I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]

Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eloise

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
It hasn't. The evidence comes from logic applied to the observation of brain injury and psychadelic chemical influence. The logical statement is thus:

a. Consciousness is observed to be affected to the extent that the physical states are interacting - in the case of injury, as long as the injury has an affect on the physical brain the affect to consciousness is observable (eg permanent change in the physical state of the brain correlates directly to observable permanent conscious alteration)

b. sample groups within a range of specific physical manifestations are observably affected within a like range of manifestations of consciousness (eg Observable loss of long term memory consistent with physical affect on a portion of the hippocampal region)

therefore c: The physical state and the mental state are inseparable. (neutral monists can concur to this point).

then d: The physical cause precedes, in biological time, the mental state.

and e: biological time ---- insert your reason ----

therefore f: material monism is correct.

This is not exactly clear to me. For materialism to be true, each mental event must correspond to a physical event. For example, if the cause of pain is the firing of c-fibres, then the firing of c-fibres (physical event) must be identical to pain (mental event). If there were any time delay between the firing and the pain, then this theory would be invalidated.

 

Physical theory is subject to constant velocity limits which would put time delays right in line with it particularly in your example, and material monism does not require mental and physical states to be identical, only correlated within compatible ranges.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:shikko

Paisley wrote:

shikko wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Perhaps, you're right. It's not a belief arrived at rationally. It's probably a spiritual intuition borne out of an inner sensing or "knowing." I believe they call this faith.

Thank you for finally admitting your faith is irrational.

Now why again were you claiming that it was atheism that had to be an irrational belief?

I 'm not admitting this.

Right, because why would you want to do the honest thing and agree that you just worked yourself into a corner?  I mean really, what should I expect here?

Quote:

It appears that you are conflating the ideas of the nonrational with the irrational; they're not the same. Faith is nonrational because it is not derived by logical analysis but by an intuitive spiritual sense.

So will you now backpedal from admitting that faith is not a logical conclusion, but an unfounded assumption?

I did not conflate anything.  Irrational is "not consistent with or using reason".  Nonrational means "not based on reason".  Nonrational beliefs are also by definition irrational as reason was not used to either arrive at or support them.

Nonrational beliefs can be used as premises in an argument, but if their assumptions of correctness cause problems, that is evidence that the assumptions are incorrect.  So given that you are starting with a non- and irrational assumption that "a god exists", where do you go from there?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:shikko

Paisley wrote:

shikko wrote:
(snip)

His belief was that "traditional" mystic practices in conjunction with "traditional" scientific method could possibly be used to shed light on the nature of consciousness,

Agreed.

shikko wrote:
but that IN NO WAY could they be testaments to the True Nature of Reality, or the Face of God, or whatever.  His argument is that people (as a society) do not suffer for being too reasonable or rational; that personal experience arising from any mystic practice cannot be proof of anything external to our biology.  Now stick the two together and you get his main thesis: spiritual/religious conviction has no authority outside your own skull, and it is inevitably dangerous to assume otherwise.

I disagree.

You shouldn't:

Sam Harris, Aspen Ideas Festival 2007 wrote:

(page 5)

20 ...I also want to point out upfront there is
21 nothing that I'm about to say that should be construed as
22 a denial of the possibilities of spiritual experience and
(page 6)
1 indeed of the importance of spiritual experience. And
2 that is a subject I will come back to at the end. Here is
3 my basic concern. Our ability to cause ourselves harm is
4 now spreading with 21st-century efficiency, and yet we are
5 still, to a remarkable degree, drawing our vision of how
6 to live in this world from ancient literature. This
7 marriage of modern technology, destructive technology and
8 iron age philosophy is a bad one for reasons that I think
9 nobody should have to specify much less argue for, and yet
10 arguing for them has taken up most of my time since
11 September 11, 2001. That day that 19 pious men showed our
12 pious nation just how socially beneficial religious
13 certainty can be.

And then a bit further on:

Sam Harris wrote:

(page 14)

13 The fact that certain ideas are useful or
14 motivating or give people meaning in their lives or the
15 fact that the idea that God has a plan for me or
16 everything happens for a reason, the fact that such ideas
17 are consoling, does not offer the slightest reason to
18 believe that they’re true. And in fact, ironically they -
19 - even if we had good scientific reasons to believe that
20 these ideas were true, their power to console us wouldn’t
21 even offer an additional reason to believe that they’re
22 true.
(page 15)
1 I mean even if the cosmologists and the
2 physicists came forward suddenly and said, you know, sorry
3 for the misunderstanding guys, but it seems there is a God
4 and he has a plan for you. The fact that so many of us
5 would find this consoling would give us further reason to
6 be skeptical in scientific terms, this is why we have
7 phrases like wishful-thinking, and self-delusion and self8
deception. This is why scientists do double-blind control
9 studies wherever possible, this is why they submit their
10 data for peer review. If we have conquered any ground in
11 our career of rationality it is on this point, there is a
12 profound difference between having -- between having good
13 reasons for believing something and simply wanting to
14 believe it.

(both taken from this transcript)

Your rebuttal?

 

Quote:
Harris wishes to recapture spirituality for the domain of human reason. He draws inspiration from the practices of Eastern religion, in particular that of meditation, as described principally by Hindu and Buddhist practitioners. By paying close attention to moment-to-moment conscious experience, Harris suggests, it is possible to make our sense of "self" vanish and thereby uncover a new state of personal well-being. (source: Wikipedia "Sam Harris(author)")

...none of which goes towards supporting the claim that changing your self-perception has any external effect on the world.  Sure, it might change how you view things or the way you act, but that is not, as I said before, external to our biology.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Paisley

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is not exactly clear to me. For materialism to be true, each mental event must correspond to a physical event. For example, if the cause of pain is the firing of c-fibres, then the firing of c-fibres (physical event) must be identical to pain (mental event). If there were any time delay between the firing and the pain, then this theory would be invalidated.

Physical theory is subject to constant velocity limits which would put time delays right in line with it particularly in your example, and material monism does not require mental and physical states to be identical, only correlated within compatible ranges.

There are several theories of physicalism (materialism) in regards to the philosophy of mind. Which particular theory of physicalism are you referring to? In the "type-identity theory" of physicalism, mental events are identical to physical events.

Quote:
Type physicalism (also known as Type Identity Theory, Type-Type theory or just Identity Theory) is the theory, in the philosophy of mind, which asserts that mental events are type-identical to the physical events in the brain with which they are correlated. In other words, that mental states or properties are neurological states or properties. It is called type identity in order to distinguish it from a similar but distinct theory called the token identity theory.([URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism]source: Wikipedia "Physicalism"[/URL])

By the way, do you subscribe to a particular type of monism? If so, which type?

 

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eloise

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is not exactly clear to me. For materialism to be true, each mental event must correspond to a physical event. For example, if the cause of pain is the firing of c-fibres, then the firing of c-fibres (physical event) must be identical to pain (mental event). If there were any time delay between the firing and the pain, then this theory would be invalidated.

Physical theory is subject to constant velocity limits which would put time delays right in line with it particularly in your example, and material monism does not require mental and physical states to be identical, only correlated within compatible ranges.

There are several theories of physicalism (materialism) in regards to the philosophy of mind. Which particular theory of physicalism are you referring to? 

Supervenience + Token type. I understand that to be DG's and HisWillnesses position. IIRC, DG had an essay on the subject in his RRS blog, I think he may have removed it.

 

Quote:

 

By the way, do you subscribe to a particular type of monism? If so, which type?

Yes, Neutral Monism of the process philosophy with a dash of transcendental idealism, type.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Paisley

shikko wrote:

Paisley wrote:

shikko wrote:
but that IN NO WAY could they be testaments to the True Nature of Reality, or the Face of God, or whatever.  His argument is that people (as a society) do not suffer for being too reasonable or rational; that personal experience arising from any mystic practice cannot be proof of anything external to our biology.  Now stick the two together and you get his main thesis: spiritual/religious conviction has no authority outside your own skull, and it is inevitably dangerous to assume otherwise.

I disagree.

You shouldn't:

I read the "End of Faith" primarily because I knew it was popular among atheists and I wanted to learn more about their point of view.

Here's what I learned:

1) Harris never identified himself once as an "atheist" in the book.

2) Harris gave a false definition of "faith" and then proceeded to dismantle it. In other words, he made a strawman argument.

3) Although Harris attacked both Christianity and Islam, he particularly lambasted Islam.  

4) Harris redefines "religion" and "spirituality" to be mutually exclusive terms.

5) Harris is essentially a Buddhist who promotes mysticism and wants to incorporate the scientific method to verify it.

Mysticism presupposes a basic belief in God, Brahman, Buddha-nature, the Tao, the Logos, Cosmic Consciousness, the spiritual, etc.

Quote:
Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός – mystikos- 'seeing with the eyes closed, an initiate of the Eleusian Mysteries; μυστήρια – mysteria meaning "initiation"[1]) is the pursuit of achieving communion, identity with, or conscious awareness of ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight. Traditions may include a belief in the literal existence of dimensional realities beyond empirical perception, or a belief that a true human perception of the world goes beyond current logical reasoning or intellectual comprehension. A person delving in these areas may be called a Mystic.

In many cases, the purpose of mysticism and mystical disciplines such as meditation, is to reach a state of return or re-integration with the Godhead.(source: Wikipedia "Mysticism")

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:What? How

HisWillness wrote:
What? How else does one determine the presence of inner experience? What brand new method have you come up with?

The point is that there is no scientific test for consciousness. I can only validate my own conscious-awareness. 

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The fact is that the mind/body issue is still hotly debated in academia.

Pure exaggeration. Just like global warming is "hotly debated"? Where there are three guys doing a lecture circuit? Dualism is ridiculous.

The "mind-body" is the central issue in the philosophy of mind. And dualism and monism are the two major schools of thought.

Quote:
Philosophy of mind is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain. The mind-body problem, i.e., the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.[1]

Dualism and monism are the two major schools of thought that attempt to resolve the mind-body problem. (source: Wikipedia "Philosphy of mind")

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Paisley

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
There are several theories of physicalism (materialism) in regards to the philosophy of mind. Which particular theory of physicalism are you referring to?

Supervenience + Token type. I understand that to be DG's and HisWillnesses position. IIRC, DG had an essay on the subject in his RRS blog, I think he may have removed it.

Okay. I consider "token" and "type" physicalism to be closely related. (I believe that token physicalism also entails that each mental event is identical with a physical event.) Also, I believe (if I understand it correctly) "supervenience" physicalism is nonreductive and compatible with dualism (i.e. mental events are nonphysical, albeit supervenient upon and correlated with the physical). However, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the "supervenience + token" position.

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
By the way, do you subscribe to a particular type of monism? If so, which type?

Yes, Neutral Monism of the process philosophy with a dash of transcendental idealism, type.

Okay. I consider my religious or spiritual beliefs primarily influenced by ACIM (A Course In Miracles). But I'm also interested in process theology which is based on the process philosophy of A. N. Whitehead. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


hails8n666
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-03-18
User is offlineOffline
www.divine-interventions.comC

www.divine-interventions.com

Check it out!

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, you are a hard

Paisley, you are a hard working typer and I appreciate it. Sorry I can't contribute better. The word game I play is primitive.

You write, "The point is that there is no scientific test for consciousness. I can only validate my own conscious-awareness. " /////

But isn't science beginning to tackle this phenomena. It seems to me that many theists are so in awe of consciousness that they continue believing in miracles or hocus pocus doctrine. Do you believe in a divine perfect holy all knowing thingy above the silly "first cause" idea or whatever ? I AM not meaning to sound in any way disrespectful. You are god as all is ONE, is my simple message. Zero separation. No beginning, No end ..... No judgment.

When "generalizing" about the Buddhists, about the best I can do is say they are a friendly caring questioning bunch and basically free thinkers with little dogma tendencies. I AM quite fond of them. They sure do make the "god of abe" folks seem so silly and lost. BTW, reincarnation just means energy and matter recycled. Folklore can be funny and bizzar of course ..... What is your brief view of the buddhists in comparative regards to abe followers ?

These are all just my opinions etc, but that's god for ya I say ...... thanks.

Oh yeah and thank you "god cosmos" for the ride , but hey "god of abe", take a hike ..... me no like you, abe's god, the devil of wrong thinking .....


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 Hey hails8n666, I always

 Hey hails8n666, I always buy my girl friends a nice assortment of dildos, it is truly divine fun . The sybian is a fav too ...... check it out , even live on youtube ...... Wow, Prophet Howard Stern knows !                  Life is amazing ..... what will we think of next ???     Be a scientist !  


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:But I do

Paisley wrote:

But I do believe that atheism presents a worldview that, when logically analyzed, portrays life as ultimately meaningless and absurd. Nothing said here in this thread or elsewhere leads me to believe otherwise.

You seem to take this position because you feel that ultimately, all of the achievements of life will come to naught.

If that is the case, then perhaps I can offer you an 'ultimate' purpose for life.

Science currently believes that all standard matter as it is now is the result of stellar fusion and the life-cycles of stars. All of this matter once existed in an incredibly hot, high-energy state at the Big Bang. It is slowly being broken down through universal expansion and the conversion of matter into energy through processes like stellar fusion (where atoms are compressed into heavier atoms, and part of the energy bound up in the bonds that formed the original matter is released as electromagnetic radiation and heat), which is then emitted and dispersed throughout that expanding universe. Currently, it appears that eventually, all matter will be broken down into waste heat, and finally the last molecules and atoms will be torn apart as universal expansion becomes so rapid that subatomic particles are pulled apart with more force than the strong atomic force can counteract.

In this long process, the ultimate purpose of life, which is a series of self-perpetuating chemical reactions, is to assist in the chemical breakdown of matter and energy into simpler matter and waste energy in the form of heat, and will continue to be relevant and applicable long after life itself is no longer possible, as it will continue to be part of the overall process whereby the entropy of the closed system has continually trended toward its maximum.

This means that Life's "Ultimate Purpose" is to perpetuate Life, and so to continue the chemical processes which thus consume more raw material and produce more waste heat than would otherwise have been consumed/produced.

So the Ultimate Purpose of Life... is Life. And Nihilism. Because Life is ultimately a Nihilistic pursuit. Smiling

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I not saying

Paisley wrote:
I not saying that your personal life is meaningless per se. (I believe everyone's life has ultimate meaning and value.) But I do believe that atheism presents a worldview that, when logically analyzed, portrays life as ultimately meaningless and absurd. Nothing said here in this thread or elsewhere leads me to believe otherwise.

What you believe isn't my concern, but I have to laugh at another example of theistic nihilism. It's generally a Christian affliction, and though you're a panentheist, or something, I suspect your deity is just Yahweh-lite. If the sole proposition that atheism represents removes meaning from life, one has to marvel at the absurdity of the alternative: a creature that will outlive us and curate our memories for a practical eternity. Just articulating it refutes it for me.

Another way of describing the idea would be saying that human existence has no value to humans -- to arguably the only necessarily interested party. Instead it reifies value, and posits it as an unlimited resource. Like there's value juice dribbling in from some thawing spring. I'm reminded of the old hobo song, "Big Rock Candy Mountain," for some reason.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eloise

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
There are several theories of physicalism (materialism) in regards to the philosophy of mind. Which particular theory of physicalism are you referring to?

Supervenience + Token type. I understand that to be DG's and HisWillnesses position. IIRC, DG had an essay on the subject in his RRS blog, I think he may have removed it.

Okay. I consider "token" and "type" physicalism to be closely related. (I believe that token physicalism also entails that each mental event is identical with a physical event.) 

They are related but token physicalism holds that each mental event *is* a physical event, supervenience in compliment to token physicalism allows for mental events to vary or display more complexity from of the physical events, so they need not be identical. Type physicalism has the problems which you've described, it leans more to the principle that mental events are strictly finite physical events no supervenient properties emerge from combined events or crossfire per se.

Quote:

Also, I believe (if I understand it correctly) "supervenience" physicalism is nonreductive and compatible with dualism (i.e. mental events are nonphysical, albeit supervenient upon and correlated with the physical).

I have it that supervenience physicalism is not compatible with dualism, the concept applied is like the analogy which I posted before, when you mix colours the result looks like a new colour, one could mistake it for a new thing altogether having not seen it anywhere else but it would only be another colour, even if you were unable to distinguish it as such. This is how supervenience answers the mind/body problem, by saying mind is simply body in a state not immediately recognisable as body due to the way the physical events have interacted.

 

paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
By the way, do you subscribe to a particular type of monism? If so, which type?

Yes, Neutral Monism of the process philosophy with a dash of transcendental idealism, type.

Okay. I consider my religious or spiritual beliefs primarily influenced by ACIM ("A Course In Miracles&quotEye-wink. But I'm also interested in process theology which is based on the process philosophy of A. N. Whitehead. 

I haven't read ACIM but I know of it and other material which relates to the same spiritual concepts. Not all of the contributors to that movement are offering good information, but my beliefs are definitely in the same category as yours at least.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:I'm reminded

magilum wrote:

I'm reminded of the old hobo song, "Big Rock Candy Mountain," for some reason.

'Cause the bull gods all have rubber teeth.

Just like my gram.

Actually, I kind of like the idea of a creature down in the bowels of some cosmic library, like an oral history department curator, carefully collecting recordings of each human life, cataloging them, and putting them on a shelf where they will be promptly forgotten, to exist forever.

Or, at least, until the library is torn down, and they move the oral history department into an old K-Mart (they're everywhere), where the roof leaks and all those recordings (souls) get mouldy, and the curator catches a divine lung disease, probably bronchitis, from inhaling all that soul-mould, and while he's in the hospital, God breaks Divine Wind, and accidentally catches the K-Mart on fire.

Or am I just making shit up now?

"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


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I read the

Paisley wrote:

I read the "End of Faith" primarily because I knew it was popular among atheists and I wanted to learn more about their point of view.

Here's what I learned:

1) Harris never identified himself once as an "atheist" in the book.

Which in no way invalidates his argument.  You could loudly proclaim a heliocentric model of the solar system and I would loudly support you for doing so, regardless of the invalidity of your positions on the supernatural.

Quote:

2) Harris gave a false definition of "faith" and then proceeded to dismantle it. In other words, he made a strawman argument.

Please explain how his definition of faith is "false".  Is it false because you disagree with it, or don't like it?  Or is it false because there is another, better word that he should have used instead of faith?  Or something else?

His definition struck me as dead on, so unless you can make a good argument that he was using a poor definition you are simply trying to invalidate his reasoning by incorrectly attacking his premises in an effort to not have to deal with otherwise correct reasoning.

Quote:

3) Although Harris attacked both Christianity and Islam, he particularly lambasted Islam.  

He spent a lot of time talking about Islam; so what?  I also remember a few strong words for Catholicism and Judaism.  What does this the focus of his argument have to do with its validity?

Is this list of points a complete non-sequitir to my request for a rebuttal, or just partially?

Quote:

4) Harris redefines "religion" and "spirituality" to be mutually exclusive terms.

I will admit I should read The End of Faith again, but I doubt the accuracy of your point.  Please explain why you think this is a mistake.  I can see a religion having spiritual practices, but a spiritual practice does not necessarily entail a religious use.

Quote:

5) Harris is essentially a Buddhist who promotes mysticism and wants to incorporate the scientific method to verify it.

Regarding Harris being buddhist, you are essentially incorrect. Please see his own writings on the matter:

The Problem with Atheism

Killing the Buddha (yes, he infers he is a "student of the buddha", but that is insufficient to call him a buddhist)

Quote:

Mysticism presupposes a basic belief in God, Brahman, Buddha-nature, the Tao, the Logos, Cosmic Consciousness, the spiritual, etc.

Quote:
Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός – mystikos- 'seeing with the eyes closed, an initiate of the Eleusian Mysteries; μυστήρια – mysteria meaning "initiation"[1]) is the pursuit of achieving communion, identity with, or conscious awareness of ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight. Traditions may include a belief in the literal existence of dimensional realities beyond empirical perception, or a belief that a true human perception of the world goes beyond current logical reasoning or intellectual comprehension. A person delving in these areas may be called a Mystic.

In many cases, the purpose of mysticism and mystical disciplines such as meditation, is to reach a state of return or re-integration with the Godhead.(source: Wikipedia "Mysticism")

You are seeing something that is not there.  I will not disagree with you that Harris sees some value in mystic practices, but to call him a mystic is going too far.  You can use a saw without being a carpenter.

Second, the definition of mystic you quoted above would rule Harris out as a mystic; he is using distinctly empirical techniques to investigate what happens in the brains of people who are mystics when they practice their particular trick.  He is interested in what happens physically in their brains and what the result is.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Conscious-awareness is eternal (i.e. non-temporal).
You're introducing the concept of what's usually called a soul?

I will agree that this conscious-awareness is an attribute of the soul.

Quote:
I don't have one. What's it like?

What's it like to have conscious-awareness? I'm afraid that if you don't know then there is nothing I can say that would possibly suffice.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Conscious-awareness is eternal (i.e. non-temporal).

I actually did get that from your other posts. I do not find agreement with your position however.

Why doesn't "eternal conscious-awareness" agree with my position?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I'm still one that claims lack of knowledge of the Universe. It may be you are absolutely right, or even those who practice one of the other thousands of religions.

I never claimed to be absolutely right. I simply professed a belief. However, I will admit that my belief in God's existence is a strongly held one.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I absolutely don't agree with you, but you are entitled to believe what you'd like.

You shouldn't say "absolutely" since you have already gone on record in this particular post as saying "It may be you are absolutely right."

Quote:
Your original request for help was BS, but I'll let that go.

The question posed in the OP was as sincere as RRS's slogan "Believe in God? We can fix that."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
tothiel wrote:Paisley

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Conscious-awareness is eternal (i.e. non-temporal).
Naked assertion.

It is a belief. However, materialism is also a belief.

Quote:
Remember, "reality" doesn't care if "you respected yourself or not." In the vast scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

tothiel wrote:
In the vast scheme of things the only thing that matters is rather 'you' respected your life or not. The universe being indifferent is a non issue.

You may presently appreciate and value your life (I suspect most people do). However, since your eventual fate is to simply cease to exist, then it logically follows that the "appreciation and value" for which so fiercely accord your personal life will likewise  cease to exist.

tothiel wrote:
Also, you managed to ignore the fact that he stated:

 

 "At least 'I' can respect 'myself' knowing that 'I' face the good and the bad without resorting to comforting myths as a shield and pacifier."

What's there to address? Living a life of faith does not necessarily imply that I won't suffer, it simply implies that I will embrace my suffering believing that a greater good is at play.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:You two

nigelTheBold wrote:
You two should debate more often.

I am happy to have a debate with a professing "theist" whose definition of God does not include the attribute of conscious-awareness.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I didn't realize that science discovered the chemical composition for conscious-awareness.

I didn't realize you came up with evidence for a non-physical mind thingy. Why would the default presumption be to go with dualism, when dualism presupposes a special extra variable called "mind" seperate from "body"?

I would not exactly classify myself as a dualist. However, I do think it is meaningful to speak of phenomena in physical and mental terms. And I would argue that my first-person perspective provides me with sufficient evidence to believe that  my own consciousness and the contents of that consciousness (i.e. ideas, thoughts, images, etc.) are nonphysical. I would also argue that the vast majority of people share this same belief. That being said, the onus is upon those who disagree with this basic assumption to prove it otherwise. To my knowledge, science has not proved that consciousness is indeed physical. This is why the mind/body issue is still hotly debated in philosophical circles.

Also, science has failed to prove that the physical is actually fundamental. Quite the contrary. Quantum physics suggests that there are no permanent, fundamental "thingies." This leads me to believe that materialism as a worldview is simply wrong.

HisWillness wrote:
most Just because you want to have a soul doesn't mean that you have any measurable evidence for one. You can want it as hard as you like, it doesn't make it true. I have some evidence, and you have none.

I do have evidence for my soul; it's called my first-person perspective. And I have already argued effectively that the onus is upon you to prove that it is not physical. To date, neither you nor anyone else has proved that it is not.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I will agree

Paisley wrote:
I will agree that this conscious-awareness is an attribute of the soul.

It's the cutest when you warp what I say. I was asking if you just brought in yet another non-physical aspect. They're springing up everywhere! Do you have a spirit animal, too?

Paisley wrote:
What's it like to have conscious-awareness? I'm afraid that if you don't know then there is nothing I can say that would possibly suffice.

Oh, zing! You totally got me there! C'mon.

You could have at least told me I was missing something without a soul. Like a warm, fuzzy feeling, or ... y'know what, I've never had the problem, so I can't imagine it.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:It is a


Paisley wrote:
It is a belief. However, materialism is also a belief.


It's a belief adopted and backed by understanding, not guessing. You can't show that consciousness is eternal and while I can't prove that it isn't, I have no reason to believe that it is.

Quote:
You may presently appreciate and value your life (I suspect most people do). However, since your eventual fate is to simply cease to exist, then it logically follows that the "appreciation and value" for which so fiercely accord your personal life will likewise  cease to exist.


Yes, and I've already said as much. What exactly is your point?

Quote:
What's there to address? Living a life of faith does not necessarily imply that I won't suffer, it simply implies that I will embrace my suffering believing that a greater good is at play.

 
 1. What's there to address? How about the fact that you completely overlooked what his post actually said and threw in an arbitrary quip about reality not caring. It doesn't matter if reality/universe cares, especially when consulting the post in question.
 
 2. I never said anything about you suffering to either end. Nor would such a thing serve any purpose to my presence in this thread, further, if that's all you got from the post in question then I think you are merely oversimplifying.
 
 3. What greater good? As far as I can tell, the very idea only exist as a lesser part of a concept which reflects an arbitrary existence in general. We don't 'need' to exist, so either way you go it's a matter of it being down to a thought construct. I.E, if you except that life has meaning based on the value given through thought, then whether that value is eternal or not is of no concern. Essentially, your value judgement merely last longer but can't be objectively defined as 'more' meaningful.
 
 To be honest, it kind of 'seems' like the idea's of an 'eternal after life' and their being a 'greater good' takes away from the value of an earthly life. For example, not only does the idea of forever not appeal to me, but the idea that their is something better in company with the realization that we don't 'need' to be here..... Completely degrades this life. (It's worth noting that, of course this is all only my opinion as of right now.)

P.S. I won't be on here for a couple of days, so if you reply to this and I don't answer back right away it's not because I'm ignoring you.......

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I would

nigelTheBold wrote:
I would like you to argue against the poster of post #22:
Quote:
Unless you're capable of making a rational argument, you'll be wasting both of our time.

I have argued effectively that atheism is actually an irrational worldview.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have argued

Paisley wrote:
I have argued effectively that atheism is actually an irrational worldview.


No you haven't..... The closest you've gotten is an assertion that it is..... *edit*:

 

And no, it has already been explained that realizing the universe is ultimately absurd doesn't reflect on the realization itself. I.E. It wouldn't be an irrational and absurd view, it would be a viewing of that which is irrational and absurd...

 

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I would not

Paisley wrote:
I would not exactly classify myself as a dualist.

Except you think it's the default position. Why? Why not get a reading on a mind-o-meter and then decide whether or not there's an independent mind? Why not wait until there's something to give you the impression that mind and body are somehow seperate?

Paisley wrote:
And I would argue that my first-person perspective provides me with sufficient evidence to believe that  my own consciousness and the contents of that consciousness (i.e. ideas, thoughts, images, etc.) are nonphysical.

But that's what crazy people say, too. Is there any point in putting people in insane asylums? Why *isn't* anyone who thinks they're Napoleon actually Napoleon?

Paisley wrote:
That being said, the onus is upon those who disagree with this basic assumption to prove it otherwise.

The onus is, and always will be, on the people presenting the theory. Einstein wasn't a genius until his math was proved by observation. Until then, he was just some eccentric mathematician. His relativity could have been falsified, and then he would have been wrong. In this case, your hypothesis is that there's a magical aether that contains consciousness-awareness. Until we find a way of measuring this magical quantity, the most likely explanation is that brains result in the capacity for thinking. It's a simpler explanation easily supported.

Paisley wrote:
To my knowledge, science has not proved that consciousness is indeed physical.

... because they don't really have to. Nothing points to the extra magic variable. Until that happens, why would anyone bother trying to figure out how to explain it?

Paisley wrote:
Also, science has failed to prove that the physical is actually fundamental. Quite the contrary. Quantum physics suggests that there are no permanent, fundamental "thingies." This leads me to believe that materialism as a worldview is simply wrong.

This point has consistently confused me. Quantum indeterminacy means that the parts of matter have a probabilistic nature. Matter itself is measured within degrees of error. Why do you consider matter to not be fundamental because of our imperfect ability to measure? You've returned to this point without any additional information that might help us understand why you consider imperfect measurement the coffin nail of materialism.

Paisley wrote:
I do have evidence for my soul; it's called my first-person perspective. And I have already argued effectively that the onus is upon you to prove that it is not physical. To date, neither you nor anyone else has proved that it is not.

Your first-person perspective is evidence of your first person perspective, not an extra magical variable. Back to someone who thinks they're Napoleon. They really, really think they're Napoleon. Their first-person perspective is evidence of that.

The second sentence there is weird: are you asking me to prove that your extra magical variable isn't physical? Can you measure it or observe it in any way? No? It's probably not physical. Probably. Because I don't work in absolute certainty, and neither does any self-respecting positivist. Is it this uncertainty that bothers you?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I have argued

Paisley wrote:

I have argued effectively that atheism is actually an irrational worldview.

How's that? Observation; posit hypothesis; if evidence matches the hypothesis, the hypothesis passes its first test. Repeat.

That's pretty rational. Your version would be:

Assume magic; if evidence could appear at some time in the future, assume magic. Repeat.

You've presented 1) Metaphysics, and 2) Your subjectivity as evidence. You consider that an effective argument that atheism is an irrational worldview. It kind of calls #2 into question. #1 was already dubious.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Conscious-awareness is eternal (i.e. non-temporal).

I actually did get that from your other posts. I do not find agreement with your position however.

Why doesn't "eternal conscious-awareness" agree with my position?

How does I do not agree with your position translate to "Why doesn't "eternal conscious-awareness" agree with my position?"

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I'm still one that claims lack of knowledge of the Universe. It may be you are absolutely right, or even those who practice one of the other thousands of religions.

I never claimed to be absolutely right. I simply professed a belief. However, I will admit that my belief in God's existence is a strongly held one.

A belief you say, so no real way to prove what is firing around on your neurons inside your brain. Can you extract it using a data acquistion processor and display it?

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I absolutely don't agree with you, but you are entitled to believe what you'd like.

You shouldn't say "absolutely" since you have already gone on record in this particular post as saying "It may be you are absolutely right."

Tricksy, Tricksy, Tricksy! Hmm! What part of I do not agree that your mind probing cannot be proven to be anything more than the probing of your own CPU (brain) and is not relevant as it can't be placed on a lab table do you not get? These two statements are separate thoughts.

1-I can say that it may be you are absolutely right or any others as there is a possibility for that, very, very, very, unlikely in my opinion as the only proof you have is found within your own mind, but its still a possibility.

A possibility exists that you may be absolutely right and there also exists a possibility for every other outcome. Your have decided to side with your internal examination (other personality, malfunctioning CPU, conclusions drawn on a basis other than observed reality) and call it proof of god. When the neurons lose electical power to your brain, do you have proof of data transmission to the universal mind? Or do you have proof of such continous transmissions now? I'm am but an engineer and not a scientist so I require the data in a form that is understandable, one that can be measured or tested. If you can't do that its in the realm of a probability or a theory. You therefore must prove your theory by testing using the scientific method.

2-I can make a completely separate statement that I absolutely do not agree with you and you can believe cows fly on Sundays when the leader of the UN is named Riddick and the planets are in alignment with the center of the galaxy but only if it occurs on the 4th Tuesday of July. The two statements do not connect to one another.

 

Paisley wrote:

Quote:
Your original request for help was BS, but I'll let that go.

The question posed in the OP was as sincere as RRS's slogan "Believe in God? We can fix that."

My point was you did not come here to be fixed at all it was insincere, as all of your posts have shown.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
tothiel wrote:So your

tothiel wrote:
So your putting forth blind faith and backing it with invincible ignorance while attempting to peg atheistic materialism as irrational? Boy, if that's not a solid plan I don't know what is.

I have never denied that I live by an element of faith. Why is this irrational? It's not.

Reason and belief mutually entail each other. Without belief, there is no critical thinking. Every logical argument begins with a premise or assumption that is believed to be true. Problem solving requires not only logical analysis but also intuitive input.  This notion that faith and rationality are incompatible is simply false.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:tothiel

Paisley wrote:

tothiel wrote:
So your putting forth blind faith and backing it with invincible ignorance while attempting to peg atheistic materialism as irrational? Boy, if that's not a solid plan I don't know what is.

I have never denied that I live by an element of faith. Why is this irrational? It's not.

Reason and belief mutually entail each other. Without belief, there is no critical thinking. Every logical argument begins with a premise or an assumption that is believed to be true. Problem solving requires not only logical analysis but also intuitive input.  This notion that faith and rationality are incompatible is simply false.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Ah, but what

BMcD wrote:
Ah, but what happened to:

Why don't you let "ProzacDeathWish" respond for himself?

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
If we agree that everyone desires happiness, then how can anyone say that life doesn't have a purpose?

As I said in the initial reply to that: This is an internal purpose, one that arises from within. And yet you seem to consider it significant enough to establish that 'life has a purpose'... except, apparently, to atheists, despite the fact that atheists here are the ones maintaining that the find purpose in their own lives.

If commonality of one internal purpose is enough for you to say 'how can anyone say that life doesn't have a purpose?', then how is it that you dismiss the general category of internally-arising purpose as a view that life is 'meaningless and absurd'?

No, I'm saying that if life has an intrinsic purpose, then you are ascribing purpose or telos to nature herself. As such, you are making a teleological argument for the existence of God. In the atheistic worldview, life does not have an intrinsic purpose. Evolution is not guided by purpose, but by the inexorable laws of nature and blind chance.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
G O D ?

   G    O   D   ?    Picking and creating  D O G M A  is religion.  Be a scientist of G A W E D ,  not a freak begging and praying and making shit up , ..... it is not helpful when one thinks their awe is special  .....  We are ONE , we are god .....  why think of consciousness as magic or whatever ? ...... get use to it ..... yeah this can be scary .....

...... and some say "god don't care" , hey but god does care, and so is evolution, and yes I want to live forever and recreate myself at will ..... so I do, I AM ...... until the END that will never come ....... just as there was no beginning ..... Can ya feel the NOW ! Can ya type ! 

A M G O D, is that pig latin ????           ( no disrespect to pigs, as we are ONE )  

Forget god confusion, accept it as god, said a wise buddha ......     stop lying, and pretending ......    

G O D is not in control , there is no creator , no beginning .... but yes, wishes and desires, consciousness. Ask how, but don't invent doggy answers. ( words are nearly useless ????? )

..... communication proves it all ..... so godly ..... wow indeed .... the AWE


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Paisley

zarathustra wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I will acknowledge that my basic belief in God is probably "not rationally derived."

"Probably?"  Are you therefore admitting you're not even certain where your "basic belief" is derived from?

I have never denied that I have BELIEFS. Everyone does...atheists included!

I believe my "belief in God" is derived (at least partially) from a spiritual intuition or sensing.

zarathustra wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is not to say that it is irrational. I distinguish between the terms irrational and nonrational. The nonrational is that which is not derived through rational means.

Very well.  What, pray tell, is the irrational then, such that it is distinct from the nonrational?

I am defining "nonrational" in this context to refer to intuition.

zarathustra wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Faith most-likely stems from spiritual intuition, not logical analysis. This view is called "fideism."

"Most-likely"? 

With all due respect, recall the first time I asked you to:

Quote:
explain how you rationally arrived at your pantheistic belief

If anything, on the first occasion of my asking, this would have been the time for you to have said that your belief was in fact nonrational.  Instead, you actually attempted to rationally defend your belief -- albeit with half-hearted and insufficient explanations.  Only after this attempt foundered did you coin this new "nonrational" term.  And even so, you betray a certain level of uncertainty, having to cushion your statements with "probably" and "most likely".

The truth of the matter is that I have always believed in God. There was never a time in my life that I didn't. So, my first inclination was to give you a rational argument why I believe in God. However, as I thought about it later, I came to realize that my belief also has a intuitive component. I really do feel the presence of or connection to a mind greater than my own. Moreover, this phenomena seems to have some scientific support. There is something called the "God gene."

Quote:
The God gene hypothesis states that some human beings bear a gene which gives them a predisposition to episodes interpreted by some as religious revelation. The idea has been postulated and promoted by geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Hamer has written a book on the subject titled, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.

According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2), is not an encoding for the belief in God itself but a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mystic experiences, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind.(source: Wikipedia "God gene")

It appears that atheism may be some kind of genetic defect. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Paisley wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I agree. I accept that I am insignificant in the "vast scheme of things".  Even among  my own species, which now number over 6 billion, I am insignificant beyond the  small sphere of my personal influence. Since that is an issue that is beyond my control why should it bother me ?

I accept that I will die and be forgotten.  The same is true of every generation that is born and then passes away into obscurity, never to return.  The process is beyond my control.

The universe is cruel and indifferent....so, what should I do throw a temper tantrum ?  Hire an attorney and file a lawsuit ?

Or better yet, perhaps to elevate my sense of self-worth I will do as so many others have done and simply tap into my imagination and invent a god to jealously fawn over me.

Just curse the nonexistent God and die? Sounds like a good purpose to me.

Wow, Paisley for a person who is all about absolute truth your response clearly indicates that you completely failed to grasp the meaning of my post.  

What exactly have I failed to grasp?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Paisley  ????   which

  Paisley  ????   which and what god ? Hanging on a > word <  ...... ????   You are  making the word dogmatic  ,   why ,  what is your  purpose ?????????????????


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD wrote:Ah,

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Ah, but what happened to:

Why don't you let "ProzacDeathWish" respond for himself?

My pointing out your inconsistency doesn't prevent PDW from responding at all.

Paisley wrote:

No, I'm saying that if life has an intrinsic purpose, then you are ascribing purpose or telos to nature herself. As such, you are making a teleological argument for the existence of God. In the atheistic worldview, life does not have an intrinsic purpose. Evolution is not guided by purpose, but by the inexorable laws of nature and blind chance.

A)As 'intrinsic' can mean 'originating or due to causes within a body, organ or part', the purpose we ascribe to our own lives does qualify as an intrinsic purpose.

B)If we do go with the 'belonging to the essential nature of a thing' definition, which seems to be the one you're going with, then that still does not even begin to address the idea I put forth in my later post. Specifically, that the purpose to all physical and chemical reactions in the universe would be to process the universe from its initial state into its final state, and that life, as a subset of those chemical reactions, and in fact really nothing more than a series of complex and self-perpetuating chemical reactions, thus shares that purpose: to participate in the processing of the universe into its final state.

 

"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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
One must want to be fixed

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

"Probably?"  Are you therefore admitting you're not even certain where your "basic belief" is derived from?

I believe my "belief in God" is derived (at least partially) from a spiritual intuition or sensing.

You believe your 'belief in god" derives (at least partially) from a spiritual intuition or sensing.

Are you therefore admitting you're not even certain where your "basic belief" is derived from? (Since you only believe it derives thusly, rather than knowing it derives thusly).

If your belief in god is derived partially (as far as you believe it is derived) from a spiritual intuition or sensing, please also relate the other sources from which you believe your belief derives -- so that we may have the total derivation of your belief.

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Very well.  What, pray tell, is the irrational then, such that it is distinct from the nonrational?

I am defining "nonrational" in this context to refer to intuition.

Very well.  What, pray tell, is the irrational then, such that it is distinct from the nonrational?

Paisley wrote:

The truth of the matter is that I have always believed in God. There was never a time in my life that I didn't. So, my first inclination was to give you a rational argument why I believe in God.

Whether or not you actually always believed in god is an interesting question worth pursuing.  Yet to stay on point:

If this is indeed so, your first inclination ought to have been to relate this at the outset, rather than announcing it as we rapidly approach 300 posts, and only after having caught yourself in a blatant contradiction.  This should have been obvious, since when I asked you to:

Quote:
explain how you rationally arrived at your pantheistic belief

your immediate response would have been

"Actually, I didn't rationally arrive at my belief, I always had it."

Indeed, if you always had this belief, I don't think you would have found it necessary to ask yourself:

which was your very first attempt at an explanation when asked by me to:

Quote:
explain how you rationally arrived at your pantheistic belief

The inclination prior to your first inclination ought to have been to realize that the alleged provenance and longevity of your belief in no way renders your belief rational.  The inclination after your first inclination ought to have been to realize that with this basis for your beliefs, you were in no position to define atheism as irrational (as you continue to do, even after having contradicted yourself in the process of explaining your belief).  For surely you must have considered that an atheist might say:

"The truth of the matter is that I have never believed in God. There was never a time in my life that I did."

and his argument would be no less coherent than yours.

 

Paisley wrote:
However, as I thought about it later, I came to realize that my belief also has a intuitive component.

Is this the final, revision-free explanation of your beliefs?  Or do you believe that if you think about it more later, you will come to realize that your belief also has other components which we don't yet know about?

Paisley wrote:

I really do feel the presence of or connection to a mind greater than my own.

At all times, or just when you're on this forum?

Paisley wrote:
Moreover, this phenomena seems to have some scientific support. There is something called the "God gene."

Quote:
The God gene hypothesis states that some human beings bear a gene which gives them a predisposition to episodes interpreted by some as religious revelation. The idea has been postulated and promoted by geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Hamer has written a book on the subject titled, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.

According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2), is not an encoding for the belief in God itself but a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mystic experiences, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind.(source: Wikipedia "God gene")

It appears that atheism may be some kind of genetic defect. 

 

It "appears"?  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.

It appears you are on the verge of yet another contradiction.

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Actually any further

  After following Paisley for ten, tedious pages while he offers nothing but convoluted, evasive non-answers I have lost any hope that anything productive will result on this thread.  I am convinced now more than ever that expecting most theists to rationally explain their beliefs is an utter waste of time.

 

Besides, all definitions of god are arbitrary and Paisley has simply offered yet another tiring version of what this concept means to him.  I will include his unsubstantiated claims among the arguments made by other arrogant theists ( wzedi, brave-theist ) who have have pompously marched onto the forum and chased their tail while loudly proclaiming to possess absolute truth.

Paisley is a panentheistic street preacher who cannot accept the uncomfortable reality that rational persons would actually reject his personal god-concept.  Apparently his arrogance compelled him to issue a ( false ) challenge and now his arrogance prevents him from leavingunless he can claim victory.

ps, you're going to be here a looooooooong time, Paisley.

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Hey

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
Hey Paisley , I've forgotten where this thread was heading, but think you might also enjoy this current one.

"Proof that god exists"

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.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:This is where

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.

So the presence of any consciousness leads you to the conclusion "God-belief"? Are you just extrapolating? I mean, if a monkey has a kind-of consciousness, and we have more consciousness, then there's probably another being that has even more consciousness than we do? I could at least follow that.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Consciousness does not require a God-belief

 

Consciousness does not require a God-belief; it is simply a possible pathway in your thoughts. There are other paths that also exist in your mind as well. Your mind, your environment, and your experiences but not reality influenced your conclusion that the pathway of a God-belief is the correct choice. You determined that if happiness is a purpose in life, it must therefore be caused by the pathway of God-belief. You ignored the pathway that evolution a process not guided by a purpose as you say following blind chance could have resulted in an intelligent species that sees a purpose in and of itself. In my discussion to you of possibilities it is one that also exists, but you dismiss it as materialistic not worthy of your consideration. You of course are free to do that but it doesn’t change a thing as it still is a pathway you ignore. What’s more the only physical proof that the “intelligent species” has at this point is the one based on the process of evolution. As pointed out to you a considerable number of times including your own admission, your conclusions are based on belief. You have also said it includes a component of mindless mass/energy/spacetime. So you have belief pieces that you are intermingling with observation pieces. It isn’t the intermingling that is in error, but the sudden conclusion that this fits your God-belief pathway and nothing else. You have tunnel-vision. Your response will be so do atheists. Yes, but we have a basis in reality for it and you have only a hunch.

 

As an engineer I understand the approach of intuitive thinking, but only those paths shown to be based on a logical basis are useful as knowledge of the physical reality increases. Jumping to the conclusion that the God-belief path is the cause is ignoring all other paths and is not objective or rational. This results in your answer to everything is based on the God-belief path, causing you to attempt to fit pieces of the puzzle only in it and completely disregard that these same pieces fit together in a different way entirely. The pieces of the puzzle have not all been found and it is illogical on your part to assume your mind contains the exact solution and the remaining unidentified parts of the puzzle.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So to use a trinitarian theology you must have some valid evidence and proof to do so.
Please state whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or theist.

I am an atheist and ex-believer in Christianity that had years of training and indoctrination in parochial schools and home.

Okay. The reason I asked is because I was trying to understand why an atheist (like yourself) would require a trinitarian (like myself) to justify his belief in a triune Godhead by appealing to historical Judaism. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Paisley

Eloise wrote:
Paisley wrote:
If I understand you correctly, do you perceive neutral monism as being compatible with RQM?

Well, to begin, Einstein's relativity was heavily informed by the work of Ernst Mach, a neutral monist (that all neutral monists would do well to get acquainted with), who once said: "Physics is experience, arranged in economical order."

RQM is essentially an extension of the same schema coming from Mach and Einstein (and Liebniz incidentally - the three have more in common than having famously taken a bite out of Newton) over the Quantum theory. To a significant extent neutral monist philosophy is the birthplace of relational physics, I'd say they are very compatible.

Okay. This was my take too. Process thought seems to dovetail nicely with RQM. Also, relational physics appears to have affinity with the Buddhist concept of "dependent co-arising" or "mutual causality" (pratityasamutpada).

Quote:
The doctrine of Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद) or Paticcasamuppāda, Pali: पतिचसमुपादा; Tibetan: rten.cing.'brel.bar.'byung.ba; Chinese: 緣起) Dependent Arising is an important part of Buddhist metaphysics. Common to all schools of Buddhism, it states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. It is variously rendered into English as "dependent origination", "conditioned genesis", "dependent co-arising", "interdependent arising", etc (source: Wikipedia "Pratyasamutprada")

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I not saying that your personal life is meaningless per se. (I believe everyone's life has ultimate meaning and value.) But I do believe that atheism presents a worldview that, when logically analyzed, portrays life as ultimately meaningless and absurd. Nothing said here in this thread or elsewhere leads me to believe otherwise.

I believe you mean that when YOU logically analyze the atheistic worldview, you see something that is ultimately meaningless and absurd. That last part is your jugement, and it's based on nothing but your own imagination. Even those people here who have told you that life has meaning for them - even those who have told you that life has meaning ultimately for them - you ignore. So for you, the fearsome position of godlessness presents meaningless because you yourself would lack meaning without a god. That's not the case for everyone.

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.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:
Metaphysics really isn't all that impressive, though, is it?

The point is that you live your life based on beliefs.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So to use a trinitarian theology you must have some valid evidence and proof to do so.
Please state whether you are an atheist, agnostic, or theist.

I am an atheist and ex-believer in Christianity that had years of training and indoctrination in parochial schools and home.

Okay. The reason I asked is because I was trying to understand why an atheist (like yourself) would require a trinitarian (like myself) to justify his belief in a triune Godhead by appealing to historical Judaism. 

As I have a lot of experience and knowledge of Christianity and its roots I knew that Judaism never had a trinitarian concept. The knowledge I have of religion helped me lose my beliefs because it was contradicted by observed reality. That was fairly clear in my previous post about 100 posts ago. Your basis for God being the god of Judaism, did not have the trinity concept. I can only imagine you have apparently accepted the proliferation of 2nd and 3rd century apologists based on their conjecture from 180 to the council of Nicea as a reason for a trinity. If not you must have that information in your neurons from a hidden transmission of information unmeasured by the rest of the world. As I pointed out previously, Jesus (as shown in the KJV Bible) never set forth a doctrine promoting or even hinting at such a concept. The point being if the original religion didn't have it, and the alleged messiah didn't speak of it, where other than out of the ether into your neural sensors did it come from? Is that clear for you?

____________________________________________________________
"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.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: If there is

Paisley wrote:

 

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.

  Okay, we get it. 

Now please, go play with your friend The Eternal Mind and leave us to wallow in our meaningless and valueless lives. 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:If there is no

Paisley wrote:

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.

Why do you need a cosmic referee? Don't you trust yourself? And why does eternity create value? Value is usually associated with scarcity, and in this case, the scarcity is one of time. Because life is brief, it is valuable, and every bit of time is valuable.

Maybe the above is why I'm having a hard time understanding your point of view.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The point is

Paisley wrote:

The point is that you live your life based on beliefs.

Yes. The justification of my beliefs is pretty concrete. I don't tend to form my beliefs based on metaphysics, since metaphysics really doesn't help. Saying "materialism is a metaphysical belief" doesn't mean much to me, since I don't care what metaphysicists would call me. In fact, metaphysics doesn't do much.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Paisley

magilum wrote:

Paisley wrote:
What's at issue here is not whether the working assumption of materialism is practical, but whether it is ultimately true.

You're assuming an ultimate is actual, an ultimate is available, and an ultimate is relevant. (And this is all regarding an incoherent idea.) There's the possibility all these notions are false. Even then, none of it necessitates even the most watered down conception of a god -- whatever that would even be, since the whole game is just a crude, irrational anthropomorphism.

You either missing that point in your reply, or deliberately evading it.

That science is practical is not proof that the materialistic worldview is true.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead