|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 03/14/2003 : 07:35:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Also, kudos to you Ultramundane- you provide stimulating discussion points!
Kudos to all of you for making this a polite, reasonable, and fascinating thread. |
 |
|
|
mingofmongo
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 01:10:28 [Permalink]
|
Open message to the whole God communiy.
If you want someone to believe something, you must prove it, to some degree of certainty. You can't ask someone else to prove it isn't so - proof is your job. There's a place for discussing speculation and hunches and tradition. But if you expect anyone else to believe your "truth", you have to put up.
Why is the burden on you? Because it is your point. Other people are under no obligation to believe anything you say unless you prove it. If the burden of proof was on the people being preached at, they would have to believe every crank theory that they lack the time or motivation to disprove. Do you realize how many crank theories there are? How much time that would take?
No one has ever proven the existance of God, god or gods. There is no evidence anyone can point to that makes even the remotest case. Every so called proof turns out to be a mass of circular reasoning at best, and at worst, a bunch of pointless bible thumping - in any case, proving nothing other than the speaker's lack of critical thinking.
I do not require some kind of impossible level of proof. I fully acknowlege the phenomenological trouble with the whole idea of absolute proof. I just want a reasonable amount of proof.
"Look at the amazing beauty of the world!" is not proof. "Certain bugs go through a lot of hassle in their life-cycle," is not proof either.
The easy proof, would be for God to appear in a hard to fake form (I'm sure a suficiently powerful deity could arrange this), and state clearly in one of the major world languages to a large audience exactly who he is, and what he is up to. The fact that this discussion is happening is evidence that this has not happened. From this, we can lay out three reasonable posibilities.
1) God doesn't exist.
2) God exists, but can't show himself (not so godlike if you ask me)
3) God exists, but doesn't want to show himself, for whatever reason.
Number one seems the most likely. Number two makes God look a bit silly, or perhapse dead. Number three is basicly the school-boy answer, "I could do it, but I don't want to."
Any way you slice it, God isn't helping. So the proof would have to come in the form of some evidence of God's handiwork. Outside of bible stories, this evidence is quite lacking. One would have to show arbitrariness in some event. By this, I mean that an event would occur that doesn't just follow naturally from initial conditions. Such events happen in bible stories all the time - for example Lot's wife turning to salt, but never in a well established historical record, of physical sample.
Roman records, compiled with no agenda relatng to the intent to promote christianity, clearly establish the existance of certain people referred to in the bible. I am in no doubt of the existance of Pilate, Paul of Tarsus, or Peter. Though the evidence for the existance of Jesus is circumstantial, and more speculative than I would like, I am inclined by what is there to believe that Jesus was not an entirely made up character. There is enough historical record compiled by uninterested parties to verify these things to some degree of certainty.
I have never come across any compelling physical evidence of a miracle (arbitary act of god), and I have never even heard of historical evidence that was not compiled by people who were promoting the religion in question.
It is necessary that historical evidence be at least a little impartial. Otherwise people could just point to the Bible, and say "here's your historical evidence." Of course, if I wanted to prove that there is an invisable leprachaun living in my refrigerator, my writing a book about it proves nothing. Infra-red photos of a little man next to my ketchup bottle might help, especially if they were taken by someone with training and a history of impartial research.
The benefits to any of the major religions that would come from ANY objective proof of their favorite deity's existance are enormous. If the Catholic church, for example, could prove the existance of God in any real way, they would pretty well have the whole religion market to themselves. At the very least they could make the Buddists and most of the Taoists close up shop. It is hard to believe that such proof can exist, and not be found after so many years of extremely motivated searching. While that doen't disprove the existance of God - because you can never prove a negative - it casts a WHOLE LOT of doubt.
If this were a boxing match, God would have lost on points long ago. These religios people who keep trying to get ther hooks into science, or discredit the whole process of science are like the boxers that keep demanding rematches because there wasn't a knock-out. After a few thousand years, its just plain whining. |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 18:52:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
Good point. Well argued. However, the identity position avoids this sort of causal confusion. Brain activity and conscious experience (i.e. "mind") are concurrent and equivalent.
Could you please elaborate on the 'identity position'?
With regards to the idea that mystical experiences are merely brain-generated events, the following argument has also been put forward:
Just because drugs can induce similar brain states as those who undergo mystical experiences, doesn't mean that the non-drug mystical experiences are brain-generated events as well. For example one can imagine eating a lemon. Make that experience as vivid, as sensory-rich as you can. If you imagine it strongly enough, you'll taste the tartness and you'll begin to salivate - despite there not being any lemon in your mouth. So the imagination can induce the identical physical responses as an "objective" experience. Does this mean, then, that when you're eating a real lemon, it's not the lemon but your imagination that's producing the physical sensations you're having? Of course not.
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
Now philosophers like Chalmers reckon that consciousness is just such a property of matter. When matter is arranged in particular (complex) ways, consciousness is the result. Mind is therefore a property of matter, and cannot be explained as a substance in itself!
How does this emergentist "explanation" account for the undeniable fact of experience/consciousness? It holds that the physical world can have non-physical properties such as subjective experiences, which in my view is simply incoherent. So either there is no physical world at all (ontological idealism) or there is more to reality than just the physical world (dualism).
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
I would be interested to know your views (& others) with the information contained in this link - www.emergentmind.org/rivas-vandongen.htm Do you agree/disagree that skeptics simply endorse an irrational ontology?
I'm still keen to know your views 
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 21:28:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
How does this emergentist "explanation" account for the undeniable fact of experience/consciousness?
By treating it as an "emergent property." That we don't know how this property emerges is not an argument in favor of dualism.
quote:
It holds that the physical world can have non-physical properties such as subjective experiences, which in my view is simply incoherent.
It's only "incoherent" if you're starting with some supernatural presupposition. Methodological monism has no contradictions with subjective experiences. Again, that we don't know the mechanism is not evidence that the mechanism is not natural.
quote:
So either there is no physical world at all (ontological idealism)
Ontological idealism? Where do you get that? This sounds more like nihlism.
quote:
or there is more to reality than just the physical world (dualism).
Why does your dichotomy deliberately ignore monism?
In any case, your catch-all explanation (dualism) merely consists of a collection of words with no existential referent. Your argument ideally reduces to:
(1) If ~X, then Y.
(2) ~X
(C) Y
But your premise 1 crumbles without a definition of Y. If the only thing you can tell us about "supernatural" is that it is not natural, then Y = ~X. Substituting, you have:
If ~X, then ~X
Tautologically meaningless.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 08:20:58 [Permalink]
|
Ultramundane wrote:quote:
Just because drugs can induce similar brain states as those who undergo mystical experiences, doesn't mean that the non-drug mystical experiences are brain-generated events as well.
No, it doesn't. But there is zero evidence that mystical experiences are generated in any other way, and since there is evidence for the commonality of the experiences with drug use, the reasonable conclusion, to be held only until such a time as more evidence becomes available, is that mystical experiences are, indeed, brain-generated.
In other words, this argument of yours is equivalent to "just because the sun rose today doesn't mean it'll rise tomorrow." Unless you can offer good evidence that it won't, it's very reasonable to conclude that it will. There's no good reason to even consider otherwise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
PhoenixPaw
New Member
Sweden
10 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 13:18:02 [Permalink]
|
Hi.
I'm new to this forum, invited here by my brother, the "venerable" Dr_Mabuse.
It have been said that "Absense of proof is not proof of absense."
There have been no conclusive proof of the existance of any "first mover" (that I know of anyway). That, in itself, is no proof that such an entity/phenomena could not exist.
Thus we can not know with absolute certainty if such "first mover" exist or not.
My brother have told me that Dr(?) Hawkings held a lecture to the Pope (and the Cardinals) some years ago on the topic of (then) current Big Bang theory. The Papacy had nothing against what it had heard and thus gave it it's blessing. What didn't become appearant to the clergy was that at some point time became an imaginary (as in squareroot of -1) function, or some such. Thus, the "system" of the universe was closed and needed no "first mover".
I am sorry if I didn't tell the whole story accurately, but it was some years ago I heard it. Dr_Mabuse is the one who told me... so please ask him for verification.
What I really wanted to add to this discussion is something Sidharta Gautama turned Buddha (afaik, Buddha is just another word, in (at least) one of the many hindu-languages, for "enlightened"...) is supposed to have said. It's something along the lines of:
"Do not trust something found in an old book, just because it is old. Don't belive what is said by a venerable old man, just because he is venerable. Don't belive in something said by many people, just because they are many. Examine all the facts that you can for yourself, from as many points as you can, and come to your own conclusion. Then embrace your conclusion and live by it."
It seems to me that those who are "old regulars" of this forum is in the phase of sceptical gathering of data waiting to make such a conclusion.
Ultramundane, it appears that you started from the position that such an entity ("first mover" and/or "non-physical trancendent entity") does exist and is now looking for evidence that would either support or dispute that theory.
When reference to "evidence" (if you can call it that) is put forth that shows that there need not be such an entity, it unfortuneatly often seems like you're trying evade it.
I have nothing against your starting proposition, or your seach for evidence.
I belive.
I have no proof to back up my belif, except my own personal experience, which may or may not be caused by divine intervention. It is quite possible that I am delusional, I realise that, and I accept that possiblity. However, I find comfort in my belif, and will thus maintain that belif untill I am proven wrong, or find something more suitable. I will in the meantime not try to persuade anyone that my faith is the one and only true faith for everyone. My faith is just that. My faith. It's not intended to suit everybody, just me and it is, subjectively speaking I admit, doing that quite well at the time being.
A suggestive reading to those of you who feels the urge to pounce my faith out of me is Anton Chekhov's novel "The black monk".
Take care and be well.
(Edited for spelling correction.) |
The next time Micro$oft makes a product that doesn't suck, it'll be a vacuum-cleaner. (Source: random USEnet signature) |
| Edited by - PhoenixPaw on 03/28/2003 10:08:09 |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 14:57:59 [Permalink]
|
Hi PhoenixPaw!
A very nice post.
I have no intention of trying to disabuse you of your belief. I only have problems with people who insist that others share their belief. I suspect that most atheists wouldn't much care about god-belief or even Bible-belief, if it weren't for the all-pervasive influence which Christianity has, and is attempting to increase, over our society, schools, politics, etc. If it weren't for the absolute power and control which Christianity wielded over Europe for centuries, we probably wouldn't have even heard of it, at least not any more than the other ancient mystery religions. If Christians would just be content with their own belief, and not try to ram it down my, or my kid's, throat, I wouldn't much care about it, any more than I care about spoon bending, psychic surgery, and other such similar absurdities. For instance, you seldom, if ever, hear of anyone denigrating the Baghavad Gita, because its adherents aren't trying to weld their religion with the power of the state.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 16:27:24 [Permalink]
|
| Paw it doesn't sound like you are worried as to whether or not what you believe are facts, just so long as they are comfortable to you. Is that right, or have I misread you? I hope I'm mistaken because that is one of the most shallow things I have ever heard. |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 19:16:54 [Permalink]
|
| I read Paw as trying to 'swim' cautiously in an ocean of sharks. Trying not to get ripped apart right away......I dont know if that is true, that is for Paw to say. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2003 : 07:54:07 [Permalink]
|
First...quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixPaw
...invited here by my brother, the "venerable" Dr_Mabuse.
Then...quote:
Don't belive what is said by a venerable old man, just because he is venerable.
Grrr... You and I are going to have a talk next time we meet... 
On a more serious note... quote:
My brother have told me that Dr(?) Hawkings held a lecture to the Pope (and the Cardinals) some years ago on the topic of (then) current Big Bang theory. The Papacy had nothing against what it had heard and thus gave it it's blessing. What didn't become appearant to the clergy was that at some point time became an imaginary (as in squareroot of -1) function, or some such. Thus, the "system" of the universe was closed and needed no "first mover".
The story of Hawkings and the Pope is from "(the illustrated) A Brief History of Time". The clergy's concern was whether the Big Bang theory and the research beyond it would reveal something about the nature of God. "It should be left alone" was the general consensus, and they were so focused on that, that they didn't get the closed universe angle.
quote:
"...Don't belive what is said by a venerable old man, just because he is venerable."
Humf... Old man indeed. Just because my birthday is coming up, it doesn't mean you have to rub it in...
 In six years, you'll be just as old. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
PhoenixPaw
New Member
Sweden
10 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2003 : 10:23:35 [Permalink]
|
Slater, just because I belive doesn't mean I am ignoring facts.
If you find insufficient facts, or too many contradictionary facts, what do you do?
Untill I find more (and hopefully) conclusive facts one way or another about what I have experienced, repeatedly, I choose to belive. You might have chosen differently in my situation.
This belif of mine gives me comfort and a sense of purpous in life.
Do you suggest that I turn away from my faith and seek to drown my troubles with chemical substances, and possibly ruin my economy in the process?
Dr_Mabuse, you're not old, and (that kind of) venerable.
Old is when a good day is: getting out of bed at sunrise, making a cup of coffe, reading the newspaper once (finding that ones name isn't in the deceased collumn) and then noting it's 8pm.
Edited to note: I have it (black on white) from profecional psychologists and psychiatrist that I am sane. How many of you can say the same?  |
The next time Micro$oft makes a product that doesn't suck, it'll be a vacuum-cleaner. (Source: random USEnet signature) |
| Edited by - PhoenixPaw on 03/29/2003 10:33:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2003 : 12:16:25 [Permalink]
|
PhoenixPaw wrote:quote:
This belif of mine gives me comfort and a sense of purpous in life.
I'm curious: do you think that people who don't believe do not have a sense of purpose in their lives?quote:
Do you suggest that I turn away from my faith and seek to drown my troubles with chemical substances, and possibly ruin my economy in the process?
Is this the only option? There are, of course, a lot of people who believe in God, and who also choose to drown their troubles in chemical substances. There are also many people who don't believe, who don't drown their troubles with anything. It seems to me, therefore, that "belief in God" and "escapism through drugs" are independent of one another. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
PhoenixPaw
New Member
Sweden
10 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2003 : 14:12:37 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry Dave W that I didn't explisit state there are other possible options I than the ones I presented in my previous post.
There are the choice of suecide.
The path of scepticism and forever doubting everything not empiricly repeatedly testable.
We also have the choice of mixing any (and all) of the hereonto mentioned options, and those not yet mentioned choices, into one brew.
Happy now?
I should have trusted my gut-reaction and stayed away.
Oh, and I forgot... (but added later that:)
As a beliver, my faith is completely and utterly inconcistent and laughably selfcontradicionary. Everything have to be in total agreement of my (impossible) faith for it to be a valid fact, and my faith and scripture is the first and outmost reliable source of information to me. Anyone who does not belive as I can not logically live a righteous life and will concequently end up in a terrible place and/or state in their afterlife.
Since being a beliver removes what ability of critical thinking I may once have had. That must be reserved to those who have a sceptical outlook in life.
We must not in any way step out of the stereotypes. Not even the slightest. Am I right? |
The next time Micro$oft makes a product that doesn't suck, it'll be a vacuum-cleaner. (Source: random USEnet signature) |
| Edited by - PhoenixPaw on 03/29/2003 15:51:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
|
|
PhoenixPaw
New Member
Sweden
10 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2003 : 16:03:52 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W, I know that your question wasn't meant as a personal or hostile attack.
It's just that I stated "I belive" seems (personal oppinion) to force me to maintain a higher level of accuracy and completeness than those wellknown to this forum.
To a large degree Fireballn was right, but it feels I failed. I could have failed worse though, and I'm thankfull for that.
But I have learned a lesson, and grown wiser in so doing.
Hey... btw, what is a feeling? From a sceptics point of view what is a feeling, and why do we experience them? I'm not just thinking of primal state of fear, or lust, but the whole minute spectrum of feelings. |
The next time Micro$oft makes a product that doesn't suck, it'll be a vacuum-cleaner. (Source: random USEnet signature) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
