God cannot exist...sue me!

[Sophus]

This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, what you are proposing comes dangerously close to logical positivism, which has been proven to be a dead belief because it’s self-refuting. If you are saying that knowledge can only be constituted by what is observable, then I think I’ve found the problem in your reasoning.

Unless you're referring to social sciences this statement is flat out wrong. Please reference otherwise. Prove what you are saying.

So I leave you the final word, but I would implore you to go out there and look up Richard Swinburne’s “Evolution of the Soul.” Please, read books, not the internet.

I read a lot of books and I have to tell ya: There's nothing magical in its ink or papers that keeps the writer from lying or being incapable of err. Or for that matter making themselves look as silly any fool with a keyboard. Especially when it comes to Christian apologetics.

When [Swinburne] tried to explain Holocaust as a God's way of giving Jews the opportunity to be brave and noble, Atkins growled: "May you rot in hell".

By the way, if you're saying some things are immaterial and you can prove it, by all means accomplish what modern sciecne has never been able to do, on an internet forum.  

[Event_Horizon]

This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Of course the theist is left at a disadvantage because none of what we found so far is supernatural, and yet the theist argues for a supernatural universe. The burden of proof is on the theist (or supernaturalist). Everything the naturalist has predicted has been consistent with their premises. I can assume that we live in an all material universe, and that could indeed be wrong at some point, but everything so far as been material. The assumption you make however is much more egregious because you assume something exists despite no evidence for it in a universe that has astounding evidence for the contrary.

The best way to explain it is to look at computers and ask, “Are computers immaterial?” Obviously they aren’t. So would this mean that information is also material? Not at all, because you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation; you’re assuming that because computers can pass information and computers are physical, information must also be physical.

I know the information passed between the computers is physical, and we know how it works. I’m not saying that because the computer is physical that the part of the computer is also physical, but that we know the information passed is physical in and of itself. And what is your explanation? That it’s not a physical process because there is no material that you can hold in your hand or see under a microscope?

That is what is meant when I say that an idea or knowledge is immaterial. To say, “Well this is all a process of the brain” is an incomplete statement. Yes, while the brain uses physical functions to interpret and process, there is nothing to indicate that the brain is the cause of the processes rather than the effects of a cause. To assert otherwise is to beg the question.

Now before you turn this on me and say that I am assuming otherwise

But you ARE assuming because you don’t know if the brain is the cause or the effect and you assume there is something nonphysical about it. You say that knowledge is immaterial, yet you don’t understand how brain processes, stores, categorizes, and changes information. There is astounding amounts of research that shows that the brain is the cause of such things and nothing to the contrary. I can give the brain dopamine inhibitors to such a degree that a person shows signs of schizophrenia. Obviously the chemicals caused the brain to change, and therefore express certain psychological traits. The schizophrenia didn’t change the brain, the brain caused the schizophrenia. I can also remove parts of your brain and you will be unable to perform certain functions, like inhibition control, or form memories. The brain is the seat of everything, and taking it away causes everything else to stop. So yes, according to new research, the brain is the cause. You’re trying to argue exceptionally old points of mind/brain dualism which have been addressed and are currently being eroded by cognitive neuroscience.

Again, this is more question begging. You stated that consciousness is a product of the brain de facto. But that’s what I’m debating, so you’re asserting the contention as a fact, meaning that it’s quite impossible to prove otherwise, hence the accusation of question begging.

It’s not that I’m begging the question, it’s just that I have a degree in psychology and you don’t understand the physical properties of the brain. Simply because you don't know something that I do doesn't mean that I'm making something up. The evidence supports a consciousness rooted in the brain, so what is your evidence against? We can change the way people think by physical chemicals affecting physical receptors in physical networks of the brain. Once the person dies, the consciousness doesn’t just drift around in a cloud. The person is gone, and so is their consciousness. Everything points to a physical brain and so far there is no evidence to the contrary. So when you say I’m making an assumption, or begging the question, that is just false.

This would mean that if we could ever explain consciousness as something that actually exists, naturalism couldn’t account for it by nature of what naturalism teaches.

Then I think we’re arguing on different points because I came into this debate defending naturalism as the idea that depicts reality and the universe as something physical, as in not supernatural. If you’re trying to say that I need to find a root of everything in nature then our points aren’t matching. I am less concerned with how consciousness got there, and more concerned with the workings as such. In either case, if you’re arguing for something other than a physical universe, then you have to show evidence as to why you think so. But once again there's a problem, you simply can't say that nature didn't cause something if you don't know how nature functions.

You hold blind faith that an answer will come about (though any such answer would undermine naturalism). That is, by definition, the argument from ignorance.

I have no faith (in anything). I personally make no claim to the existence of the supernatural, as stated in my previous posts, but if I were pressed for an answer, I’d say that judging from the physical makeup of the universe, I would expect the rest of the universe to be physical as well â€" things like the origin of consciousness and the origin of universe itself. Every question scholars have asked so far has been eventually answered by a physical observation, and not a supernatural one. In order for me to accept the contrary, and even for the contrary against naturalism to be true, you need EVIDENCE of such. Which you don’t seem to have. What you are arguing is your interpretations of physical phenomena, or going after things we have little understanding of, and using that against naturalism without putting forward a point of your own.

You’re assuming that because some parts of the universe are physical, all of existence itself has to be physical as well.

But in a universe where everything so far is physical, why would I think that someone is not physical? 100% of the universe is physical, and 0% of the universe is not physical. Show me the evidence contrary to that and I will change my mind. I admit I made an assumption, but your assumption is far worse â€" assuming there is something nonphysical in a physical universe.

We wouldn’t say that Peter’s desire was a mechanistic response (with exception to self-defense, but let us say that Peter killed Paul because he didn’t like Paul’s tie) because if we did say that Peter’s act was mechanistic, then how could we properly send him to prison or hold him accountable for his crime? After all, the real fault lays with Paul for wearing a tie that would incite people to murder; but then again, if consciousness is an illusion then Paul only chose that tie because biology had guided him to choose that tie, so there was no real choice involved.

Welcome to the conversation psychological behaviorists had sixty years ago. Is there a consensus of how consciousness works? NO. Will we find out? MAYBE. The observations seen over the years shows that our brain is run by very VERY complex circuitry. There are positive feedback loops, and circuits that fight against each other, and there is a constant war between the inhibitory networks in the prefrontal cortex and the emotionally desire driven networks of the limbic system. Some psychologists argued that everything we do is not actually a choice but a calculation within our brains, and that we have no free will (B.F. Skinner, or John Watson, I think). They argued that the idea of free will is a construct of the brain. To function at a higher level, the personality needs to think it’s in control. There is also much more than just our day to day thinking. Waking consciousness is only the top of the pyramid to which countless other processes go on at the base, undetected. Now do I agree with that? I’m not sure. However what does the supernaturalistic explanation have? Well not much. Every function of the body and reception by the senses is done by the brain. So what purpose does something like a soul have? If the soul even exists at all, it is trivial. But mind/brain dualism isn’t anything new. The arguments are pretty old, and they’re turning obsolete by new research.

I agree that the brain is essential to human survival, but this doesn’t prove that the brain is the central aspect of everything.

The facts say otherwise. Look up the case of Phineas Gage, and how damage to the prefrontal cortex caused personality changes. The brain is the central aspect to everything because it manages everything within our body. You don’t seem to have a very robust understand as to the workings of the brain: from the brainstem controlling heartbeat and respiration, to the occipital lobe controlling sight, or the pituitary gland controlling hormones. Without the brain, we would die; or if we didn't die, we would have no feelings or memories. Every other part of the body can be replaced, but not the brain. As soon as you remove that 3 pound of grey matter, the human stops existence. However if you replaced every other part of the body, perhaps making someone a cyborg, they would keep their personality, memories, and emotions, etc etc. So when you say naturalism can’t explain it, half of that statement is just wrong, and the other half is an argument from ignorance.

Now, if naturalism is false, then supernaturalism must be true (in some form).

[/quote]

Awww, pretty tricky, but no, supernaturalism is true once evidence for it arises that shows it to be true. If naturalism is false, then naturalism is false.

As it stands, you know a great deal about philosophy, way more than me, but you also understand very little of the processes of psychology, biology and evolution. Naturalism would be very easily refuted if evidence of the supernatural came to light, and it would take much less effort to argue away naturalism then. However you’ve gone and tried to refute naturalism because you see things that cannot be explained by naturalism, to which you should probably look them up. Some things you assert are just downright wrong, and the things we don’t know yet are simply arguments from ignorance.

Every supernaturalistic explanation has been shown to be wrong over the course of scientific inquiry. Why do the planets move? What keeps us on the ground? What causes diseases? What causes psychological disorders? What made the first organisms? Where did we come from? The supernaturalistic explanations have been losing ground for hundreds of years. The base you stand on is eroding, and until you can show something supernatural then supernaturalism is not a viable way to consider reality. As far as naturalism goes, everything we’re been able to observe is natural, and you have not provided evidence for me to think otherwise.

[hackenslash]

This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Wrong. It doesn't take any conclusions. It asks the question 'what is reality telling us?' and goes no further. It doesn't discount the immaterial, it sees no good reason to count it. I hope you can see the distinction, Mr 'I've got a PhD in making up shit about made-up entities and a masters in navel-gazing'.

Your complete failure to understand basic logic demonstrates, I think, the lack of anything remotely resembling veracity regarding your claims.

[pckizer]

If you covered this part of the misunderstanding, forgive me, but I keep seeing it so I'm going to have to assume it has not been addressed, at least sufficiently.  This probably doesn't either, but I needed to dip my toe into this thread.

This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

I've been an observer for the majority of this thread, but what I'm seeing time and time again is the setting up of a false dichotomy between reality and claims that there exists something outside the realm of reality, though obviously completely ill- or un-defined.

Or as the other descriptions keep putting it: the natural and the supernatural.  Again, that's a false dichotomy.  And there is not a closing off, per-se, of considering immaterial sources since science and naturalism deal with such all the time (see below), the general claims are that there has never been any demonstration of why we really should consider the magical thinking and there has never really been demonstrated repetition sufficient for proof.  [There have been countless claims that do not hold water, such as the recent O'Reilly "The tide comes in, the tide goes out, no miscommunication." example (likely slightly incorrect since I typed it from memory), that are so laughable since naturalism completely demolishes that attempt at providing an example of magic demonstrating itself in our world.]

As for taking on meek assumptions, again your creating a fallacy (composition). You’re assuming that because some parts of the universe are physical, all of existence itself has to be physical as well.

This is something that's been talked about so very much in this thread and I believe part of the basic misunderstanding.  Science, naturalism, and truly studying reality do not claim all things studied are necessarily physical (though that also depends on the definition of physical and it appears multiple have been used during this thread): take gravity, or magnetism, or various fields and forces that appear to act at a distance.  Those are not completely understood, particularly the underlying basic properties that might tie them together.  Unlike things made of matter, we cannot do as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread and slice off a piece to store on a slide to come back later and peek at under a microscope.

Where naturalism comes in is that we do not say everything is necessarily of that slice it/store it/magnify it composition, but there is necessarily some repeatable interaction with something that is.  With magnetic fields we can investigate them crudely with iron filings observing the patterns made when introduced to the field, and we can do it multiple times and show others how to perform the same tests to investigate themselves.  Part of science is also devising finer-tuned tests to more deeply probe into the nature of what is being investigated, so there are other tests, meters, scopes that can give quantitative analysis of those not exactly physical yet still very real forces.  Though not exactly physical, they're still very natural parts of reality that can be systematically studied since they do interact with the physical.


Time and again in this thread, there keep being made assertions that there exists some form of super-natural that cannot be studied or measured due to some variety of reasons that never seem to be fully explained.

The two claims related to the supernatural, then, are that it cannot be studied since it is somehow outside of reality, and also that you do somehow know about it in some way and can write about and explain parts of it.  Those two statements contradict each other, though, since your ability to know about it necessitates some form of interaction with the natural world that can be studied by those that actually care to.


Since naturalism and science are merely methodology and process for studying anything and everything we interact with, by definition we can study and probe into it if it has any interaction with the physical universe that we can observe and manipulate.

If that which you are calling the supernatural truly exists and interacts with our universe in any way, then it's truly not supernatural and would merely be part of reality and nature we do not know about yet.  Demonstrate it really exists.  Show others how to demonstrate it exists and interacts with the universe in any way at all.  Those that engage in the magical thinking might not like that doing that demystifies it and removes it from the realm of magical thinking so many people appear to want to exist, but that's part of the nature of truly seeking to understand reality.

[The Magic Pudding]

The facts say otherwise. Look up the case of Phineas Gage, and how damage to the prefrontal cortex caused personality changes. The brain is the central aspect to everything because it manages everything within our body. You don’t seem to have a very robust understand as to the workings of the brain: from the brainstem controlling heartbeat and respiration, to the occipital lobe controlling sight, or the pituitary gland controlling hormones. Without the brain, we would die; or if we didn't die, we would have no feelings or memories. Every other part of the body can be replaced, but not the brain. As soon as you remove that 3 pound of grey matter, the human stops existence. However if you replaced every other part of the body, perhaps making someone a cyborg, they would keep their personality, memories, and emotions, etc etc. So when you say naturalism can’t explain it, half of that statement is just wrong, and the other half is an argument from ignorance.

I'm not sure where the Abrahamists placed the soul, Aristotle and others had it in the heart, and other organs had mystical import.
Maybe it is hidden in a secret invisible organ, or disguised in an apparently useless one.
All I can say is think carefully before you allow your appendix to be removed.

[DJAkuma]

Every other part of the body can be replaced, but not the brain. As soon as you remove that 3 pound of grey matter, the human stops existence. However if you replaced every other part of the body, perhaps making someone a cyborg, they would keep their personality, memories, and emotions, etc etc.

That's changing pretty fast, I read an article a couple weeks ago about work being done on an artificial hippocampus and they're not far from animal trials and say that it won't be long after that for clinical trials on humans. It said the hippocampus will be one of the simpler parts of the brain to replicate in silicon and the easiest to test since once it's implanted the subject will either be able to form new memories or not.

[DJAkuma]

I'm not sure where the Abrahamists placed the soul, Aristotle and others had it in the heart, and other organs had mystical import.
Maybe it is hidden in a secret invisible organ, or disguised in an apparently useless one.
All I can say is think carefully before you allow your appendix to be removed.

If you can find an organ that gingers are missing you've found where the soul resides.

[Event_Horizon]

That's changing pretty fast, I read an article a couple weeks ago about work being done on an artificial hippocampus and they're not far from animal trials and say that it won't be long after that for clinical trials on humans. It said the hippocampus will be one of the simpler parts of the brain to replicate in silicon and the easiest to test since once it's implanted the subject will either be able to form new memories or not.

That is absolutely fascinating. I've been out of school for about a year, so I don't have access to the latest research. If you have a link to the article I would live to see it. Right now I'm googling "artificial hippocampus" and getting some interesting things.

[DJAkuma]

That's changing pretty fast, I read an article a couple weeks ago about work being done on an artificial hippocampus and they're not far from animal trials and say that it won't be long after that for clinical trials on humans. It said the hippocampus will be one of the simpler parts of the brain to replicate in silicon and the easiest to test since once it's implanted the subject will either be able to form new memories or not.

That is absolutely fascinating. I've been out of school for about a year, so I don't have access to the latest research. If you have a link to the article I would live to see it. Right now I'm googling "artificial hippocampus" and getting some interesting things.

I came across it while looking for something else, if I come across it again I'll post a link, it was some pretty cool stuff.

[TheJackel]

Achronos wrote:This is what I mean by “tainted,” it’s begging the question. It takes the conclusion, “All things are material” and injects it into the premise “There is a material cause for everything.” It automatically closes itself off to an immaterial causality. Thus, no matter what the theist argues, he is left at a disadvantage.

Please define the absence of substance or material. It's non-material (no substance).. Hence, "nothing" in the literal context. You can feel free to show me a nothing object, person, place or thing. There is a reason why it automatically closes itself off to immaterial causality because nothing can not be a form of causality in the literal context. You can feel free to reference the definition of "nothing" here:

Nothing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything.

Dictionary.com:

- 4 dictionary results
noth·ing
â€, â€,/ˈnʌθɪŋ/ Show Spelled[nuhth-ing] Show IPA
â€"noun
1.
not anything; naught:
2.
no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of ): God has no evidence to prove it's existence.
3.
something that is nonexistent.
4.
nonexistence
5.
something or someone of no importance or significance:

---

So let's explore the prefix "non":

Dictionary.com:
a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force as implying mere negation or absence of something

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non-
non-
prefix
1. indicating negation / nonexistent

non (nōÌ,n)
adverb, interjection
1. no

Now put those into context of "Non-material". Now feel free to explain how nothing can be an existing object, person, place or thing in literal context.

[xSilverPhinx]

The Jolly Green Giant actually exists. I can prove it with verifiable, testable evidence and repeatable testing. I'm not joking. There's a man living outside of Stockholm with gigantism who also has a melanin mutation which makes his skin appear to be a shade of green.

Here is an article about him from the Guardian, and here is a link to the study on gigantism of which he was a volunteer.


Did you click on the links? Did you, for one second, realize that there may be evidence for something which you were simply unaware of? That's because you also understand the concept that one cannot disprove a negative.

I think negatives can be disproved. To use a favorite of Stenger's examples, there are no elephants in Yellowstone Park. Because even if there were you would see the traces they leave behind (footprints, dung, etc.) This is also why I think the monotheistic God has been disproved. He simply did not show up where we would expect him to. Admittedly, Deism is a different story.

I have a different take on that.

I can't disprove that unicorns don't exist but if someone were to come and say they say a unicorn that was part of the universe but not bound by its laws (such as a gravity-defying unicorn) that could then morph into a planet and back again I think one could say that such a thing is disproved based on what we know and not just the absence of evidence. Not only is there no reason not to believe in it but there are reasons not to believe in it, which is exactly my anti theistic take on the god of the bible and personal gods of theists.

A theistic god (whichever one) comes with a load of knowledge claims attached to it which can be and frequently are disproved.

[xSilverPhinx]

Very interesting post. I wish I was here sooner but since I wasn't I just going to slightly mess up you guys flow.

radicalaggrivation Please correct me if I am wrong but this is Epicurus's argument.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is what I believe. God is both Willing and able to remove evil. So the question is were did evil come from? Evil is disobedience of the rules God setup. I would say that it is started with Love. Love is a choice and God wanted man to love Him to choose Him. God could have made everyone obey Him but since Love requires a decision then we have to actively choose Him. So if we have to choose Him that means that we have an option to not choose Him.

Now lets move on to what I spoke of earlier, the disobedience of God. God requires justice but He is also merciful. So in His mercy He used Jesus as a stand in for all acts of evil committed by anyone. So if you make the decision to choose to give your life to God then He will begin to make you like Him. (No you will not become gods but you will be exactly what you were meant to be...holy)This is not religion this actually allowing God to rule in your life and change who you are. This is a process of learning and growing. This is God's mercy . Once everyone who will accept His offer has then He will enact His justice by removing evil. He will even destroy this earth and remake a new one.

The prevention of evil can not just rest upon God's shoulders but also on those who do evil. God have given us the ability to choose to choose to obey Him or disobey Him. To be evil or allow Him to make us like Him. He is willing to equip us with the ability to not be evil but it must be on His terms and since He made it all who are we to tell Him anything different?

Does god also know everything beforehand? Is god omniscient? How can we have the free will to chose to "love" god if he already knows beforehand if we will or not?

[fester30]

If God was subject to his own rules, he'd never get into heaven.

[AnimatedDirt]

Does god also know everything beforehand? Is god omniscient? How can we have the free will to chose to "love" god if he already knows beforehand if we will or not?

Are we going back to this?  Knowing *your choices before *you choosing does not force *your choice...it remains *YOUR choice.

Moving on.

[xSilverPhinx]

Does god also know everything beforehand? Is god omniscient? How can we have the free will to chose to "love" god if he already knows beforehand if we will or not?

Are we going back to this?  Knowing *your choices before *you choosing does not force *your choice...it remains *YOUR choice.

Moving on.

No, not moving on, because I really want to understand why this makes sense to theists because to me as someone standing outside the theistic box it really doesn't.

Assuming we have the free will to make our own choices...I won't dispute that. An omniscient god knows how this universe will play out till it's end, are you going to tell me that it doesn't include whether or not you'll choose to believe in that god? What is god-given free will in that sort of deterministic universe?

If he already knows what you're going to choose before you choose it but still want to punish you (send you to hell) for a choice that he already knows you're going to make before you're even born, how is he omnibenevolent?  

The whole argument would make more sense in the quantum probalistic frame where paralel universes  diverge after every probable event, but still...how far does god's omniscience go? The word has quite an absolute meaning - god knows everything, and that includes everything.