Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.

While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.

Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.

You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today

It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.

Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.

Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."

The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.

The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.

Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.

Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic

As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.

Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life. I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away. I didn't do AA or anything of that kind. I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough! That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum. That was the beginning of my search for God.

If I may, how old are you, Justin?

 

[dblack]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available. Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis of the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too. The real question now is not whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what the precise substance of which the operator is composed.

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your self-awareness with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for either God or the human soul.

But that's the thing. All the evidence suggests it isn't substance at all - it's organized information.

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available. Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too. The real question now is not whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.

Ayup! And just as our own existence, that thing we refer to when we say "I", isn't composed of physical matter, but is, rather, a by-product of a self-referential representational system, well, how is the concept of a god any different? To the extent that believers share a consistent conception of a god, and act out its will on earth, how is it any different than the self-conception that lies that core of self awareness?

 

[Justin Davis]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.

While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.

Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.

You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today

It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.

Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.

Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."

The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.

The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.

Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.

Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic

As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.

Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life. I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away. I didn't do AA or anything of that kind. I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough! That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum. That was the beginning of my search for God.

If I may, how old are you, Justin?

Not very old actually. I'm 31. I started my drinking career at 16 and got really good at in just a few months. I married young too. I quite drinking when I was 24, with a wife and two toddlers. It seems like a long time ago because I changed my entire life and friends. I had to. I just made up my mind that I wasn't going to visit my dad on my family. He wasn't a bad man, abusive or anything like that. He just wasn't there, not mentally or emotionally. I've run the family's plumbing business since I was 22.

 

[PratchettFan]

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred objective evidence.

Without a shred of ANY evidence period.. He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view. He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently. But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is. LOL. I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.

I thought I was clear on my point of view. But let me make it as clear as possible. The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge. However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter. Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion.

But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned. So I shall leave you alone.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.

While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.

Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.

You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today

It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.

Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.

Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."

The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.

The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.

Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.

Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic

As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.

Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life. I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away. I didn't do AA or anything of that kind. I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough! That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum. That was the beginning of my search for God.

If I may, how old are you, Justin?

Not very old actually. I'm 31. I started my drinking career at 16 and got really good at in just a few months. I married young too. I quite drinking when I was 24, with a wife and two toddlers. It seems like a long time ago because I changed my entire life and friends. I had to. I just made up my mind that I wasn't going to visit my dad on my family. He wasn't a bad man, abusive or anything like that. He just wasn't there, not mentally or emotionally. I've run the family's plumbing business since I was 22.

Good for you! I too had a serious drinking problem almost three decades ago. My experience was much the same. I went cold turkey like you, though I relapsed a few times during the first year. But then I determined that I would never let it happen again. Life and family was plenty interesting enough after all.

I didn't do AA either, not really, though I tried a few meetings--most depressing thing I ever did. Folks were talking about trees and their dogs being their higher power. I was still an atheist at the time, though never an asshole about it. I could deal with talk about a substantive divinity, but dogs and trees? I think it was my fourth or fifth meeting when this lady went off on some tangent about the spirit of the wind or some such being her higher power. No thanks. I left.

Like you said, the draw for the juice just fades away after awhile if you don't feed the beast. But I didn't have your insight about the soul until several years after the fog cleared. That's a very impressive insight given your age at the time. After several years, I could drink an occasional beer or glass of wine with dinner just like a normal person, and knew I could do it without going crazy. You just know. You can become a different person in a very profound way, and normal drinking is possible, though I haven't drunk anything for more than a decade but an occasional glass of wine, mostly for health reasons. It's just a glass of wine. But I'm not suggesting you try that unless you know for sure and it's for the right reason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're just retarded.

If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -

Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.

Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.

Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.

How do computers know anything?

But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...

Perhaps you should expand your readings.

Do Fruit Flies Have Free Will -- ScienceDaily

There are a lot of things that human science cannot define that exist in this universe.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred objective evidence.

Without a shred of ANY evidence period.. He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view. He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently. But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is. LOL. I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.

I thought I was clear on my point of view. But let me make it as clear as possible. The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge. However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter. Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion.

But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned. So I shall leave you alone.

The only point of view that you have offered is that knowledge that isn't demonstrable is irrelevant or unimportant or meaningless to anybody other than the one with the knowledge. You haven't offered any rationale for how that is so and you have ignored all my illustrations that argue against that point of view. And you have not questioned my opinions but have simply said you disagree but will not offer an argument against the arguments I have made.

I actually thrive on those who question my opinions with an interest to know why I hold them or how I can defend them. I figure if any opinion I hold cannot hold up against challenge or scrutiny, it probably isn't worth holding.

I do not enjoy the 'is too - is not' form of debate that practically goes into contortions to avoid actually discussing the topic or articulating a rationale for a point of view. And I usually find most ad hominem arguments offensive.

Do have a nice evening.

 

[dblack]

From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...

Perhaps you should expand your readings.

Do Fruit Flies Have Free Will -- ScienceDaily

There are a lot of things that human science cannot define that exist in this universe.

Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available. Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis of the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too. The real question now is not whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what the precise substance of which the operator is composed.

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your self-awareness with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for either God or the human soul.

But that's the thing. All the evidence suggests it isn't substance at all - it's organized information.

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available. Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too. The real question now is not whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.

Ayup! And just as our own existence, that thing we refer to when we say "I", isn't composed of physical matter, but is, rather, a by-product of a self-referential representational system, well, how is the concept of a god any different? To the extent that believers share a consistent conception of a god, and act out its will on earth, how is it any different than the self-conception that lies that core of self awareness?

Well, I'll tell you what. I'm not qualified to address this topic, because I don't know enough about the science. I know more than the average Joe, but only as a consequence of my passing acquaintance with the science in my reading of the pertinent philosophical literature. I know enough about the science to confidently assert what I did in the above, which is to say, I know enough to make me dangerous. My perspective on the soul, my understanding, is theological, spiritual, biblical. Now I can speak to that with authority. As for the scientific side of it, I'd have to defer to QW. You'd do yourself a lot more good talking to him about it. My comment went to your notion that there's little or no evidence for these things. The evidence overwhelming points to God's existence. I can be of some service there, but if you're interested I'd ask you to please read what I've written on that in this thread first.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...

Perhaps you should expand your readings.

Do Fruit Flies Have Free Will -- ScienceDaily

There are a lot of things that human science cannot define that exist in this universe.

Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.

That I'll grant you, about many scientists, that is, regarding their philosophical and especially their theological skills.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred objective evidence.

Without a shred of ANY evidence period.. He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view. He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently. But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is. LOL. I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.

I thought I was clear on my point of view. But let me make it as clear as possible. The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge. However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter. Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion.

But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned. So I shall leave you alone.

Knowledge worth knowing is belief, i.e., true belief knowledge, though one does have to keep the Gettier problem in mind, and, once again, demonstrable knowledge is still not what you think it is. You really do need to open up your mind a bit . . . a lot, actually. If we were to go at knowledge the way you would have it, we'd get a lot more things wrong and know significantly less than what can be confidently known or reasonably asserted, ironically, so that we might make the kind of errors that lead to the discovery of new things. What puzzles me about you is that you don't have the insight to recognize that you're arguing with folks who demonstrably known infinitely more than you about all this.

 

[G.T.]

You're just retarded.

If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -

Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.

Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.

Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.

How do computers know anything?

But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.

You're the one who invoked the computer as a knower, dunce.

 

[G.T.]

You're just retarded.

If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -

Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.

Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.

Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.

How do computers know anything?

But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.

But honestly, this is a great example of the lengths of dishonesty you'd go to in a conversation, which reaffirms you're not worth having one with.

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

You tried to posit an example of where it's not true.

You said, a computer that is programmed to collect all knowledge, but doesnt have access to what it collects.

I said, part of ]"all knowledge" necessarily becomes that this computer HAS/COLLECTS "all knowledge," thus that is part of the knowledge it collects, thus it knows it is all knowing.

You come back with "how does a computer know anything?" and call me stupid?

Ummmmmm, jerkoff, if you're not calling the computer the knower in the first place, then it's not even an example that fits the scenario and who the fuck knows why you even presented it.

If you are calling the computer the knower, the example fails because a part of what it collects (all knowledge) is that it, itself, has all knowledge.

Try again, you dishonest schmuck.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.

Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.

If at all, it could be eternal.

Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing can be imagined. I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined. It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.

I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true. It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.

In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not time, as we understand it, has always existed is odd. Just cut to the chase. If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist. I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.

 

[dblack]

Oh no. I grasp the concept. I really do. I just think you're wrong.

. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred objective evidence.

Without a shred of ANY evidence period.. He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view. He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently. But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is. LOL. I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.

I thought I was clear on my point of view. But let me make it as clear as possible. The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge. However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter. Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion.

But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned. So I shall leave you alone.

Knowledge worth knowing is belief, i.e., true belief knowledge, though one does have to keep the Gettier problem in mind, and, once again, demonstrable knowledge is still not what you think it is. You really do need to open up your mind a bit . . . a lot, actually. If we were to go at knowledge the way you would have it, we'd get a lot more things wrong and know significantly less than what can be confidently known or reasonably asserted, ironically, so that we might make the kind of errors that lead to the discovery of new things. What puzzles me about you is that you don't have the insight to recognize that you're arguing with folks who demonstrably known infinitely more than you about all this.

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available. Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis of the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too. The real question now is not whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what the precise substance of which the operator is composed.

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your self-awareness with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for either God or the human soul.

But that's the thing. All the evidence suggests it isn't substance at all - it's organized information.

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.

Yet more ill-educated mush.

Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?

Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available. Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too. The real question now is not whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.

Ayup! And just as our own existence, that thing we refer to when we say "I", isn't composed of physical matter, but is, rather, a by-product of a self-referential representational system, well, how is the concept of a god any different? To the extent that believers share a consistent conception of a god, and act out its will on earth, how is it any different than the self-conception that lies that core of self awareness?

Well, I'll tell you what. I'm not qualified to address this topic, because I don't know enough about the science. I know more than the average Joe, but only as a consequence of my passing acquaintance with the science in my reading of the pertinent philosophical literature. I know enough about the science to confidently assert what I did in the above, which is to say, I know enough to make me dangerous. My perspective on the soul, my understanding, is theological, spiritual, biblical. Now I can speak to that with authority. As for the scientific side of it, I'd have to defer to QW. You'd do yourself a lot more good talking to him about it. My comment went to your notion that there's little or no evidence for these things. The evidence overwhelming points to God's existence. I can be of some service there, but if you're interested I'd ask you to please read what I've written on that in this thread first.

I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.

The problem with scientist attempting to find evidence of things like 'free will' is that they don't even know what they mean by the term, and they haven't done the work to clarify it to the point that any meaningful evidence could be collected. The article hints at the real problems involved, pointing that neither pure deterministic behavior, nor random chance, seems to satisfy our notion of 'free will', but without any justification they conclude that it must be a mix of the two(?). But I don't see how some randomness and some determinism is meaningful, or gets us any closer to free will. And of course the problem is, that our conception of free will is simply in coherent. And we have to sort that out first.

 

[G.T.]

The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.

Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.

If at all, it could be eternal.

Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.

Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.

I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing can be imagined. I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined. It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.

I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true. It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.

In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not time, as we understand it, has always existed is odd. Just cut to the chase. If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist. I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.

You imagined it, but won't describe it?

Odd, that.

You let me know how an all knower could not KNOW that it is all knowing, in your imagination, or I'll take it as a concession.

But if it doesnt know its all knowing, thats a piece of knowledge it doesnt posess thus its no longer even an all knower. hurr dee durr durr durr

Also - let's do these premises one at a time.

Which premise cannot be logically refuted? Also - make sure it's also PROVEN, ABSOLUTELY, before you're asking for refutation. Because then, it's not even necessary to refute because it's merely an assertion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*

 

[dblack]

You're just retarded.

If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -

Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.

Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.

Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.

How do computers know anything?

But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.

You're the one who invoked the computer as a knower, dunce.

I don't think anyone believes modern computers 'know', but is it possible? Could a computer with a neural network as complex as the human brain "know" things? Could it be self-aware? Could it be conscious?

 

[G.T.]

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*

Nope.

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.