Vorkosigan

Ox!
I agree. Why? Because it logically follows if creation is unknown (infinite regress of darwinism and explaination for the big bang) as there must have been the 'first one' somehow, then human consciousness has no explaination other than it just is.

This is a confused statement. Human consciousness is the result of evolutionary processes. Indeed, "it just is."

The "infinite regress" problem in the origin of the universe is an illusion. You can solve it simply by pointing out that the universe is sufficient unto itself -- numerous solutions to the problem of the origin of the universe exist, and none introduce and infinite regress.

And if that's the case why does consciousness create wonder?

Are you familiar with any of the literature in cognitive science or evolutionary psychology? I suggest you do some serious reading before you make statements like this. Start with something like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/052148541X/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution</a> ro <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393318486/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">How the Mind Works</a> by S. Pinker.

In otherwords, human the evolution/creation (whichever the case) of higher forms of consciousness (the ability to compute the laws of gravity when it is not required in dodging falling objects, not to mention sentience, feeling,love, wonderment) has an interesting irony from the way in which we think we know it works; meta-physical. (Beyond the explaination of electrical impulses.)

Not a better explanation. There is no evidence that anything non-naturalistic is going on in the human brain. Do you know of any?

Vorkosigan

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

daemon

Justifiable to whom, and in what way? "Justifiable" has a number of possible meanings.
Koy probably meant that it was irrelevant as in irrelevant to the question of whether God exists, which is, after all, the point of this forum.
There appears to be a potential for equivocation here. Do you mean possible as in "capable of existing," or "of unknown existential status"? Given that we have eliminated logic and scientific testing as methods, I do not see how we can determine whether it is possible in the former sense, and in the latter this appears to pretty much be a non-statement.

Mageth

wild ox:

Your implication that some of us may not be "intellectually honest" is not well taken. Everything I've said herein has been an honest opinion or an honest question.

We do not know if “God” exists or not, but the concept of “God” does exist. It exists in many people’s minds. But it cannot be scientifically defined.

My argument cannot be applied to square-circleness because it is not a “CONCEPT”. We are only discussing CONCEPTS. CONCEPTS can ALWAYS be thought. That is what makes them concepts.
Maybe I should have used other words. But, as I stated before. Square-circleness is not thinkable. Thus it is different from “thinkable concepts such as “God” or “evil” or “humor”.

I'm having a general problem with your thinking here. You say god is "non-physical" yet is logically possible to exist because it's possible to think about a concept of god. To me, existence implies physicalness, whether material or philosophical (as in concepts, such as "truth", which exist only in our physically-based minds and describe actions within or upon the physical universe).

Thus as you say concepts of gods exist. Yet a "non-physical" entity to me is just as paradoxical as a square circle. Just as you cannot conceive of a circle being a square, I (and I claim this applies to everyone) cannot conceive of an entity being "non-physical." Further, when you or anyone else thinks of a god-concept, I would say that your thoughts are limited to physical attributes and descriptions of the god. Even the term "non-physical" is valid only in reference to the physical. Thus, I say that since one can't conceive of the concept of "non-physical existence," then under your constraints the only possible god is a physical god, not a non-physical god.

Theli

I wonder...
If an entity is undetectable by any physical means (being non-physical) how can it have effects on the mind unless it's in fact fictional?
Someone mentioned the color green before, and I must add that there is always 2 types of green.
(1). One that is emited by an energy source with a certain frequency of light. This can be calculated, tested and produced artificialy.
(2). And the other wich is interpreted by the brain, an abstract green. A color that is connected with (and can produce) emotions. Someone might like the color green while the other does not, in wich the abstract green is different from person to person. This however has nothing do do with the photons or the lights frequency.
If you apply this to a conscious entity (human, animal, god). How do you determine if that entity is pure fictional or is infact existing?
If you read a book containing a fictional character you will get an idea of his apperance and personallity. You might even love or hate that character.
Now, a real person would have similar effect on you, if you only have read about him person that is.
So what is the difference between the fictional and the real person?
Your brain can't distinguish wich of them is real and wich is not. (assuming that no evidence of any kind is presented regarding the existence of one or the other character)
Your brain will react the same in both cases. Wich I think is the same with god. Someone can love/hate (=feel) god even if he doesn't exist, only if they think he exists.
It all boils down to physical existence. If a person/entity left a physical trace behind or is infact existing in physical form you can prove that he/it is real.
I think god is more fictional than real. Mainly because the idea/image of god differs so much between person to person. The only similarity is that from religious dogma. It seems strange to me that an actuall being should communicate with all believers and yet give of such a diverse impression (Everyone has a god of their own).

This might just be pointless crap, if so then I'm sorry.

wild ox

OK, sorry about my absence. An old ox needs his sleep. : )

I apologize for my confusing way of stating things and using words that have vague meanings. I will endeavor to sum up my argument into one statement, then give an example supporting it.

Here is the argument:

If the existence of a concept may be possible and cannot be factually disproved by logic or science, then an individuals own experience is a reasonable and justifiable basis to decide whether or not that concept exists.

For example, Rufus believes that he has been abducted by aliens. The experience that Rufus describes is very nebulous and dreamlike. Rufus is not totally sure what happened. So Rufus does research to see if the existence of aliens is possible. He finds that it may be possible for aliens to exist. Since neither logic nor science can prove that Rufus’ is false, Rufus decides that he was abducted by aliens.

Now, Rufus’ experience may have been cause by seizures, magnetic fields, or his late-night snack. But his reasoning is justifiably sound. His experience, as Hume demonstrated, is the most real thing to him. And since science or logic cannot factually disprove his experience, he is justified in using that experience to decide weather the existence of aliens is true or false.

The same logic can be applied to God.

Philosoft

Nice try. The alleged Humean interpretation notwithstanding, that Rufus has a perception of the alleged event is the only thing that can be determined to be factual. The factual existence of aliens does not depend on Rufus' interpretation. Therefore, his belief cannot be justified unless his experience can be verified by reality. But this is all just hand-waving. The reason this 'logic' does not apply to 'God' is that 'God' is a poorly defined concept. I ask again, tell me how I can have this concept or give me some properties of this concept and then I can consider the relative merit of your reasoning.

WJ

Vork!

"Human consciousness is the result of evolutionary processes. Indeed, "it just is.""

Your assertion cannot be absolute. Otherwise, why do human's posses the higher levels of consciousness which confer no biological adnvantages of survival? In other words, you're missing the point, because we can think differently than lower life forms by its essence creates a need to wonder about our very origins. Not to mention the fact that what we are able to do and feel has no biological advantages. How does the ability to compute gravity help us to dodge falling objects?

And yes I'm familiar with evolutionary psychology and would like to talk more about it. To a similar end, you said:

"Not a better explanation. There is no evidence that anything non-naturalistic is going on in the human brain. Do you know of any?"

First, what do you mean by 'non-naturalistic'?

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

You're welcome.

Any belief is self-justifiable, and therefore irrelevant. Believe anything you want to believe, just keep it to yourself unless asked.

Proselytize and/or try and force your beliefs on others in any way shape or form and expect a higher standard of scrutiny.

That's just so disingenuous the mind literally boggles.

Ok. From this point forward I am going to tell you about the One True God, never before heard about in the entire history of human affairs.

Her name is "Filkejaa;lkj" and she has just now personally revealed to me that she is the conglomeration of all previously written about gods in human history.

She has been hiding behind all of these other faces and revealing false information in order for her mystery to remain intact, because that is her will, which no one can question.

She has told me to tell you that if you choose not to believe in her now that she has revealed her true self--if you continue to believe only in one her past incarnations and not in her true self--that you will not be allowed into paradise. Instead, you will be thrown into an ocean of fire, where there will be much moaning and grinding of teeth.

She has told me that you are forbidden to ever believe anything else from what I here tell you this very minute and her will be done.

You cannot question any of this, because she told me it is true, so if you reject her or what I tell you about her, you will be written down as an unbeliever in her great big summer diary; the book of torment.

Now, according to your position, the belief in "Filkejaa;lkj" is now justifiable because you cannot disprove her existence.

How, then, can anyone "justify" this belief? Explain exactly how I would go about justifying this belief, keeping in mind that if I am telling the truth (i.e., if my belief can be justified) it would mean that you and everyone who does not from this moment forward worship and believe in "Filkejaa;lkj"'s existence as"Filkejaa;lkj," will be thrown into the ocean of fire.

It's a ludicrous and childish argument and you know it.

It is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not something factually exists.

Believe little green leprechauns live in your colon--NOBODY WILL CARE. But tell somebody about them and try to convince somebody that they factually exist and are effecting your behavior, thoughts and dreams and expect a higher standard of scrutiny as a result.

Only for theists. You're simply equivocating disparate definitions of words like "thoughts" and "feelings" under the aegis "beliefs" and not comprehending the fact that only theists are effected by their belief systems.

I am an atheist. I have no beliefs. I either know, don't know, or think it may be based upon the available evidence.

Let me repeat this one more time so that you get it: I have no beliefs nor do I act upon any beliefs and no beliefs effect me in any way shape or form.

I don't believe the sun will rise, I know it will until it does not.

I don't believe somebody loves me, I know they do based on their declarations and actions or I do not or think it may be based upon the available evidence.

By destroying the meaning of the word "believe," you have conveniently forced a "justification" for your beliefs. In other words, you've simply defined your beliefs in such a way as to automatically self-justify them.

It's a fallacy and you're welcome to it, just don't proselytize or in any way try to force your beliefs onto others or expect a higher standard of scrutiny.

Of course not, because you know that would be a positive claim that would carry with it a burden of proof, the only claim that carries such a burden in any meaningful sense, but it's clear that "meaning" is to be deliberately blurred here so that the "justification" you are lauding comes not as a result of clarity and specificity, but merely as a result of equivocation and confused semantics.

It always amazes me that when it comes to morality and "absolute truth," theists always state that God mandates objectivity, which is the only way we have actual objectivity (not merely asserted objectivity, like we actually have), yet the second anyone puts the spotlight of objectivity onto cult dogma is the second it all becomes a personal, subjective "fuzzy logic" shell game, where "beliefs" are "justifiable" because no one can disprove and blah, blah, blah.

Then you're saying nothing.

wild ox

Philosoft,

I don’t know how to even attempt to tell how to have the experience of God. Rufus couldn’t tell you how to have the alien experience. All I am suggesting is that Rufus’ perception is enough to justify his belief since no one can prove him wrong. I am not claiming anything about the “factual existence of aliens” or God for that matter. I agree that God is a poorly defined concept, but it must be since there is no “God” object that you can point to or “God” property that can be measured.

You seem to be stating that one is only justified in believing those ideas that can be verified by science or logic. Is this what you are claiming? Try to imagine the consequences of a government that held that belief! Bye-bye freedom.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, now we see where your logic fails. You are equivocating disparate meanings of the word "existence."

The "existence of a concept" is a declaration of intangibleness. When someone says, "Love is a concept that exists," no one is going to take a literall interpretation of the word "exists" to be the intended meaning. We understand that the person is not saying, "Love is a concept that is actually a sentient being of some unknown nature, capable of acting upon physical space directly."

God is (allegedly) not a concept, rather a being that has a form of some kind and is capable of acting upon physical space directly.

Althought "mysterious," God is not (supposed to be) intangible in the same way that we apply the intended meaning of that word to abstract concepts.

You're simply equivocating disparate definitions.