WJ

Edit:Finch/koy!

I thought I/we already did? I did not call myself a Berkeley-ean did I? That is not how I framed the original/recent debate/argument. I framed it under the pretense that Koy knew/knows, understood, had absolute explaination, etc. thru the tools of logic and science, that he could somehow account for or justify his own conscious existence. Or, why he thinks and believes the things he chooses to believe are 'absolute' in an objective sense, when they are not ie, the mind-body phenomenon.

Said another way, its the paradox of apriori logic and Being and/or establishing the meaning behind existence. So if he wants to prove atheism is absolute thru use of those tools only, I'll debate that it isn't absolute or even germain. Otherwise, I thought we already beat this dead horse (and I have my answer)?

Walrus

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

snatchbalance

WJ,

I guess that I would have answered in the opposite manner. Only by using deduction(absolutes) can one arrive at the conclusion that there is a God. Induction, by my way of thinking, can only offer probabilities, at best. Sometimes it only offers the possibility.

Anyway, are there any specific inductive inferences that lead you to your belief in God?

(I really don't want to address the mind/body problem here and now.)

SB

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

brighid

Walrus,

You are confused. NO one has stated (except you) that we are dealing with absolutes! Answer the question posted by Koy! No evasion – either yes or no to those questions. Answer my questions in regards to how you have concluded that your fideistic and Gnostic philosophical musings have lead you to what YOU believe to be truth, specifically that Jesus is THEE God. That isn’t so hard is it? You have come to this conclusion, so it shouldn’t be that difficult to describe that path and the tools you have used to make this conclusion, on which you base your entire worldview.

Brighid

WJ

Snatch!

One reason it is so difficult to dichotomize the conclusion if you will is that induction tends to be more subjective in theory. And that of course reates to the experience aposteriori relationship aspect to God/Being - human beings. Not impersonal apriori deductive arguments that prove certain physical things in nature existing.

Walrus

snatchbalance

WJ,

Of course, in a very famous case, Descarts, through a process of subjective induction(or deduction) came to some very different conclusions concerning the existance of god.

All subjective/internal processes are highly prone to error. IMO, they offer very very low probabilities. Do you agree?

SB

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

WJ

Bri!

Why don't you start a new thread called something like ....the leap from the mind-body problem/phenom to the belief in the concept of a God. I'll join and I assume Snatch may also. Elements of gnosticism would probably rear their ugly heads in that discussion. Or things like electrical impulses existing in and outside the brain/mind... and the ol' materialism/idealism arguments.

Otherwise, you are asking personal subjective questions for which you have no confidence in its measure of truth. Or maybe I've misread your placement of value to such personal experience which BTW cannot be verified in the way I think you would like it to be verified.

Is it you or me who's confused?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

I reiterate:

Choose what it is you are going to argue; only you exist (solipsism) and this is over, or that others exist outside of your own mind and therefore the cognitive tools of logic and the scientific method apply!

For f*ck's sake!

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Samhain

Don't think it's gonna happen Koy. He's resorted to dodgy semantics games twice on this subject, and the rest of the time he's pointedly ignored you until Darwin's Finch has brought the subject up to him. I don't think he understands the point of absolutes as far as this question is concerned.

Darwin's Finch

Dodgy semantics aside, he has insisted that Koy argue for an absolute position when Koy, and others, have repeatedly insisted that absolutes don't apply. I can only conclude that he either doesn't bother to read what other people write or he has the comprehension skills of a sea slug. Otherwise, he wouldn't continue riding that ridiculous hobby horse.

WJ

Snatch!

Agreed. This goes back to expectation levels. What is the 'appropriate method' one should hang one's hat on, or apply such mathematical logic in order to verify the existence of a Being, from Beings such as ourselves whose existence is completely dependant on time? In otherwords, the existence of a 'timeless' God cannot be proved by the same timeless axioms of mathematical aprioi logic (say from natural science)even though in concept they appear to be a perfect match. Things are changing all the time. This of course is the main reason why the classic ontological argument fails. It is based on apriori logic, 'God exists so there' kind of logic; 1+1=2. You already have to 'believe' or have had experienced life for it to have any meaning of truth or relevance, as it were.

I think it's kinda back to the limitations from our ignorance, for one, in the resolution of that problem of consciousness. The human condition...the mind-body problem, etc..

Walrus