Curiousity About Theists...

Costiny
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Curiousity About Theists...

I've wondered why theists get so defensive when they're challenged.  I would think that if you believe in God and know for sure that you're right then it wouldn't matter what anyone else said.  You have an all-powerful being on your side, why would you even have to say anything or do anything to defend that?  I think an all-powerful being is powerful enough to defend him/her/itself.  I'm also curious as to why theists don't listen to atheists and just laugh at them for being ignorant about the existence of God?  I'm sure there are theists out there who do that, but I haven't had much experience with them.  I know that when I come across a theist trying to explain the truth of God and the Bible I find it difficult not to at least crack a smile, if not giggle.  I'm curious what atheists and theists think about this.  Perhaps I'm just generalizing, but I'm always open to being corrected.  Thanks Smiling


Venkatrajan
Theist
Posts: 71
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
1. It is not defense. It is

1. It is not defense. It is an attempt to guide you to grace which you miss out.

 2. God is not only on our side, but on your side also, he is compassionate. 

3. He doesnt need defenses. He is not a human like us where he needs to defend against someone.

4. You are equating listening to actually getting convinced about non existence of God.

5. You smile and giggle because of following reasons :-

a. You are an egotist rationalist whose only true God is Logic/evidence/Science etc.

b. Further you probably lack insight leading to simpleton thinking. Meaning what is before me that only exists.

 

 

I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God


Costiny
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: 1. It

Venkatrajan wrote:

1. It is not defense. It is an attempt to guide you to grace which you miss out.

2. God is not only on our side, but on your side also, he is compassionate.

3. He doesnt need defenses. He is not a human like us where he needs to defend against someone.

4. You are equating listening to actually getting convinced about non existence of God.

5. You smile and giggle because of following reasons :-

a. You are an egotist rationalist whose only true God is Logic/evidence/Science etc.

b. Further you probably lack insight leading to simpleton thinking. Meaning what is before me that only exists.

 

 

 

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciated the nice jabs at me at the end. I might be an egotist. I've tried to make that claim, but my therapist keeps telling me I'm not. Either way, I could talk all night about myself...get it? lol Anyway, thanks for the response. I do appreciate the insight.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15917
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: 1. It

Venkatrajan wrote:

1. It is not defense. It is an attempt to guide you to grace which you miss out.

2. God is not only on our side, but on your side also, he is compassionate.

3. He doesnt need defenses. He is not a human like us where he needs to defend against someone.

4. You are equating listening to actually getting convinced about non existence of God.

5. You smile and giggle because of following reasons :-

a. You are an egotist rationalist whose only true God is Logic/evidence/Science etc.

b. Further you probably lack insight leading to simpleton thinking. Meaning what is before me that only exists.

 

1.Ambiguous feel good warm fuzzy, "I like the idea of having a magical super hero" is not evidence.

2."Compassionate" really? Genocide, natural disaster, war, crime like rape and pediophila, all under daddy's watch where he selectively gets involved. Not very good quality control if you ask me.

3."he doesnt need defenses" really? So why do you make attempts to defend him?

4. We did listen and it doesnt make sense. Just like if I claimed I could fart a Lamborginni out of my butt and litterally believed I could. You are just taking it personally because we challenge your claims too.

5. Nope, not an egotist. I simply dont base my life choices on myth. You dont make choices based on belief in Thor. When you understand why you dont base life choices on Thor, you'll understand why we dont base our choices on your diety either. Logic is not a god anymore than "off " is a TV channel. Logic is certainly more usefull than Santa for adults. 

6. You falsely, like other believers of other deities, assume a "who" and never consider that a "what". New agers call the universe a cognative conciousness. They are just as unfounded in their naked assertion as you are with your ancient myth. Again, you seem to take things personally insted of trying to understand why we chalenge you.

What we dont know about the universe should not constitute incerting a magical fictional super hero of any religion or myth in where we dont know something.

We do know what a human brain looks like. Since we do we know that conciousness cannot exist outside it, theirfore the universe cannot act like a giant brain, and there is no such thing as a disimbodied conciousness, be it a claim of a ghost or a deity.You are crying sour grapes because we are facing you with a reality you dont want to face. We cannot help you if you dont want help.

You are doing no different than any other deity believer of any label. You are projecting human qualities on something you want to be real. You have baught a concept of a fictional "super parent" to fill in the gaps when answers are not available. 

Insted of crying like a baby when faced with the truth, why not look at the claims you make. If you are wrong, would you want to waste your entire life believing an absurdity? We are trying to help you understand. Most of us here used to believe the same absurdities you still do now. You are taking it personally when it is us trying to help you. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


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

Costiny wrote:
I've wondered why theists get so defensive when they're challenged. I would think that if you believe in God and know for sure that you're right then it wouldn't matter what anyone else said. You have an all-powerful being on your side, why would you even have to say anything or do anything to defend that? I think an all-powerful being is powerful enough to defend him/her/itself.

 

I agree with all of that.

 

Quote:

I'm also curious as to why theists don't listen to atheists and just laugh at them for being ignorant about the existence of God? I'm sure there are theists out there who do that, but I haven't had much experience with them.

 

Meh, depends what the atheist says, people are unique in too many ways to be making these kind of generalisations. Fact is, we've all been ignorant about the existence of God, allowing theism to fly blind for too long, this forum is testament to the problems that causes, and it is, unfortunately, not a laughing matter in many ways. 

 

Quote:

I know that when I come across a theist trying to explain the truth of God and the Bible I find it difficult not to at least crack a smile, if not giggle. I'm curious what atheists and theists think about this. Perhaps I'm just generalizing, but I'm always open to being corrected. Thanks Smiling

Yeah, you're generalising, but I've put my two cents in anyway. I think it bears asking why theism and atheism are in this debate at all and I'm glad you did, for the record.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Zombie
RRS local affiliate
Zombie's picture
Posts: 573
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Part of it is compassion,

Part of it is compassion, they want to save you from eternal suffering I think. AT least thats how i used to feel when I was that way.

Morte alla tyrannus et dei


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: 1. It

Venkatrajan wrote:

1. It is not defense. It is an attempt to guide you to grace which you miss out.

2. God is not only on our side, but on your side also, he is compassionate.

3. He doesnt need defenses. He is not a human like us where he needs to defend against someone.

4. You are equating listening to actually getting convinced about non existence of God.

5. You smile and giggle because of following reasons :-

a. You are an egotist rationalist whose only true God is Logic/evidence/Science etc.

b. Further you probably lack insight leading to simpleton thinking. Meaning what is before me that only exists.

 

1.  Well since I was a theist for 30 years, believe me, you're being defensive when you debate declared Atheists.  The people you are talking about "saving" are people that have never heard of christ, not those that have already heard and rejected the idea of.

2.  If god can do ANYTHING but still made a reality where the VAST majority of humans will rot in hell for all eternity...well he is malevolent.  To think otherwise is to rationalize absurd reasoning.

3.  I agree god is not a human like us.  The tooth fairy isn't a human like us either.  They are both a myth.

4.  You are equating to not believing in god to be the same as believing that god doesn't exist.  Small wording difference, huge actual difference in reality.

5a. You debate because your only true god is illogical, unethical, extremely inept at salvation, and would basically be fired for incompetence.

5b. Further, you are not a simpleton but still think like a simpleton because of your indoctrination.  Meaning that you believe in ridiculous statements with no facts to back it up but with a lot of logic to prove otherwise.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1. It is not

Quote:

1. It is not defense. It is an attempt to guide you to grace which you miss out.

Again, your utterly insufferable arrogance and condescending superiority tone reveals itself. Your arguments get shot to pieces, blown apart, rent asunder, over and over. I have engaged you and your propositions and every time you have been unable to defend them. And yet you have the gall to think that YOU have the epistemological high ground! It is for this reason that I suggest you cease the facade of condescending arrogance, by which I mean why don't you stop calling everyone "my dear", as if the other person was a lost lamb, when in fact, the other person has been atomizing your arguments!

Here is the cold hard fact. If you cannot defend your proposition from my refutation, why should I take your proposition into consideration? 

The worst part is that you consider the very act of arguing to be "egotist". This is simply a tactic for holding valid points at arms length so you don't have to argue against them. If the very act of critically examining your claims is antithetical to your belief in them, then you shouldn't hold them as true!  That would entail an internal contradiction.

Your utterly malignant tone is a mask for the fact that your propositions cannot be defended.

Quote:

 2. God is not only on our side, but on your side also, he is compassionate.

This makes no sense. Barely moments ago you were speaking of intrinsic monoism. Now you are referring to a seperate ontological  category and invoking something extant! In your prior propositions, the God you speak of now would have not fit into your description. Could you possibly make any less sense? The God you describe is the monotheistic God, a seperate ontological category, an entity unto itself. Yet in that other thread where I ripped you to shreds you explicitly rejected that proposition!

Quote:

 3. He doesnt need defenses. He is not a human like us where he needs to defend against someone.

Category Error

Quote:

 4. You are equating listening to actually getting convinced about non existence of God.

Well, if being convinced was a measure of how well your arguments did against your opponent, I would say you should be pretty bloody convinced, because when we face off, I have torn you to shreds each time, but you decide to ignore roughly 90% of each post. When you do respond, your response is almost always syntactically incorrect nonsense.

Quote:

 . You are an egotist rationalist whose only true God is Logic/evidence/Science etc.

SEE! Whenever the debate doesn't go his way, he simply attacks the very idea of arguing a proposition itself on grounds that he doesn't really like that idea, calling anyone who engages his propositions with critical evaluation an "egotist rationalist". THat is not a valid statement, nor is calling anyone an "egotist" any sort of dent in their arguments against your propositions and their arguments for their own propositions. The mere act of engaging in a defense of a proposition or an attack on another proposition is given the same label. Of course, the label means nothing. Nor is making the variant on ad ignorantium a valid justification for a premise. What Vek is advocating is essentially epistemologically anarchic, which is self-refuting.

If Vek protests that his propositions are somehow exempt from being invalidated (which is exactly what he has done), and complained that the mere act of attempting such invalidation is "egotist", then he has created an epistemic vortex, a black hole from which nothing, including his own propositions, escape!

The fact of the matter is, you cannot defend your propositions by

a) Appealing that they are "Exempt" from axioms (this idea presupposes the coherency of axioms

b) Appealling to the fact that your opponent is "egotist"

c) Attempting to take the high ground by being incredibly condescending without making a valid point

d) Demanding that ones opponent provide epistemic justification for their premises and simultaneously balk at the demand for justifiaction of his premises

e) Appealling to the fact that your opponent is a "rationalist" (I'm actually an empiricist...) and that your propositions are exempt from rational inquiry (for reasons you have not explain, and ironically, by your own terms, the mere attempt to do so would refute your premise or vice-versa, since the premise presupposes that it is "Exempt" from logical criticism. Really, your proposition has a gaping hole in it, one which you created.

You can see that your whole epistemological system basically collapses around itself. 

There happens to be a very excellent reason to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour on December 7th 1941. COnsequently , the idea that the Egyptians did it actually lacks credibility. Religious metaphysical propositions do not have such epistemic justifications as there is no established epistemic method of evaluating their knowledge claims!  If you don't like the idea that you have to defend your propositions, first on coherence then on correspondance, because they make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, then you should not even be here!

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Costiny wrote: I've

Costiny wrote:
I've wondered why theists get so defensive when they're challenged. I would think that if you believe in God and know for sure that you're right then it wouldn't matter what anyone else said. You have an all-powerful being on your side, why would you even have to say anything or do anything to defend that? I think an all-powerful being is powerful enough to defend him/her/itself. I'm also curious as to why theists don't listen to atheists and just laugh at them for being ignorant about the existence of God? I'm sure there are theists out there who do that, but I haven't had much experience with them. I know that when I come across a theist trying to explain the truth of God and the Bible I find it difficult not to at least crack a smile, if not giggle. I'm curious what atheists and theists think about this. Perhaps I'm just generalizing, but I'm always open to being corrected. Thanks Smiling

 I think the theists you are talking about get defensive because they want to save your soul from helfire.  Personally, I just let other people live their lives as rationally as they know how.  If they want to discuss religion with me, then I discuss it.  Otherwise I mostly stay out of other people's lives.


Costiny
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
All these responses are

All these responses are great.  I appreciate the atheists that refuted the five points that were made.  I was going to respond directly to each one, but once he/she decided to judge me personally I figured it was pointless.  About the saving from hellfire or showing the grace or whatever, an above post mentioned exactly how I feel.  How do you try to "save" someone who has already been "saved" and who had come to the realization that it didn't mean anything?  I guess that's a question for a different post, but I do appreciate the responses from this post and hope to see more. 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Costiny wrote: I've

Costiny wrote:
I've wondered why theists get so defensive when they're challenged.

Quite simply, we have a great deal of emotional investment in the whole theism bit. It (generally) works for us, we like it, and most of us have lived with it for a long time. I imagine that, as you go back through history, religious people have been less and less defensive. However, history has taught us that our respective gods rarely bother to stand up for themselves. This makes us a bit edgy, as it were.

I consider it to be similar to talking about a person's mother. Granted, it goes without saying that no one's mother is perfect, but you would find, I believe, if you examined the general populace, that most of us would get a bit defensive, were our mothers openly insulted or criticized. We form attachments to our religious beliefs, it seems.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Quite simply, we have a great deal of emotional investment in the whole theism bit. It (generally) works for us, we like it, and most of us have lived with it for a long time.

Agreed. Religion is not based on logic but emotion. Just like a child who will cry when you tell them Santa is not real, RRS tells people that god is not real. People will respond just as emotionally and illogically.

You are not going to live forever. The good will not be rewarded in the hereafter. Nor will the bad be punished. We just die and dissappear from existence.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Agreed.

Watcher wrote:

Agreed. Religion is not based on logic but emotion. Just like a child who will cry when you tell them Santa is not real, RRS tells people that god is not real. People will respond just as emotionally and illogically.

none of the theists here are children.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote: none

RationalDeist wrote:

none of the theists here are children.

Odd that they still act like children when it comes to god. 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist

RationalDeist wrote:
Watcher wrote:

Agreed. Religion is not based on logic but emotion. Just like a child who will cry when you tell them Santa is not real, RRS tells people that god is not real. People will respond just as emotionally and illogically.

none of the theists here are children.

You don't have to be a child to act like one. But thanks for further demonstrating the whole "defensive" bit.


RationalDeist
Theist
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher

Watcher wrote:
RationalDeist wrote:

none of the theists here are children.

Odd that they still act like children when it comes to god.

I think everyone can see who here is acting like a child.  Note that children often resort to insult as a form of argument.  While certainly some theists may be mentally handicaped and still think like a child, generalizing such a thing is ridiculous and a lewd attempt to provoke.  I think I know a troll when I see one.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote: I

RationalDeist wrote:
I think everyone can see who here is acting like a child. Note that children often resort to insult as a form of argument. While certainly some theists may be mentally handicaped and still think like a child, generalizing such a thing is ridiculous and a lewd attempt to provoke. I think I know a troll when I see one.

*grins*  You truly do not like me, do you?  LosingStreak was much more aggressive in his reply to your statement yet you do not deem it necessary to respond to him.

A troll makes statements only to inflame people's emotion.  I'm not here to do that.  I'm here to rationally debate.

I posit that theists do, as a rule, act like children when someone tells them that god does not exist.

They stop listening, they run away, or they get very angry and cannot defend their beliefs.  So they resort to screaming and leveling unprovable threats of hellfire.  I see all of these qualities as being as a child.

While there are a few theists that do not do this, they are the EXTREME minority.  

Do you think otherwise?  How so?

Or am I just being a troll? 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Defensive Theists

"If god can do ANYTHING but still made a reality where the VAST majority of humans will rot in hell for all eternity...well he is malevolent. To think otherwise is to rationalize absurd reasoning."

 

Free will.... would you prefer slavery? While I can see the place from which the above argument comes I assure you it does not come from any place that will give you any positional authority in the judgement.

 

"Further, you are not a simpleton but still think like a simpleton because of your indoctrination. Meaning that you believe in ridiculous statements with no facts to back it up but with a lot of logic to prove otherwise."

 

I dunno.... I think that which looks back at me when I look in a mirror is quite full of this "evidence" which you atheists dogmatically insist does not exist. It may seem that we theists that bother to come on these types of forums get defensive or whatever. Perhaps there are some that just come in un-prepared to spend the necessary time to actually answer questions or rebutt claims made by the fools that anxiously attempt to spread their foolishness. I've spent hundreds of posts involved in debates containing thousands and I've found myself correcting other theists/supporting some atheist positions. I've been in the position of fending off ideological assaults from every quarter and it gets tiring if you run around the rabbit holes created by atheists and some theists alike. Alot of theists find themselves in this position rather quickly and some just don't feel like putting in the real effort required to take part. They get lazy and their posts can, in an effort to stop the onslaught, fall into the fire/brimstone comments you're talking about.

I myself welcome the debate and make every effort to avoid threatening individuals with hell fire..... That fire burns quite well without any effort from me.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

"If god can do ANYTHING but still made a reality where the VAST majority of humans will rot in hell for all eternity...well he is malevolent. To think otherwise is to rationalize absurd reasoning."

 

Free will.... would you prefer slavery? While I can see the place from which the above argument comes I assure you it does not come from any place that will give you any positional authority in the judgement.

What would you call a reality where you either MUST accept god or burn in hell for all eternity? That IS slavery. Do what I say or...well not only die, dieing is too fucking easy. After you die you will languish in torment for an eternity. You will plead to die.

WTF are you talking about? Christianity is NOT slavery? How? You are free to go about your business if you choose not to subscribe? Hell fucking no, you will burn for an eternity.

 

tr1nity wrote:

"Further, you are not a simpleton but still think like a simpleton because of your indoctrination. Meaning that you believe in ridiculous statements with no facts to back it up but with a lot of logic to prove otherwise."

 

I dunno.... I think that which looks back at me when I look in a mirror is quite full of this "evidence" which you atheists dogmatically insist does not exist.

Do you know what is funny? You just referred to me as "you atheist". I was raised in church, my grandfather was a deacon, my mother plays piano for a baptist church three times a week, I was baptized when I was 7, I argued on gods side in my 20's, I was raised to think atheist=communist=satanist.

My "dogmatic" ass is going completely against not only what I was raised to believe but to put on the mantle of supposedly "pure evil". Yet I have three daughters I have yet to molest or slaughter. How odd of me.

tr1nity wrote:

I myself welcome the debate and make every effort to avoid threatening individuals with hell fire..... That fire burns quite well without any effort from me.

You just did it. That "fire burns quite well without any effort from you" burns for me to roast in doesn't it? Where am I going when I die, tr1nity? Am I going to that fire that burns without your effort?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Is Christianity Slavery?

Watcher wrote:

What would you call a reality where you either MUST accept god or burn in hell for all eternity? That IS slavery. Do what I say or...well not only die, dieing is too fucking easy. After you die you will languish in torment for an eternity. You will plead to die.

WTF are you talking about? Christianity is NOT slavery? How?

Good question, a fair one I'll grant you. It being a fair question does not mean that it is honorable. I'll attempt to explain what I fear will be seen as almost obvious, but for your sake I will take up this task.

Being a slave if you will to that which is good is only slavery to those that wish evil. Being forced to be good without the option to choose is forced subordination or slavery. So to see good as something that seems to you to be forced on you is your problem, not goods problem. God, in order to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful must stop evil from destroying good and all evil must be answered for with punishment. For God to fellowship with us He had to allow us to choose for ourselves just as He chooses for Himself.

Not slavery.....family.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Where am I

Watcher wrote:
Where am I going when I die, tr1nity? Am I going to that fire that burns without your effort?

It should not seem so amazing that many will be thrown into the lake of fire. What is amazing is that any of us should be saved at all.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Yet I have

Watcher wrote:
Yet I have three daughters I have yet to molest or slaughter. How odd of me.

 

The common mistake of the atheist is to assume that doing the right thing from time to time somehow requires God to look favorably upon the guilty.

The hangman owes the damned only two things...a short drop with a sudden stop.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: Watcher

tr1nity wrote:
Watcher wrote:
Yet I have three daughters I have yet to molest or slaughter. How odd of me.

The common mistake of the atheist is to assume that doing the right thing from time to time somehow requires God to look favorably upon the guilty.

The hangman owes the damned only two things...a short drop with a sudden stop.

I suppose the only thing for an ad hoc would be an analogy.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It should not seem

Quote:

It should not seem so amazing that many will be thrown into the lake of fire. What is amazing is that any of us should be saved at all.

Is there any evidence for either of these claims?

Before considering that, consider that I can punch a hole straight through both claims by pointing out that they rely on logical fallacies known as reification, and also commits a category error, which I pointed out here:

 Fallacies Commonly Employed Against Naturalism Refuted

On the Monoism of the Brain and the Mind and the Debunking of Dualistic Propositions

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: Watcher

tr1nity wrote:

Watcher wrote:

What would you call a reality where you either MUST accept god or burn in hell for all eternity? That IS slavery. Do what I say or...well not only die, dieing is too fucking easy. After you die you will languish in torment for an eternity. You will plead to die.

WTF are you talking about? Christianity is NOT slavery? How?

Good question, a fair one I'll grant you. It being a fair question does not mean that it is honorable. I'll attempt to explain what I fear will be seen as almost obvious, but for your sake I will take up this task.

Being a slave if you will to that which is good is only slavery to those that wish evil. Being forced to be good without the option to choose is forced subordination or slavery. So to see good as something that seems to you to be forced on you is your problem, not goods problem.

 

 Heh, what's so good about 'christianity'? Seriously. If I had only the choice between 1. indulging obsessive hate and prejudice, submitting to the will of liars and theives, engaging in genocidal war and 2. atheism I'd have signed up for 2 long ago, I promise you. But how about you? Which is good of those two, you think?

Your arbitrary 'christian' line between good and bad doesn't impress God upon me one jot.

 

 

 

Quote:

God, in order to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful must stop evil from destroying good and all evil must be answered for with punishment. For God to fellowship with us He had to allow us to choose for ourselves just as He chooses for Himself.

Not slavery.....family.

Since when have 'christians' had personal freedom to choose between good and bad, is that how your church is, is it? Nobody in your church has a heavy conscience? You're conflating your christian church with goodness. Prove your claim. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:  The common

Quote:

 The common mistake of the atheist is to assume that doing the right thing from time to time somehow requires God to look favorably upon the guilty.

There is an epistemological hole in this. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. 

The Argument From Morality

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: Being a

tr1nity wrote:
Being a slave if you will to that which is good is only slavery to those that wish evil.

 

When slavery was still all the rage, there were some slave owners that treated there slaves very well, no mistreatment, good living quarters, excellent food, etc. But if a slave ran away they would still be whipped or even executed.

 

Slavery is still Slavery no matter how much icing you put on it. You would say that the slaves still had free will insofar as staying or going, but free will means there is no such catch in place.

 

I suppose suspected witches had free will as well, if they confessed to being a witch they would be burned at the stake. If they did not confess they would be tortured until they did confess. They had free will, they could of freely chosen the easy way out by being burned at the stake and not having to go through the multiple rounds of torture.

 

 

Remember it is ok not to be a Christian and it is ok to have a lack of belief in Gods.

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:

tr1nity wrote:

The hangman owes the damned only two things...a short drop with a sudden stop.

I'm disgusted by your psychopathic vitriol.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm disgusted by

Quote:

I'm disgusted by your psychopathic vitriol.

Hear, hear. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    I always loved the

    I always loved the FREE WILL arguement, if you wish to use it, then god is no more better than a pity dictator who's order is follow me or die, this is the option god has for you, follow me or burn in hell, how different is god from the dictators, terrorists and others that have forced their views onto others? This is the free will you speak of? Follow me or suffer. yes a loving, caring god he is. When islamic followers force others to follow their beliefs or die, we call them evil and ignorant, when dictators tell their people to follow or die they are evil bastards, when communist leaders slaughter their people for not following their views they are immoral bastards, when god does it, HE LOVES YOU!, remember that people.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I hate when Theists like

I hate when Theists like that show up.

 

They come in here preaching fire and birm stone and make a big mess, and who has to clean it up? I do.

 

These are preciously the kind of comments that hurt Theism. 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Since when is the Christian

Since when is the Christian situation much different than voluntary slavery?  People willingly submit to an invisible master and they believe it restricts how they live their life.  Follow the master, be a good slave or get a whippin (or hellfire of course.)


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
With Bated Breath

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I hate when Theists like that show up. They come in here preaching fire and birm stone and make a big mess, and who has to clean it up? I do.

I was just responding to the posts offered. A reason was brought up for one person being an atheist and I offered my rebuttals to that reasoning. How could perfection that maintains itself by the removal of imperfection be considered imperfect?

Now I have a little work to do here and I will post when I am finished. A few questions have been asked that will take me some time and effort to respond to. Stay tuned.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
a perfectionist? are you

a perfectionist? are you saying god is a perfectionist? wow, he screwed up majorly for a perfectionist, since we are all flawed, oh yeah so are the angels to wow, god is a great perfectionist, not does he get it wrong once, but twice. Your arugement is really flawed here. A perfect being creates imperfect beings? that makes no sense at all and makes your god seem well...imperfect, oh yeah he also uses the tactics of a pity dictator go figure.


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
RationalDeist wrote:   I

RationalDeist wrote:
  I think I know a troll when I see one.

Rational,

Please leave it to the Moderators to denounce trolls.  Thanks.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Tr1nity, Let's play a game

Tr1nity,

Let's play a game of imagination.  You are god.  You are all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing.

You create a planet and populate it with a creature in your image.  Now you really love the little buggers.  After all you are all-loving, right?

Now even though you are all-powerful you cannot forgive someone of going against your wishes unless a blood sacrifice is made.  Moreso, you call anything that goes against your wishes a sin.  Now even though you are all-powerful and you can do anything(except forgive people without a blood sacrifice) you can't even look on sin.

Ok, fast forward, You send your son who is also yourself to be slaughtered by the humans so if they accept his death for their personal sins, you can forgive them.  Ahem, what?

So let's look at the world we live in.  Over 6 billion humans.  Roughly maybe 1/3rd believe in Jesus at all.  Now even if you believe that all christians are going to heaven, let's look at the results of your work.

The vast majority of your beloved little humans can't go to heaven.  So what do you do with the rest?  Now you love the little guys even if they don't "get it".  So, well personally, I'd just let them live out their lives and die.  Dissapear from existence.  Pretty humane, eh?

But your so called perfect and all-loving, all-powerful god thinks that burning them for an ETERNITY in flames is perfectly reasonable?

Really, Tr1nity.  Stop and think about what you are saying. 

Would you do it that way if you were god?

Of course not.  Only a malevolent creature would do something like that.  And that...is a fact. 

I was raised in the same ridiculous belief you have been.  It's rubbish.  Fiction.  Piss poor fiction at that. 

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: It should

tr1nity wrote:

It should not seem so amazing that many will be thrown into the lake of fire. What is amazing is that any of us should be saved at all.

You know, I was perusing over this brief response and started to wonder on something.  Now being raised baptist this statement does not surprise me in the slightest.  Ten years ago I probably would have nodded my head at this statement.

Now though, I'm starting to see something of the...evilness of religion.  This isn't the first part of unintentional evil I've noticed in religion, just a new aspect.

Why do christians find it amazing that any humans should be spared from an eternity in agonizing pain?  Even the christians that are really good people?

Religion beats into you that you are a worthless, evil, self-serving, little piece of shit.  And only through god's grace are you worth anything.

Anyone read about that woman that was held captive for like 9 years or something?  The guy beat her, raped her, tied her up, made her sleep in a box.  But even would let her walk into town occasionally alone.  Or even make a phone call from time to time.

How did he control her so well?  He did the same fucking thing as religion.  He pounded into her that she was a worthless piece of shit, and without him she was nothing.  He fed her lies after lies, saying that he "bought" her in an underground slave ring, and even had a deed on her life.  If she ran away the other members of the slave ring would kill her.  (This should be ringing alarms about how christianity uses hell).  Are not christians taught that their salvation has been "bought" with Jesus' sacrifice?  Can not god know everything thing you do, everything you think, and then punish you for it?

Then I sit at someone's desk at work fixing their computer and I read little Christian sayings, "Without you god I can't do anything..."

And I just think, "holy, fucking shit..."

 

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


zack
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Paaalease

"You are an egotist"

 This coming from a person that thinks there is a "creator of all things"... (all the planets, all the stars, all the rivers, all the oceans, all the asteroids, all the toothbrushes... everything) has a "personal relationship" with them, cares about their sex lives and how many times they pray to him/her.

And you call us atheists egotistical? Give me five breaks! 

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire


zack
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Ah, free will. I love

Ah, free will. I love it!

Which is it, free will or "god has a plan for all of us"? They are completely antithetical, you know? Shit, I guess you don't.

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Well it seems that at the

Well it seems that at the time of this writing that deludedgod has been the person who has brought the most intense argument in this forum. I write “intense” meaning that much effort has been placed in the argument, so I have spent my time reading over some of the articles he/she has offered as rebuttals. Certainly these articles are not refutations of anything I have written to date here specifically although I do see that the spirit of them is in fact an effort at direct rebuttal through association. This being the case I will address these letters in total with my step by step rebuttals. For lack of a better beginning we will start here:

 

Refutation of article “Fallacies commonly employed against naturalism refuted.”

 

Well after a fairly thorough read through I found it difficult to pin down any particular systematic list of fallacies or organized refutations in directly identifiable categories. I did however find a cyclically repeated argument, presented differently from time to time with consistent results. I titled this argument “Refuted 1” so I will offer my comments on this argument below:

 

The argument is as follows: Theists assert that emergent abstractions must be eliminated if naturalism is true.

 

This assertion was claimed to be the fundamental argument underlying the concept that without God, love, joy, peace, ect. cannot exist as the perceived order becomes merely a “bag of molecules”. A simple way to put it is that God brings meaning to what is otherwise biological meaninglessness. While I agree that God alone brings meaning, I don’t like this argument as a debate for God’s existence because it asserts that there is meaning, therefore God. This begs the question of course which is “does God bring meaning?” and the next “is there meaning?” Which are the very assertions you are attempting to prove going into the excercise?

 

Personally I agree to a certain extent that, as deludedgod pointed out, the emotional experience and mind is an extrinsic property of the brain. The extent to which I accept it is this, we are in fact physical beings and we can really be affected by physical interference and exchange. The ultimate interference manifests in our death which too is very real. The area where I diverge of course is what this fact means. You can choose to believe that this fact somehow means many things, such as:

 

1: There is no soul

2: There is no supernatural

3: There is no heaven

4: There is no God

 

Of course to assume any of these things is to assume knowledge of a reality that does not contain such things going into the assertion. In effect you are saying:

 

“if any of the above things were real then we would not find that emotions and such are extrinsic properties of the physical interactions of brain functions.”

 This of course is an unfounded assertion. It is quite simply an intellectually opinionated proposition devoid of any facts to support it. In order for this “faith” to be anything more you would have to measure a reality known not to contain such things and compare it to this reality. Of course that proposition also offers the theoretical possibility that such a reality could exist, which of course it can’t (an assertion I will support with evidence) thus making the entire exercise futile. Futility becomes foolishness once it is pursued as it was in the “monism of the brain” article written by deluded.

 

Now a further limitation I would lay on this proposition is that the proposition itself is not entirely founded in hard science. The possibility still remains that some aspects of “mind” are actually beyond mere brain function. I’m open to science on this issue as you also should be if you were actually “rational evidence followers” as you claim to be.

 

Moving on, I found several bald assertions in this article which I will list below:

 
  1. The supernatural is injected without justifying how it could affect the phenomena under discussion.
  2. The suggestion that system complexity “reaches” certain states.
  3. Emergent abstractions are not new ontological categories separate from the material world.
  4. Mind cannot exist separate from the brain
  5. Saying the brain being a receptor for consciousness is the same as water being a receptor for wetness.
  6. Calling theoretical possibilities absurd while claiming an actual impossibility is theoretically possible.
  7. “Supernatural” has no axiomatic identity
 

So let’s get down to it:

 

1 & 7. The assertion here is made that injecting the supernatural to explain a particular phenomena is absurd or at least that it is more absurd than a naturalistic explanation. Well to use anonymous terms in this way is side stepping the issue actually. It offers the concept that there are some phenomena that exist that do in fact have a purely naturalistic explanation and that only some phenomena exist that allow, at least conceivably, for the supernatural injection. This of course, as at the beginning of this rebuttal, would require knowledge of phenomena that came about in known absentia of the supernatural for any determination of phenomena’s supernatural status. Now I for one agree that “supernatural” as defined by most believers is incorrect, and I agree that the reality we do have militates against same. I go a step further and assert that all supernatural propositions but one are incorrect. Now to say that a Christian has injected the supernatural without justifying the assertion is absurd. I know for a fact that a Christian would bring up that whole 6 day creation thing. You know “God created the heavens and the earth…..” I’m sure I’ve seen that around. Now then the “axiomatic identity” of supernatural in this instance is identifiable even if it is elusive within the contexts of other supernatural belief systems. I can’t speak for them, nor do I have a desire to. In the event of a creator God then the nature of that which is made would give us this “axiomatic identity” and could further, through observation of the created phenomena, offer us the “how” that this supernatural proposition (creator God) does in fact affect said phenomena as everything observed would reveal aspects of the God mind. I will cover justification at the end of this document.

 

2. Now this language was used in the effort to explain that emergent abstractions only come about when a specific system complexity has been “reached”. I don’t believe it was the intent of the author here to make the assertion I offered in my list, however, even using this language should be addressed directly for the lie that it is. A systems complexity is just exactly what it appears to be within the confines of its observed phenomena. To assert that it “reaches” this point assumes this self adjustability is part of the observed complexity which, to date, no systems have been observed to increase in complexity. Each system is as complex as it is and its complexity remains within the boundaries of its definition as it is the “complexity” itself that defines it. I will agree that emergent abstractions have a correlation to the complexity of the observed system and that different systems offer us different abstractions.

 

3. Well this is really an asserted opinion offered as some kind of fact. The misuse of “separate from the material world” is sort of like icing on the cake. There’s a lot going on here, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. Basically you, the author, don’t get to decide arbitrarily when an emergent abstraction enters another ontological category. Just insisting that because Z’s observable manifestation comes about through X and Y’s interface does not, in any factual sense require it to be considered a lower ontological category of X and Y. That’s a philosophical question and the jury is out. Now to your use of “separate from the material world” meaning separate from material or “a-material” I will agree that anything separate from the ability to exist doesn’t exist, however the supernatural would be more correctly described as super material. In the realm of the creator God, the material world created is in fact, by definition, an emergent abstraction of the divine. So the “broken concept” you insist the idea of supernatural represents does not apply to a creator God whose creation is observable. God, in some ways, can be known through what He made.

 

4. This assertion has been used to offer two points. One, that the soul material cannot exist and two, that God as a disembodied mind can’t exist. Well both of these propositions depend on the absence of a creator God to be true. If God created then He has a mind, if He is then dead or alive you are too. Once again you use the term “disembodied” as it means no-body however a creator God would fall into the “superbody” category making His mind a “supermind”. No-body equals no ability, superbody equals superability, get it? I will agree that the empirical evidence offered certainly seems to militate against certain soul concepts, like ghosts for instance, but, as I’ve pointed out, at no point can it definitively prove this conceivable assumption to be a fact.

 

5. This associative assertion remains unfounded because the nature of water’s association to wetness is observable where consciousness (sentience) relationship to the brain is not. While each of these objects have a relationship with their counterpart, we will both agree, the nature of those relationships are not the same. It is much like claiming the relationship of sunlight and plant growth is similar to waters relationship to its wetness. They each have associations but the similarity ends there. Ultimately, once again, no amount of evidence could ever definitively show that the brain is not some kind of receptor to the “super-mind” because, as I have explained you would have to observe a known non-receptor brain to determine what one would look and act like. Did you ever think that the very things you are measuring are in fact the ways God interfaces with us?  The very action of thought itself being that interface? How could you ever think to scientifically disprove such a thing?  

 

6. This came up in the in the “swampman” portion of this article. Once again I don’t believe it was the intent of the author to argue on this point particularly, but it is in this area that atheists reveal their willful ignorance the most. It is in determining the difference between the impossible and the possible. The most routine area that this is done is in the proclaimed improbability of a creator God. When I hear this I often wonder what exact reference for possibility the atheist is using to so casually assert this. You see, it falls again into the same delusion which is that ANY observation made of the reality in which we live can never change the actual probability of God. For it to do so you would have to KNOW that there was no God involved with the making of the phenomena which of course said knowledge would demand that God was not improbable, but actually impossible. Atheists are not alone in their misuse of possibility. I have seen creationists use probability matrixes to argue for the need for a creator and for other biblical truth claims. I am here to tell you today that they are all utter junk because to assume that there is any possibility that creation and order can come from the interface of time, chance and space is to offer the possibility that everything came from nothing. This I’m sure everyone including this author will agree is utterly ridiculous. So how does one determine the difference between impossible and, regardless of seaming improbability, possible? Well the most basic way is to measure the nature of the environment and its effects on the suggested event. As in this article it was suggested by deludedgod that lightning, while farfetched, had the theoretic possibility of causing atoms to arrange themselves into a specifically complex system, namely that of “Dave”. What I find most striking is that this author started the presentation by writing “of course this is absurd”. Now I wonder what is absurd about a possibility unless deluded is suggesting that real impossible things are theoretically possible. I mean you wouldn’t say that it is absurd that you could win the lottery if you bought a ticket would you? If you hadn’t bought (or acquired in any way) a ticket can it be theoretically possible that you could win? Of course not, real impossibilities are absurd as possible suggestions; improbabilities are not by the very fact that they are at least possible. So you see that factors must exist in specific patterns of association for things to become possible. While you can have some parts of a system, for instance an existing lottery system, you can also not have the system portion needed to “complete the loop” as it were, i.e no ticket. Now I will agree that the addition of the lottery system greatly increases the possibility potential of someone winning, including you. The problem is that possibility potential is just like any other potential thing, it must be actualized by the addition of something else, a very specific something else I might add. The existence of possibility potential does not make something actually possible. It may be theoretically possible if and only if there is or are known factor(s) that could actualize the potential, i.e lottery tickets are for sale. So back to this lightning forming atoms into specifically complex matter. It of course is absurd as deludedgod stated, further it’s not even theoretically possible for obvious reasons. It is in fact impossible making the clone that would be Dave actually nothing like Dave at all because Dave was something; Dave Mach II is a no-thing or nothing. Why is it impossible, well the nature of the reality we live in makes it so. Number one the properties of lightning are such that the delicate life molecules that it would have to form would require its nature to change. Instead of electrons moving from point A to B the electrons would have to begin moving independently of each other in many ways and in specific sequences. Further the heat transfer would have to coagulate or some such thing releasing in seeming controlled bursts avoiding destruction of the very molecules it would be creating. Basically the nature of reality would have to utterly change for the existing possibility potential ( manifested by the existence of lightning and atoms) to be actualized. So by observation this would be an actual impossibility as nature offers no observable ability to alter itself in this manner.

 Now to justification. This section will deal directly with my two as yet unsubstantiated assertions. This actually shouldn’t take too long. The answer is of course obvious, it’s so obvious in fact that deluded made this point for me throughout his articles. In an effort to compare biological systems to other “things” he/she was left with only one type of thing that actually works. I’ll let deluded’s words speak for themselves: 

1. “Humans seem to be intrinsically wedded to the idea of teleology, which is to say that being that we are conscious entities who assign purpose to what we do, we have a tendency to assign purpose to everything.”

 

2. “The mind [is…] an abstract concept of self, without the very precise array of lobes and neurons and synapses, it does not exist.”

 

3. “it would seem absurd that "everything is just a bag of molecules", […]these emotionalist statements […]actually don't mean anything.[…] I could substitute the same form of language and argumentative technique for anything. For example, the sentence "Oh, come now! Are you saying that a car is nothing more than a bunch of metal? That's ridiculous".”

 

4. “In these analogies, the brain is compared to a car, with all of its sophisticated hardware (as if a primitive pile of metal like a car could match the astonishing elegance of the brain!)”

 5. ““all things are just molecules acting on molecules” contain this precise fault within their “argument”. It is rather like saying that I can no longer enjoy Mozart because I know that sounds are actually caused by molecular vibrations which resonate in the inner ear and are translated into electrical signals to be passed along the vestibulocochlear nerve. " 

If you look you can see in each of these quotes the very thing that you would expect to find given the nature of the reality in which we live. First we have this author admitting the natural tendency of man to find purpose in nature. Deluded also offers the absolute necessity for the brain to be precisely what it is in order to function as it does. He/she goes on to compare the workings of biological life to that of a car, then admitting that the car is only a shadow of a comparison to the specific complexity of biological life systems. Even at the end this author was left with nothing else to use but Mozart in his analogy when attempting to offer a word picture to describe the meaning that naturally flows from biological systems. Deluded says above that he could substitute the presented argument technique with “anything” when actually only intelligently formed things could be used. The reality is that biological life systems are specifically complex matter and to date there is exactly one empirically observable force capable of forming matter in this way. That force is us. So then the “justification” for the insertion of God (aka supernatural) comes from observation and measurement of the available phenomena (aka empirical evidence). So like I said when I first started posting in this forum, that which looks at me from within the mirror tells the truth.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Trinity, I was agreeing

Trinity,

I was agreeing with you on point 3, it's where I've been standing for a while. I'll ignore your irreducible complexity arguments for as long as you maintain the special plead to ignore point 3 wherever it contradicts the ID/creationist theoretical framework.

On the other hand, what is right about the supernatural proposition you've claimed is the only accurate supernatural proposition? You haven't said, nor have you fleshed out the details of that proposition beyond the implication of a "God mind" (of which there most definitely is explicit representation in other supernatural beliefs). 

 Additionally, I'm looking forward to your answer to my question re the logical composition of christian church and goodness.  

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


tr1nity
Theist
tr1nity's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Special pleading? I'm sorry

Special pleading? I'm sorry I guess I'm not sure what your calling point 3. I am working on my response to your first question, but I also would like to deal with this question as well.

 

Thanks for responding....I figured I was off to trollville for sure....not yet anyways.

------L
C H R I S T
--------V
---------E
----------S


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Firtly, thank you for responding. I don't normally get many responses, and it is good to have one's argumentation tested from time to time. At any rate, the bulk of your objections seemed to miss the point of the issue at hand, especially the main objection that I can never formally "prove" that emergent properties primarily arise from certain systems. WHilst this is true, the issue at hand, remeber was that the primary complaint I was dealing with was the insistence that naturalism could not account for certain properties. Obviously, I cannot formally prove relationships between entities, as Eloise pointed out, but empirical evidence can estbalish strong correlations, backed up by philosophical arguments which give credence to the suggestion that certain synergistic properties (Z) arise from substrates (X and Y etc). I am open to revising this proposition, but saying "X' cannot be disproved, is unhelpful and lacks substance as an argument. Much in the same way that we can establish an extremely strong correlation between the underlying substance of DNA, the emergent property of complex pathways of DNA, such that a final emergent result of this is the development of complex, emergent biological systems where there is a reciprocal, complex functioning interaction between DNA and protein and the other underlying functions of biological life. In the same way, there is reasonable reason to believe that the mind arises from a complex web of neuronal networks functioning reciprocally and emergently. So too that single exon of DNA is rather unhelpful by itself unless within a complex web of DNA-protein-regulatory node interaction, simarily, whilst neurons by themselves do not do much by themselves, 10 billion of them in self-organizing plastic complexity supplemented by a further 90 billion glial cells produces something quite irrecognizable from the individual neuron. That was my main point, many objections to materialism focus only on reductionism. At any rate, the correlation here is extremely strong, quite possibly as strong as that between DNA and biological organisms. And whilst I cannot absolutely prove the nature of the order of the functions, compiling empirical events, supplementd by philosophical arguments which undermine the plausability of contradistinctive positions, produce a strong set of points which need answering.

Quote:

This assertion was claimed to be the fundamental argument underlying the concept that without God, love, joy, peace, ect. cannot exist as the perceived order becomes merely a “bag of molecules”. A simple way to put it is that God brings meaning to what is otherwise biological meaninglessness. While I agree that God alone brings meaning, I don’t like this argument as a debate for God’s existence because it asserts that there is meaning, therefore God. This begs the question of course which is “does God bring meaning?” and the next “is there meaning?” Which are the very assertions you are attempting to prove going into the excercise?

Even if you don't use it, this particular argument is used all the time, which is why it was necessary for me to flip it around. It's called the argument from despair. I am not trying to discuss what is "the meaning of life", or any soch associated discussion, rather, merely pointing out that the assertion that such ideas have any link to the metaphysical assertion of supernaturalism is unclarified.

Furthermore, most of your arguments seem to be from the perspective of Design. THis paper has nothing to do with the idea of Design, and you obviously misunderstand my article. When I say "supernaturalism accounting for a certain function" I am referring to the existence of such thing for example, like "beauty". These are called ad consequentiam arguments, or arguments from despair, of similiar vein to John Keates, who argued that NEwton destroyed the rainbow by explaining it. BY saying "Supernaturalism cannot account for these" I am not referring in any way whatosever to a posteriori arguments for God. IN fact, I am not referring to God at all, I am referring to the idea that there exists an immaterial, ethereal realm. Your main misunderstaning regarding my analogy (especially the Mozart analogy) seemed to be that I was arguing primarily against God. Whilst this is true for the latter part of the piece, that analogy, the analogy pertaining the brain and mind, the analogy pertaining to the car, in fact, all of the analogies, have nothing whatsoever to do with God or Design, and everything to do with the dichotomy between naturalism, the belief that all that exists is physical or derived from physical, and supernaturalism, the belief that some things are generated by "immaterial", by which I mean, properties and substance with no material basis. I tackle design in other papers, and when I say "accounting for it", I refer to specifically things like how the injection of an ethereal substance into the equation gives rise to certian abstract properties. Obviously, the two have no relation to each other. But you are severely confused. You are arguing against something which I was not arguing for, and you are arguing pertaining to a proposition which is not covered in my essay. In short, I was focusing on refuting the argument from despair, whilst you were focusing on promoting the argument from design. WHich suggests you did not grasp the main point of my arguments around which those particular analogies were constructed. yes, I realize the arguments I am refuting are ridiculous arguments, but that is the point. MAny people make them.

 

Quote:

You see, it falls again into the same delusion which is that ANY observation made of the reality in which we live can never change the actual probability of God

You're shooting yourself in the foot. The whole point of the article was to demonstrate the theistic God steals properties from the natural world. In your entire piece you brought nothing to the table that would refute that proposition, you just commited special pleading by asserting his exemption, it would be rather like saying that this goldfish is a goldfish, however, it is not, in fact, a goldfish.

The fact of the matter is that certain observations about the world do change the probability of GOd existing or not. This is the very foundation of a posteriori argument. It goes both ways, in that case, which is to say that no observation of the natural world could raise the probability of whether or not God exists. Which of course, is not true, the issue of whether or not God exists is anteceded by teh foundation of epistemology, our experience. What I'm trying to bring to the table is the proposition that certain observations decrease the probability in question because they would indicate that certain attributes by which we describe the entity in question would necessitate certain preexisting functions that necessitate natural functions. It does no good to sidestep this issue by appealling to God's transcendantalism, since the coherency of such propositions are the very issues under consideration.

Quote:

It is in fact impossible making the clone that would be Dave actually nothing like Dave at all because Dave was something; Dave Mach II is a no-thing or nothing. Why is it impossible, well the nature of the reality we live in makes it so. Number one the properties of lightning are such that the delicate life molecules that it would have to form would require its nature to change. Instead of electrons moving from point A to B the electrons would have to begin moving independently of each other in many ways and in specific sequences. Further the heat transfer would have to coagulate or some such thing releasing in seeming controlled bursts avoiding destruction of the very molecules it would be creating. Basically the nature of reality would have to utterly change for the existing possibility potential ( manifested by the existence of lightning and atoms) to be actualized. So by observation this would be an actual impossibility as nature offers no observable ability to alter itself in this manner.

Yes, I know all of this. Please look up "thought experiment" in the dictionary. The thought experiment is not my own. It belongs to David Chalmers, and the issue under consideration is whether or not if someone died of unnatural causes and was immedaitely replaced by a clone which had exactly the same properties and therefore exactly the same memeories and such, and would he be indistinguishable from Dave.

At any rate, the Swampwan issue is tertiary to the qualia issue, which you ignored, for which my purpose was the demonstration that Chalmer's thought experiment begs the question. The main thrust of this particular point was the fallacy of composition associated with the extant nature of matter. My issue was that conscious beings require a highly ordered structure of neurons to produce the functions of sensory equipment and memory formation and processing functions such that there can be a being having an experience, and that this system perishes upon organic death of the brain.

Quote:

The reality is that biological life systems are specifically complex matter and to date there is exactly one empirically observable force capable of forming matter in this way. That force is us. So then the “justification” for the insertion of God (aka supernatural) comes from observation and measurement of the available phenomena (aka empirical evidence). So like I said when I first started posting in this forum, that which looks at me from within the mirror tells the truth.

Huh? No. You haven't actually "answered" anything in my article. The main the thrust of my article was establishing that the nature of the mind (an attribute which we project onto God) necessitates certain attributes which punches a hole through the concept of the theistic God. You didn't like the emotional arguments, because you don't use them! But other people do use them.

Furthermore, your assertion, the argument from design, is false, very false, certainly not the only empirically observable phenomenon capable of creating complex structures. This diverges into a wholly different argument, of course, but I am a molecular biologist, who studies evolution and as luck would have it I can testify with a good deal of certainty that we can be extremely sure that biological life arose from a highly complex self-organizing process associated with the reproductive nature of biological systems, that system being evolution. FOr further discussion on the matter, please refer to my pieces on evolution, where as luck would have it, I happen to study these particular pheonomenon and hence can testify to the power of the theory.

At any rate, this is not the issue under consideration. The "justification" for God being Design in this sense misses the point of the argument I was making, the argument I was making was that the injection of the supernatural as a response to the argument from despair

Quote:

. While each of these objects have a relationship with their counterpart, we will both agree, the nature of those relationships are not the same.

I am aware of that, but you're missing the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy was to show one cannot amputate

a) A property from the thing of which it is a property

b) An emergence from the subsystem

Whilst the relationship between the mind and brain is orders of magnitude more complex, this particular function remians the same. The mind cannot be amputated from the brain for reasons I justifeid (albeit that most of this justifaction was inserted after you posted your response, my apolgies). Now, the reason the mind cannot be amputated from the brain is for a reason already covered, that being that amputation can only refer to substace, not property. And I think we can both agree that abstract properties of entities are emergent systems. This does not mean they are running around in some extant mind, merely that . I usually refer people to this article:

A Materialist Account for Abstractions - or - How Theists Misplace the Universe.

Note that I made nearly identical points which you ignored.

Now, on this matter, it is true by definition that an emergent property cannot be amputated from the system from whence it emerges. This is the concept of synergy. Consider a simple analogy. In molecular biology, we often study evolution of centromere regions in the chromosome by working with something called centomeric heterochromatin, where the structure of heterochromatin, is such that, in comparison to euchromatin ,its x10 folding sequece means it has a much higher resistance to gene expression, we can array Gene-node pathways on microarrays and then insertthe expressed genes into different regions of euchromatin and heterochromatin. The cells have mechanisms to ensure that their genomes are not overtaken by transposon elements which are necessary part of evolution. They do this by organizing regions into heterochromatin such that they halt the spread of retrotransposons. Now, with repeat-induced silencing, we can silence a whole GRNP network when the insertion of individual genes would not work.

DNA packaged into hetero often consists of short, repeated sequences not conding for protein, such as those of mammalian centromers. Euchromatin is rich in genes and other single-copy DNA sequences. This is not absolute, the trend suggests that some types of repeated DNA may be a signal for heterochromatin formation. Several hundred tandem copies of genes have been artificially introduced into germ lines of organisms, these arrays are often silenced and can sometimes be observed forming hetero under a microscope, when these genes are introduced singly, they are actively expressed as euchromatin

 

To speak of the emergent property being a seperate ontological category from the substrate in question would rather be like saying that I can isolate the property of heterochromatin, which is only a synergistic response to large scale gene pathways, into a thing unto itself. It isn't. It's a reciprocal function and a property of heterochromatin as a resistance to parastic elements of the genome that crop up because of evolution.

Now, the issue at hand is that the mind cannot be reifcated, as already covered, or thing-ized. "Reception" is a function that can only apply to entity, not property. Radio waves are things unto themselves, not properties of the radio recieving them. The mind does not work like that, the mind is a process the brain runs, and it can be shown that it is impossible to turn the mind into a thing, a thing that can hence be considered seperate from the brain. I cannot filter property from substance, similiarly, I cannot turn property into substance. This is the Cartesian error. Obviously, the proposition that the "mind" is recieved from some "supermind" is simply a worthless and unhelpful proposition which does nothing to solve the issue at hand. The chunk of essay inserted after your response will be posted below.

Quote:

Ultimately, once again, no amount of evidence could ever definitively show that the brain is not some kind of receptor to the “super-mind” because, as I have explained you would have to observe a known non-receptor brain to determine what one would look and act like.

This is not entirely true. This was the problem with the qualia experiment. It is unhelpful to speak of a mind being recieved from another mind. Firstly, this is similar to the Homunculus fallacy, Consider in Philosophy of Mind the Homunculus Argument, which is a listed logical fallacy and an “answer” to the mind-brain problem (what translates objective physical events into subjective mental ones?) In the Homunculus fallacy, there is a “little man” reviewing the sense data rather like one would view a TV screen. That is what the word means, it means “little man”. Now, obviously this creates the regress fallacy. It makes no sense whatsoever to say there is another conscious agent viewing the sense data, because this is the very issue under consideration! We end up with an “infinite regress” of little men inside each other’s heads viewing the images each one receives. That is why the fallacy solves nothing. It cannot solve the problem of consciousness because its premise requires it to invoke consciousness. It is a question begging exercise. On the other hand, it makes no sense to say that one of the Homunculi does not need another Homunculus inside it, because this again, is the very issue under consideration!

Obviously, this particular argument is not precisely the same, but we can see how the idea that the brain "recieves" the mind is problematic. If we can show that the mind is a necessary, not a thing, but rather a process/property/emergent result, of a preexisting system, that raises issues for the existence of God, which is a mind without a body (defined by Swinburne)

Second, there are arguments which can be constructed to show that the mind is necessarily a property and process, not a thing unto itself, and these do not necessitate that we know what a "non-receptor" mind looks like. They will be detailed below.

Quote:

In the event of a creator God then the nature of that which is made would give us this “axiomatic identity” and could further, through observation of the created phenomena, offer us the “how” that this supernatural proposition (creator God) does in fact affect said phenomena as everything observed would reveal aspects of the God mind. I will cover justification at the end of this document.

You can't be serious. Did you read the piece on axiomatic identity? The point was that God has no identity because in terms of identity property, God is undescribed, eliminated from the universe of discourse. Furthermore, you are clearly sidestepping the issue at hand, which was that the injection of God creates an ad ignorantium proposition because a posteriori arguments take the following form:

X

If ~Y, ~X

Y

Quote:

Well both of these propositions depend on the absence of a creator God to be true

Nonsense, this is circular reasoning. I'm starting from the proposition that a mind requires a brain, which I have established.Specifically, the theist helpfully (for the purpose of the exercise) claims God to be a supernatural and incorporeal entity yet holds these specific attributes. To me, this reads somewhat like claiming that you have a magnet without a magnetic field. If we don’t have the physical entity, what do we have left over? This was the prior issue raised in the piece on the axiom iof identity. I need not assume that God does not exist to begin my premises, f course, the theist balks at this quantifiable categorization of an entity supposedly beyond nature and exempt from empirical considerations. This special pleading fallacy is dealt with below. Perhaps the analogy “a magnet without a magnetic field” is invalid. Perhaps “a magnet without a magnet” is better. To exist is to exist as something, and that something is itself. This is the axiom of identity and not even God can break in, as that would be absurd, as I have already established in my essay on Negative Theology. it becomes necessary to swiftly overturn theistic mischief of attempting to escape through the self-contrived loophole of God being exempt from naturalist considerations, because he is supernatural. This is little more than a fortiori for my position. The whole question under consideration is whether God has attributes specifically implying naturalism! The reassertion that God is “supernatural” is not a valid defense to this.

Quote:

Emergent abstractions are not new ontological categories separate from the material world.

That was justified. This is true by definition. It becomes necessary to demonstrate that a certian function is emergent, but once we can, that it is not a seperate ontological category becomes true by definition (refer back to todangst's paper) because by definition, property cannot be amputated from substance. That would be meaningless. There is a reason we cannot speak of "whole body amputation". There is nothing to amputate.

Quote:

This of course is an unfounded assertion. It is quite simply an intellectually opinionated proposition devoid of any facts to support it.

Don't be ridiculous, this is circular reasoning again. The point I made was that if any of those porpositions are true, then a prerequiste for consciousness is imputed that God lacks. I did articulate precisely that the mind a) could not be reificated and b) hence could not be characterized as recieved from a super-mind and c) has certain requisites which the God entity as defined lacks

Quote:

Mind cannot exist separate from the brain

That was justified, but if you want it justified from a neuroscience standpoint, we can do it like this. The mind is emergent, but to some blurry degree, can be broken into components, albeit not modularly. This is characteristic of all emergent systems. We can consider this in numerous ways from a neuroscience standpoint. One was is via interagency:

The science of consciousness is all about unity of the lobes of the brain, and can be demonstrated likewise. We can establish that conscious control over the physical body and even over intention, whatever it may be, requires interagency, which is to say that it requires that the lobes of the brain are in proper communication. Let us take a case study to examine this. Imagine that you lose control of your hand. This does not mean it dies, but bizarrely, it appears to be acting of its own accord, without your volition. I am referring to what modern neuroscientists called apraxia, a situation which results in a longitudinal divide along the corpus callosum in epilepsy patients, which causes the dominant hand of the patient to undergo involuntary movement and uncontrollable motor functions. The hand might undo buttons, light cigarettes, even strike objects without the users control. However, combined magnetoencephelogram scanning and neurophenomenology conducted after Penfield died in 1976 have revealed that this very rare form of epillepsy apraxia is caused by the damage caused to the medial lobes by the incision along the major axis of the brain. There are different brain functions associated with voluntary movement, the cerebellum for proprioception, the grid neuron array for mechanoperception, Acetylocholin-based Somatic and visceral motor neurons which run up the body's planar axis through the center of the spinal cord and into the Sensory Somatic Cortex. The incision along the brain's long axis severs the connection between the lobes controlling movement, with the result that different areas of the brain may at different times be able to command the hand in different ways, but since they are not connected, conscious control over it is lost. Actually, apraxia is often used to make the neurophysiological distinction between intention of execution otherwise known as Executive function (Anterior Cingulate Cortex), and actual execution. In other words, we can show that the self loses control of the hand due to apraxia due to a division along the major long axis of the brain, and although the kinesthetic sensation is there, the sensation of conscious control over the hand is not. For this reason, most neurophysiologists consider that at the supramolecular level, there is an electrophysiological event which translates intent into action. The general area which does this has been pinpointed by fMRI as the medial fronal lobe. Recently, neuroimaging has revealed the area of the brain responsible for decisional inhibition to be in the parietaloccipatal system. The damage or destruction of this system results in the loss of executive functional inhibition, with the result that the subject may lose conscious control over many physiological functions. But since the area of the brain responsible for action is located on the other lobe of the brain, the result of an incision along the corpus callosum will be in rare cases the loss of ability for interagency neurological control over such functions, with apraxia, with the result that a conscious self loses control for periods of time over the limb in question unless treated. The very fact that it can be treated in a neurological fashion hence indicates that you are dead wrong. Since the brain is a contralateral control system, which means that damage to the posterior medial lobe results in involuntary movement in the opposite function, the same for the parietal-occipatal system, since the corpus callosum is the link between these two areas and the subcortical synaptogenesis which develops when basic motor skills do, the exertation of control over the movement is partitioned into four areas. In other words, we are seeing exactly what we expect to see with an epillepsy patient experiencing apraxia under IET stimulation.

The other way is via consideration of the nature of the mind, albeit not Tripartate, that it can be somewhat divided vertically. We can consider two things in this regard. One of them is "transcendatal experience", and the other is rather less pleasent, LEsch-Nyhan syndrome:

the experience I describe involves mechanisms which neuroscientists already understand, since the LeDoux and Greenfield models. I will explain it to you in greater detail, but the experience you describe, about the loss of sense of self, and the sense of time, and this explosive experience, is actually caused by a very specific neural correlate. I will explain it to you later. It has to do with the synaptogenesis overturn rate, and the associated action and inverse tug-of-war between the electrolytics of neurons and the transmitters which are involved in molecular ligand with receptors embedded in dendrites in the gap with the axon (the synaptic cleft), many things can cause this, including extreme overproduction of this molecule:

Serotonin, a critical neurotransmitter which can aid the junction of action potentials in reasonable levels, or impair conduction at very high levels due to its adverse affect on the ability of neurons to pump potassium out of the channels (effectively de-electrolyzing the neuron)

However, it can also be caused by drugs which perform a function called transmitter masking, since the associated inability of transmitters to perform the receptor interaction due to the imposter effect of opiates (or in the case of lithium, ions) means that the neurons become more resistant to synaptogenesis.

The point is, the experience I describe is well understood by neurophysiologists, albeit imperfectly understood. It is also correlated with Tripartate theory, albeit a newer model of it, associated with the idea of the Id restrained by the ego restrained by the superego (with correlates in the stem, pons medullas, amygdala, and cerebral cortex respectively) where conscious awarness and an associated structured logical world are functionally computed by the cortex, and the extreme over-production of neurotransmitters of functional masking drugs have an effect where the synaptic overturn rate is so high that the brain cannot comprehend the notion of logical abstraction and hence the experience you describe is generated. A wide variety of drugs can do this (either by functional masking or transmitter stimulating) including opiates, tryptamines, dopamine, serotonin (in high levels) and certain (unidentified) neural peptides. The neural effects of the experience due to the inability of logical abstraction include the loss of sense of self, time, memory, logical sequentiality of the world. This is why I sarcastically remarked to a friend that I really would not call the experience "transcendental", rather, from my training in physiology, I would call it "tripping".

Consider a similiar case study: The same function you refer to of the loss of the restraint of the Ego can be contradistinctivelly considered by a rather less pleasant experience: Lesch-Nyhan's syndrome. Lesch-Nyhan causes a mutation in the primitive second-tier of the brain, at the brain-stem, where locomotive signals are fired. There are two distinct effects of signal-crossing in the midbrain. The first is that a Lesch-Nyhan child is spastic and assumes an odd “fencer” position, as appearing with one leg diagonally bent and the opposite arm crooked backwards. The second effect is that the midbrain is deranged and the insane signal-firing causes it to “cross” signals with the neocortex. The effects are ghastly. In a fight between the primitive brain and the conscious neocortex, the primitive brain always wins, it has simply been there for a longer course of evolutionary history, it is more ingrained, it overrides the higher functions. Hence, the deranged vertical dividing of the Lesch-Nyhan brain causes the sufferer, during bouts or “attacks” when the signal firing goes berserk, to attack the people around him (always him, girls, having two X chromosomes, cannot get Lesch-Nyhan), and causes intense writhing and seizure-like convulsions. The most brutal effect of this is autocannibalism, the thrashing of the facial muscles causes the boy to eat away their own face, they will often rip out their own palate with their teeth and most of their lip flesh as well. For their own protection, they often have their teeth extracted.

The point is, my point that the mind is emergent, a complex result of a complex set of interactions between complex sets of neurons, peptides, channels, transmitters and sense data, as opposed to being recieved by some sort of supermind (this is proposiotionally unhelpful), whislt I can never absolutely prove the relationship, I can establish strong correlations supplementing my position. As we shall soon see, there are also philosophical arguments which can poke holes in the "receptor" idea. My overall conclusion, in general, is that it is quite impossible to rheificate, amputate, seperate, the mind from the physical body and the world the physical body inhabits, for which there is good evidence. SOme of these propostions, I shall argue, are synthetic. At any rate, this suggests that Feuerbach was correct, that we create God in the image we wish, because we give a "being" without a body attributes that require not only a body, but a world for the body to experience.

 

Quote:

“Supernatural” has no axiomatic identity

That was not the subject of that paper, I had already proved it here:

On Negative Theology and its Linguistic Implications For the Coherency of Certain Theological Concepts

Quote:

Of course that proposition also offers the theoretical possibility that such a reality could exist,

Category error. You've obviously missed the whole point of the article, and made a special pleading fallacy to substantiate that missing of the point.

Quote:

Each system is as complex as it is and its complexity remains within the boundaries of its definition as it is the “complexity” itself that defines it. I will agree that emergent abstractions have a correlation to the complexity of the observed system and that different systems offer us different abstractions.

Now you've just torqued my definition of "system". You know exactly what I mean, and I won't even bother to go through it again.

Quote:

Now to justification. This section will deal directly with my two as yet unsubstantiated assertions. This actually shouldn’t take too long.

How amusing coming from someone refusing to acknowledge the main thrust of the article itself, on the other hand, if you want a very precise account of biological evolution and how it builds such structures, then you will find in that same compilation I have already provided such.

Your assertion that my assertion was an assertion was to miss the main point of the article, which, obviously, was that establishing the necessity of the reciprocal function of the mind-brain relationship punches a hole through the concept of God. THe ontological principle can be applied here, since we are speaking of entities (Actually, not quite, God, having no identity, which was something justified in a prior article, has no entity).

Now, a final piece was inserted after your reading, but whilst you seem to have repeatedly accused me of making unsubstantiated assertions, this invariably is because you did not actually read or respond to the justifications in question. Some of these were contained in the piece inserted after your "refutation",but most were not.

If we consider my prior explanations of property dualism, it becomes necessary as an antecedant to my central thesis to explain certain positions regarding the relationship between naturalism and philosophy of mind in my view, which I can and will defend. It becomes necessary to consider two notions, those of consciousness and the mind. Both of these will recieve adequate empirical treatment in another piece pertaining to neuroscience. However, now for the purpose of diverting this paper to a Philosophy of Mind discourse, I wish to discuss them and their implications for the opposing positions of naturalism and supernaturalism, bearing in mind my prior points pertaining to the "Cartesian error" and the fallacy of reification which can be associated with supernaturalism.

Descartes and Leibniz came up with the "Identity of Indescribles", an ontological principle stating that objects X and Y are identical if all of their properties are, and thus it was different to speak of Descartes and "Descartes body", because of the their difference in property.

But the identity of indescernibles can be reduced to the absurd in many ways, and the Cartesian error is confuse property with substance. That is, if by Descartes we mean Descartes mind then it would be similar to arguing a dualism between water and wetness. Whilst physicalism is often conflated with the Identity of Mind Theory, non-reductive physicalism is a very important step forward in Philosophy of Mind because it recognized that physicalism does not necessary postulate no distinction between mind and brain. They have different properties, but are not the same entity. This is a critical break from the Identity of Indescernibles, because it recognizes what Descartes did not: Mental things are not entities unto themselves. This is the Cartesian error, since mental entities have different properties from the physical, they are considered wholly extant.

In reality, any proposition which attempts to explain these functions as the result of ethereal confusion without identity is not helpful, in fact it is completely absurd. Any requisites we find would immediately cut the legs out from under a proposition. If there were any properties of consciousness that were bound to naturalism the position is eliminated by reductio ad absurdum. Fortunately, there are such properties. Consciosuness requires sense organs as a requisite. WIthout sense organs, there is nothing to experience, and without experience, there is no consciousness. This is discussed in vastly greater depth in my central thesis. An entity can have experience but not consciousness, yet this relationship is not reciprocal. So, by extension we can conclude that consciousness has a neurologically complex brain as a requisite, and it is not helpful to the discussion to call it an entity per se, because this makes a fallacy of reification. There is a reason why Philosophers of Mind overwhelmingly reject the hypothesis in question, especially given its similarity to the hated qualia notion.

Invariably, the conflation between property and substance is found in theistic argument as well, confusing substratum with emergentism. It is necessary for theism to postulate consciousness and mental events as external, or seperate, from the physical such that they can speak of "God's mind" despite not being able tp speak of "God's body", since God has no body (again, consult the chapter on the Axiom of Identity for further reducing of this to absurd). Yet the error here is identical to Descartes. Calling consciousness substratum breaks down because we can consider the prerequisites as bottom-up, not top-down, so consciousness requires certain prerequisites which exist as substratum which give rise to property. I cannot have wetness without liquid. "Wetness" does not exist as a thing unto itself. Similarily, I cannot have consciousness without preexisting attributes. Consciousness is not a substrate. In fact, speaking of consciousness as a substrate is deeply, deeply unsatisfying, roughly as unsatisfying as Chalmer's qualia. For an obvious reason: It solves nothing. We want to know how the subjective experience arises, do we not? This is the most pressing question we can formulate. For a while I contemplated becoming a neuroscientist until I switched to molecular biology.

As I will argue here and in my presentation on neuroscience, it is necessary to consider consciousness an emergent property of the brain, even if not equivocant to the brain per se. For one, consciousness is a bottom-up process, which means that it is generated by structures which are not conscious per se, but can arise by the coalescance of these non-conscios structures into an emergent whole. Atoms are not conscious, neurons are not conscious, but brains do appear to generate some sort of being which is conscious. Furthermore, the degree to which this being is conscious depends on the complexity of the neuronal netowrks. But consciousness is not generally reciprocal. I can speak of worms having some primitive version of "thoughts", but it is dubious to suggest they have consciousness. Furthermore, consciousness is in an ontogenic continuum, that means it develops as the human foetus develops. If consciousness does depend on experience, then by definition experience of something, where that "something" is non-consious, ie the external world, is necessary, which would indicate the top-down nature of consciousness. I cannot speak of consciosuness without experience, and memory as well (as per the Greenfield model). Emergence not substratum. If we take this idea and run with it, since consciousness has experience of non-consciousness as a prerequisite, consciousness is extrinsic. That means that instead of being a property of the conscious entity per se, it is a property that is associated with the interaction between the entity and the non-conscious world. When we think about it, this is obvious. Consciousness is not external, however. If I am born with no sense input whatsoever, the congential defects associated with all external and introperceptive senses, will I be born conscious? No. There is nothing to be conscious of. The brain will unravel quickly with no immediate input (see my paper on neuronal networks for a further discussion). Two cloned brains will not be having the same consciousness because they cannot, by definition, be experiencing the same thing. I cannot be in your body, unless part of my body necessary for consciousness (my brain) was somehow transplanted into your body without a brain. But I cannot be amputated from my body (and when I say "my body" I mean my brain as well), just as you can't either. The reasons for this are those I have just cited. Consciousness is necessarily extrinsic and emergent, with prerequisites that arise from non-conscious entities (there is a difference between "non" and "un" in this case), which requires expereince of an external world, which hence cannot be conscious by definition, cannot be amputated from the body (there is no such thing as a "whole body amputation" because there is nothing to amputate). The reason it cannot be amputated is for those just discussed. It is not a thing.

Considering this property dualism idea, where mental events are emergent properties of physical events such that they become lower ontological status, albeit not wholly reducible to neural actions themselves (requires neuronal networks) would punch a hole straight through the concept of the theistic God, which is the central drive of my thesis, to continue my argument that the mind, and the consciousness of the mind, are emergent properties, and cannot be reificated to suit a metaphysical notion that we project our attributes of consciousness onto "God".

As I said before, consciousness is discernable. I am having my conscious experience. Not someone or something elses. Furthermore, someone else or something cannot have my conscious experience. The paperweight on my desk is not having my conscious experience, nor are other people, or that tree outside.

On this particular issue, I am fortunate to have the strong arm of most of contemporary Western Philosophy behind me. The nature of consciousness, whilst very poorly understood, is at least clarified by the fact that we can discern some salient facts about its prerequisites.

Now, as per the driving point of my thesis, if consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, not an extant substratum, , then this punches a whole in two concepts simultaneously, killing two birds with a single shotgun shell:

a) The traditionally religious dualistic idea. There is God, and God has a mind, but not a body. That's impossible.

b) The unusual inversion of monoism, where consciousness is the ultimate substrate. That's impossible. Consciousness has requisites which this cannot fulfill. Furthermore, consciousness has not identity because it is not an entity. Just as Quine said one cannot have an entity without an identity, so too, if what we are describing is not an an entity, but a property, then it doesn't have identity, but rather, is an attribute of something which is an entity hence has identity. So, the fundamental linchpin of this argument is that the postulation of the theistic God would necessarily require one to make an error of conflation between property and substance. Just as I cannot amputate "wetness" from water, so too I cannot amputate the "mind" from the "brain". The mind is not a thing unto itself, indeed, the mind is not a 'thing" at all, and such talk is inherently unhelpful. The consequences of this for the theistic postulation are truly irrevocable, because the theistic position necessitates the transcription of emergent properties onto fundamental substratum.

b) is the fundamental confusion over dualism and monoism, whereby we speak of property dualism versus substance dualism (the latter is Cartesian). Is the mind the same thing as the brain? No. Does that mean that the mind is extant and dualistic? Hell no. Is the brain absolutely necessary by definition for a mind the same way that a tired person is necessary for tiredness? Hell yes. When I say the mind is not the same thing as the brain, I mean that in the same sense that The positon of consciousness being some sort of underlying substance is particularly unhelpful when it comes to solving the problem of consciousness, because it generates a rhetoric tautology. Consciousness is consciousness. Yes, well, that's great. So, what is consciousness? Ironically, the theist answer to this is an unhelpful as is possible to be, since they invoke consciousness as the answer to the issue at hand.

Consciousness is defined by change. Consciousness is directly alterable, changeable, fluid and continuum,erception is NOT an underlying entity because it is extrinsic. That is why it is completely individual to single entities, in other words, therefore, consciousness is discernable, we can speak of certain things being conscious, and others not. Furthermore, the experience of consciosness emerges from the interaction of brain and sense data. This is why my conscsiouness is different from that of you, or your friend, and my experience different from a bat, and furthermore, it is meaningless to speak of consciousness as remaining the same for an entity between any moments t1 and t2. Consciousness is defined by change, and the most obvious change is the most universal: People die.

What can we conclude from all this? Not a great deal without the supplementing neuroscience piece (which can be read in my compilation), but even without delving into the complexities of action potentials, neurons and networks, transmitters and ion channels, we can conclude, at least from a philosophical standpoint, some points:

1) The mind and its associated consciousness are not substance, they emerge as a result of a complex brain, although we aren't entirely sure how (I discuss possible models in the technical piece).

2) Since they are extrinsic, by which I mean that "thoughts" are not actually "properties" of neuronal networks per se, rather like weight is not a property per se of you, but depend on the world line of the conscious being in question, it follows logically that such considerations are bottom-up constructs, which is to say that just as we cannot amputate eletricity from electrons, so too we cannot amputate your mind from either your body. This is covered in much greater detail in my central thesis

3) We cannot amputate consciousness and the mind from the body because they aren't things unto themselves. That was the principle error of the Ontological Principle of Identity of Indescrernibles, and the error is forced to be made in order to accomate the theistic God, which makes it inherently absurd.

4) The extrinsic nature of consciousness applies to the whole world line. Consciousness is defined by change, your consciousness at t(1) was not the same as it was at t(2), because your experience at t(1) was not the same as at t(2). Nor was your mind. As you are reading this, entire patterns of neuronal networks in your brains are shifting and overturning. The brain is surely the most fluid organ in terms of its plasticity, and this plasticity is born out in the functioning mind (vast details are provided on this in the technical piece). This applies to spatial experience as well. Two cloned brains won't have the same consciousness, since they won't have the same experience, and that will have a proportional effect on the physiological brain. In other words, consciousness, as a property of the complex brain, which exists in a continuum fashion, is not a fixed property whatsoever. That we cannot amputate consciousness from the body, so too we cannot amputate it from the external world either (discussed in much greater detail in the technical piece). Invariably, we are forced to confront the fact that this would effectively render the theistic God, outside time and cause and effect, outside an external world to experience, a mangled concept, because it treats a conscious mind as if it were possible to exist as a free-floating entity in the atemporal void. This is gibberish. We can start building the requisites for consciousness from the ground up. First is temporal substrate, it is meaningless to speak of thoughts and such without temporal sequentiality, and since consciousness is fluid and ever-changing, extremely plastic and extrinsic by definition, such would be inherently absurd. Second is an external world, it is meaningless to speak of experience with nothing to experience, third is non-conscious matter to form an object which will exude the properties in question and form the emergent whole (the brain). Fourth is ontogenic development, consciousness develops from non-consciousness, not vice-versa (the latter proposition has been reduced to the absurd, but aside from that, it is simply unhelpful to the issue at hand).

So, this is a brief synopsis of some of my positions pertaining to certian Philosophy of Mind issues. I will defend property dualism as opposed to radical eliminativism, as I will emergentism, but am still a staunch physicalist. Furthermore, I believe that considering the nature of the conscious mind from a perspective of its prerequisites (as I have done) punches a hole through the theistic God, which makes postulations regardinng the nature of consciousness antithetical to my above suggestions. As you see, I have not clarified my position on consciousness above. All I have done is eliminate absurd propositions on the matter, like the theistic ones. At any rate, whilst I do not claim to have "The Answer", I find the topic to be perfectly open to discussion, despite the mystery surrounding it, and have opened such discussion in my neuroscience piece. These two pieces combined provide a principle driving force for my central thesis in which I present a controversial position:

Talk of the Existence of the Theistic God commits a Category Error.

Now,

As Paul Drayper put it:

"Consciousness and personality are highly dependent on the brain. Nothing mental happens without something physical happening." Now Michael Tooley, a philosopher at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has stated five lines of evidence in support of this claim. Let me summarize just briefly that evidence. First, when an individuals brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience. Second, certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all. Third, other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged. Fourth, when we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex. And fifth, within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain. Thus, the conclusion that, "Nothing mental happens without something physical happening," seems inescapable.

But if nothing mental happens without something physical happening, that strongly implies that the mind cannot exist independently of physical arrangements of matter. In other words, we do not have a soul. And this is exactly what we would expect if naturalism is true. But if theism is true, then our minds should not depend on our brains for their existence; we should have souls. Also, if theism is true, then God is a disembodied mind; Gods mind is not in any sense dependent on physical arrangements of matter. But if nothing mental happens without something physical happening, that is evidence against both the existence of souls and the existence of any being who is supposed to have a disembodied mind, including God. Therefore, the physical nature of minds is unlikely if theism is true, but what we would expect if naturalism is true.”

 

Now, we can conclude that the nature of consciousness would indicate that it is fluid, emergent, and extrinsic. I, personally, prefer this model of interaction:

It is generally the bottom one I prefer, but at any rate, the issue at hand here is the nature of the mind, and I can justify, as you will note, my propositon that we can establish certian attributes and prerequistes for the mind, and that these raise problems for your conceptions. Certianly, you would be in rather a quagmire if the above model applied to mental-physical events. How could God have thoughts? How could you have thoughts upon your death?

At any rate, the functional interplay between neuronal networks and mental events, regardless of which way one arranges their reciprocality, is definitely there, such that the requistes for building a conscious mind come from non-conscious things, the synergistic result of their workings produces the mind as a whole. IN neuroscience we call this interagency functioning, without which, the functioning mind...well, would not be functioning. At any rate, the prerequsites for consciousness would imply that the nature of the mind is contradistinctive to the theistic proposition. Because the only way their propositon could make sense is to make a fallacy of reification and to amputate the mind from the external world, and call it extant. But it isn't extant, in fact, it is the very opposite, because it is fluid by nature. Invariably, when we consider philosophy of mind, Cartesian materialism is reduced to the absurd, and the theistic proposition about God's mind is taken down with it. This would invalidate your argument from design even if I didn't have to go through evolutionary processes, because it is circular reasoning: COnsicousness, hence consciousness. Speaking of the God entity, saying that the mind is recieved from a supermind, is reduced to the absurd because of the Cartesian error, but also because it is an infinite regress, a worthless proposition that generates a rhetoric tautology. Your propositional solution to the nature of the mind and consciousness, and the required postulations to substantiate this ridiculous notion of the theistic God, a body iwthout a mind, are absurd.

You can't accuse me of making a slew of unjustifed assertions if you aren't going to read the justifications for the propositions, or respond to them. You must concede that if I can establish these prerequisties of the mind of non-concious ubstratum, process, fluidiity, organic machinery, neuronal networks, an interaction between non-conscious systems and emergent conscious ones for the existence of the latter, then I have successfully punched a hole in both your concept of God and your concept of life after death. It is meaingless to speak of life after death for the reasons I already spoke of in the essay, albeit that these were covering a different argument, the same response can still apply in this case.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote:Special

tr1nity wrote:

Special pleading? I'm sorry I guess I'm not sure what your calling point 3.

 

Well it's really quite simple, I''l post it in two pieces.

1. At what point does 'amaterial' enter the ontological category of creator, lawgiving, ruler of the world, holy, omnibenevolent God? And how do you decide that without also being arbitrary.

 2. The philosophical jury is still out on consciousness being subordinate to and emergent from, matter, I agree, as I said, my own stance is basically in that zone; however, as you said

Quote:

Just insisting that because Z’s observable manifestation comes about through X and Y’s interface does not, in any factual sense require it to be considered a lower ontological category of X and Y.

as long as the Jury is out X and Y are as reasonably subordinate to Z as the reverse is true.

If you use your argument to support a conceivable Christian God, you accept it's other implications (per above), and if you insist, as you have done, that the only supernatural proposition which holds true under these circumstances is the Judeo-Christian conception of God figure intervening in the development processes of ordinary matter on some arbitrary level you are pleading against other propositions it supports which are equally strong as, if not more than, yours.

 

Quote:

I am working on my response to your first question, but I also would like to deal with this question as well.

 

Thanks for keeping me updated on it.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just insisting that

Quote:

Just insisting that because Z’s observable manifestation comes about through X and Y’s interface does not, in any factual sense require it to be considered a lower ontological category of X and Y.

as long as the Jury is out X and Y are as reasonably subordinate to Z as the reverse is true.

But this is not the issue under consideration. The issue under consideration is that the supernaturalist misunderstands naturalism and physicalism and insists that abstract property cannot be accounted for via physical systems. This is ridiculous. THe other issue under consideration was that the invocation of supernatural substance does not seem to have any relevance to how the abstraction question arises, and the main thrust of this argument was that it would be making the error of conflation, whilst simultaneously setting up a meaningless dichotomy, for which their own solution does not adress the issue at hand. "Design", the argument employed above, misses the issue at hand because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The invocation of an amaterial ethereal existence without any clarified ontological status is propositionally worthless.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to leave the long

I'm going to leave the long wordy arguments for those who enjoy that sort of thing. Deludedgod seems to be doing a fine job. I will respond to verious posts made in this thread.

Why do theists get so defensive? Because they are suffering from a delusion disorder and the more strongly you challenge them the more angry they will get. Obviously I got this idea from the God Delusion, but the more I look at the more obviously true it is (look up delusion and delusion disorder on wikipedia).

Why do some theists keep giving science a capital letter and calling it a religion. Science is a tool used to study the universe around us. It is totally based on reality. I have already defined science in a few other posts. I should write a good definition and save it so I can just paste it in next time this happens.

Looking back through history people were more defensive about their religion. There was a lot more killing.

Free will is a product of evolution. All animals have free will, it has nothing to do with god.

The bible actually does not say that Gad and Jesus loves us all. God in the OT only loved the Israelites, when he wasn't so pissed off with them he was killing them. Jesus only loves those who loves him. He wandered around offering advice and letting people know that the only way to God was through loving Jesus, but he never actually cared whether anyone followed him or not. Jesus does not love me (even if he did exist).

I have seen the light: there is no God.

I have been saved... from religious delusion.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 yeah ronin-dog, what is

 yeah ronin-dog, what is with them theists ?

I just don't get it ? Hey I try .... 

, while I got no big problem with that atheistic Jesus philosophy,

Jesus ? What is there to really disagree with ?

He say I am god , Ye are gods, this is heaven, yup , me too .... thanks atheist jesus !

? ? ?  

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15917
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Venkatrajan wrote: 1. It

Venkatrajan wrote:

1. It is not defense. It is an attempt to guide you to grace which you miss out.

2. God is not only on our side, but on your side also, he is compassionate.

3. He doesnt need defenses. He is not a human like us where he needs to defend against someone.

4. You are equating listening to actually getting convinced about non existence of God.

5. You smile and giggle because of following reasons :-

a. You are an egotist rationalist whose only true God is Logic/evidence/Science etc.

b. Further you probably lack insight leading to simpleton thinking. Meaning what is before me that only exists.

 

If he needs no defenses then what are you doing here speaking on his behalf? He cant or wont do it himself? Is he lazy? Or is it that god wont because he cant because he doesnt exist? 

Quote:
You are an egotist rationalist whose only true God is Logic/evidence/Science etc.
Quote:

For the same reason I dont atribute lighting to Thor I dont buy rediculous claims of ghosts knocking up girls or human flesh surviving rigor mortis. That doesnt make me an egotist. It means we know how lighteng is caused, we know a sperm and egg make a baby, and we know what happens to the human body after death.

Quote:
Further you probably lack insight leading to simpleton thinking. Meaning what is before me that only exists.

Simplton thinking is believing hokus pokus. Simplton thinking is believing that POOF, abracadabra, all the atoms of the earth POOF...collected at the will of an invisiable being.

If you want to believe in abracadabra Harry Potter myth, that is certainly up to you. We cant help you out of your superstition if you dont want help. Me, I like reality, it is much more fullfilling than fantacy.


"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15917
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
tr1nity wrote: Watcher

tr1nity wrote:
Watcher wrote:
Yet I have three daughters I have yet to molest or slaughter. How odd of me.

 

The common mistake of the atheist is to assume that doing the right thing from time to time somehow requires God to look favorably upon the guilty.

The hangman owes the damned only two things...a short drop with a sudden stop.

Actually the "hangman" as you so lovingly call your god, goes beyond mere exicution. Not only does he send desease and plauge that the living suffer from while alive, those who dont bow to him are not only exicuted but sent to hell to be tortured forever without end.(according to your book)

Hell is not a "stop" it is revenge from a petty tyrant who crys like a baby when people dont pay him attention. Problem is not that he actually exists|(he doesnt), the problem is people actually believing he exists. I dont, nor will I ever worship tyrants, fictional or real.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37