hope entail belief.
A)Even were your assertion that both entail belief true, it would not make them the same thing. Chocolate milk entails milk. Cheese entails milk. Cholocate milk and cheese are not the same.
B)You can choose to believe that, if you will, but you have not shown in any way that my hope that my perceptions are accurate entails belief that they are. Heck, I would seem, to my own perceptions at least, to be saying exactly the opposite: I don't believe they are accurate. I don't believe they're wrong. I accept that I don't know, and make no assertions of their accuracy. I am, however, still constrained to interact with the universe I perceive, simply because I cannot interact with anything else.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline magilum wrote:Paisley wrote:magilum wrote:1. Your first hand experience? I have no idea what story you're referring to, since I've only been reading our exchanges, but an isolated subjective experience doesn't hold much weight toward the kind of conclusion you're vainly groping at.2. Who made the case that a thought was "a physical object?" Sounds strawman-ish.
Do you believe that "thoughts" are physical?
The result of physical processes would be the probable answer, unless demonstrated otherwise. Odd for a supposed pantheist to head into dualist territory.
Why not assume that they are nonphysical until proven otherwise?
Why assume the existence of a nonphysical element to our existence until there's evidence for one?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline BMcD wrote:Paisley wrote:Objective immortality is that which exists in the divine memory; it's not extended in time or space.Nonsense. Immortality itself requires time, as does memory.
Okay. It's everlasting in time.
In which case, you're back to the exact problem you used 'not extended in time' precisely to get out of, specifically:
Well, 'immortality' strongly implies continued existence with unending movement through time. Time, being a property/dimension of the physical universe, can only apply to things subject to physical laws, including the laws of thermodynamics, which indicate that eventually, everything breaks down. And if everything breaks down, then immortality... isn't.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:magilum wrote:That's where the 11-vector-string god comes in. It keeps track of all of the pantheistic god's stuff when it dies. Because we all know meaning doesn't rely on the perception of a given subject, but the eventual fate of a given thing. I've stopped eating cupcakes, because I know that once I eat them, they cease to be cupcakes; and I'd much rather recall the image of a cupcake ad infinitum than impose meaning via the subjective and temporary experience of tasting and subsisting.This is where you are mistaken. Faith is not assent to a particular theological system. It is a mode of existence.
Red herring.
Good on a bagel.
I prefer salmon.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Mr. P ????????? What is your message or revelation to the world again ???????
I AM not feeling some saving awe that you do ??? Is that it ?
Geezzz I AM trying ..... BTW, Don't feel to awfully bad about it , big J basically failed to get his message understood as well ...... 
Hey I Am jesus , get it ????
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:You are presenting an implied false dichotomy. Our choices are not limited to "materialistic" (meaning governed by Newtonian mechanics, from the way you use the word "materialism" ) or "God." There are other options, most of which are far more logical than "God."Please present the alternatives to materialism.
Note I mentioned you defined materialism as "Newtonian dynamics." You seem to feel that quantum mechanics and "materialism" are mutually exclusive.
They are not.
However, to satisfy the implied request:
The collapse of a quantum waveform is an informational event. When one or the other property of the waveform (position or velocity) is required for interaction, the waveform collapses. This is a probabilistic event, bounded by the waveform, collapsed by interaction. There is no God in the waveform, nor in the collapse of the waveform. There is only information, and the exchange of information. The same is true of other quantum events, such as the exchange of virtual particles.
(And, as an aside, this is all considered naturalistic. "Materialistic." It might not fit with your 19th century view of materialism, but it is materialism.)
nigelTheBold wrote:The problem comes when that faith interferes with the science and knowledge, such as the case with Behe. His faith guides his research, and though he has been disproven many times, he still presents his unscientific assertions as scientific hypothesis.What does this have to do with me?
You claim to be smart. Figure it out.
nigelTheBold wrote:Here's my biggest problem with your use of metaphysics: you seem to think you can make broad wise-sounding statements without any kind of evidence. Also, you get to conflate "knowledge" and "faith" willy-nilly. If that is what metaphysics gives us, I'd rather have outright ignorance than a false sense of knowledge.I'm afraid you already have a false sense of knowledge if you believe that reason and belief are mutually exclusive terms.
Wow. I know you like to avoid directly responding to valid points by spouting nonsense, but I think you are outdoing yourself here. At no point do I mention belief. I do mention faith, but only to the extent that you conflate it with knowledge. At no point do I claim even faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. I imply they are different. Their relationship to each other is debatable, but that debate isn't on the table here. This is about your lack of a coherent epistemology to support your questionable metaphysics.
nigelTheBold wrote:You know, you can contingently assume something is true long enough to test its truth. That isn't faith in that something. That's giving something the benefit of the doubt for a short time, long enough to either support itself or not support itself.That you believe you can give "something the benefit of the doubt" is a belief.
Now you are conflating faith and belief. Is there no meaning in the English language you can't twist?
However: it's a belief backed by observation, and past experience. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned that way, but I like my belief backed by, y'know, actual facts. That's what distinguishes it from faith.
nigelTheBold wrote:You As far as out ability to function without faith: planera don't have faith, but they seem to function quite well.Are there any planera (water elms) who are members of RRS?
Must. Not. Respond. With. Obvious. Answer.
Avoid the actual discussion much? Or just always?
nigelTheBold wrote:Dude, you know that hope != faith, right?No, I didn't know that.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
Well, now you do. Fath and hope are different.
Do you often support your questionable pantheistic beliefs with quotes from the even more questionable Christianity?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Do you mean reason involves belief? I'd buy that, sure. But why rationality immediately to faith? Are you using "faith" to mean anything given in an argument? Or what? I think we have different definitions of faith.
And as a field it does a crappy job determining it.
I guess you mean that quantum indeterminacy suggests that the building blocks of matter are probabilistic instead of 100% deterministic. Quantum theory still suggests that the world is material. What else could it consist of?
Now you're just being silly. Of course you can participate in science. The scientific method protects itself through the double-blind technique. That way, neither of our beliefs can wreck research.
Nobody has said that.
Okay, but metaphysics really hasn't had very much success at determining reality. Branches of philosophy have helped a lot in getting us to the point where we can test things out, but metaphysics is kind of weak in that respect.
Okay, we're definitely defining faith differently. When you have faith in something that has never been shown to exist, it's a lot different than trusting something that works.
Faith/trust in something that has proven to work in determining reality is still not the same as having faith in something that has never been shown to exist.
To say an atheist has hope in the future is not equivalent to having faith in something that has never been shown to exist.
Atheists living on hope doesn't mean faith in something that has never been shown to exist.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence