wild ox

Hans,

Outstanding reponse!!

You seem to be asking how would we KNOW that we have experienced a non-physical entity, such as God. How would we KNOW that that experience was not totally contained in our minds?

Great point. But I am not assuming that we KNOW anything, at least in the sense of logical or scientific knowledge. I am only claiming that we may EXPERIENCE them. Neither am I asserting that we actually experience independent non-physical phenomena. I am only claiming that it is possible.

Philosoft

"Green" is not a thing. It is a representation (color; exists only in the brain) of a property (wavelength) of a thing (photon). I can draw a beach, a tree, Europe and Narnia but I can't draw green.

<strong> "Funny" is not a concept, it too is a property. I'll use "humor" in place of "funny." "Humor," "love," "happiness" and "evil" are all what I will call 'bastard nouns.' These are nouns that only exist because the adjective forms exist beforehand. If there was no such thing as a "humorous anecdote," for example, "humor" would not exist either. Hence, "God" clearly does not belong in this family of nouns. It is not suggested that God is a property or a description. God is allegedly an entity capable of performing physical actions. Physical actions cannot be performed by non-physical entities, else they would not be physical actions.

<strong> This is very convoluted and I don't think you fully understand what you have written. A concept may very well be a model of a thing but it is not the thing itself. A concept cannot perform physical action. "Happiness makes me smile" is an incoherent statement because it implies that there is a physical thing called "happiness" that is exerting coercion on your will. This is not what we mean when we refer to a set of behaviors as "happiness." "Happiness" does not then become a thing itself. And, as I have shown above, "God" is not a word that behaves this way.

WJ

Just a thought: Wild ox is a bit more savy than say godless dave would care to admit. The brute fact remains that human's cannot adequately explain the emotional/universal force called love/consciousness. Let alone the asserton [Dave's] that it is a purely physical phenomenon.

The ball is clearly in Dave's court now...

Walrus

PS, Ox, you go guy!! Or whoever you are...!!!!

Philosoft

Wild ox,

You write a great deal in fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam gets old very quickly. If you have anything besides 'how do you know that 'x' is caused by something you see, feel or hear and not something you can't see, feal or hear' then please present it, otherwise I'm done.

Hans

wild ox

How can you argue something is possible when you have failed to show it exists; in this case, a god?

One can not experience a god if a god does not exist. If a god does not exist and one believes one has experienced a god then one has only imagined to have experienced a god. Without demonstrating that a god exists the best you can assert is that it is possible for one to imagine that one has experienced a god. Since you and I have functioning imaginations that are not in question of what value is such an assertion?

Philosoft

How about you or Wild ox actually address the issue and provide evidence that such an "emotional/universal force" exists rather than disingenuously assert that "love/consciousness" (whatever that is) is something other than a "physical phenomenon" until it is shown not to be? I must say, your backhanded arguments are most infuriating.

WJ

Ok, let's debate. Love and emotions viz. the physical Being (emotional existence)is quite an intriguing topic. What would you like to know about those concepts?

(So that we may begin our journey.)

Walrus

Godless Dave

WJ: love and consciousness are two different things (or forces if you will). One can be conscious without experiencing love.

Certain? I don't know about that. I'm pretty confident though. We have ample evidence that human thoughts and feelings have a relationship with the biological processes of the brain. We know that if these processes are altered (through drugs, illness, or injury) that the thoughts and feelings change. I find it reasonable to extrapolate that all human thoughts and feelings are a function of brain activity, especially in the absence of any evidence that suggests otherwise.

Looks like you answered your own question.

Sure it's conceivable. But since I know of no evidence to suggest that such a god exists, or that any non-physical entity exists, I don't see the point in considering the possibility. If there were some phenomenon that had no other plausible explanation, and we had evidence to suggest that a non-physical entity could be the cause, then we would have a reason to investigate what that entity was.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]

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

Hans

Show us where any emotions exist outside of a brain.

wild ox

Wow! This is complicated. Thinks for the enthusiasm. I am not claiming anything to be true or absolute. I am not claiming to KNOW anything. I am not, at this time, even asserting that there is any evidence for anything. I would only like to establish that it is possible, for now. Would you agree with the following argument?

1) Non-physical concepts cannot be proven or disproved by logic or scientific testing

2) Any concept that cannot be disproved by logic or scientific testing is possible.

3) The existence of non-physical entities independent of our minds is a concept that cannot be disproved by logic or scientific testing.

3) :. The existence of non-physical entities independent of our minds is possible.