WJ

kOY!

I hate to rain on your parade, but if you are trying to make an assertion about whatever it is you believe, your logic is just as good/bad as the theists. You said: "Then you're saying nothing."

You are not saying anything either.

Please tell us what it is that you *are* saying about the concept of God, as per the original topic?

Sounds like you're trapped again. No?

Walrus

wild ox

Koyaanisqatsi,

I can’t begin to address all of the complex issues you bring to the table. You are obviously very experienced in such things. I am not so I will stick to my original claim. I will try to explain what I mean by the elusive term: justifiable.

The claim:

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.

Relying on one’s own experience for making such decisions as to whether or not God exists is reasonable, because our own perceptions of the world, whether false or true, are our primary basis for knowledge. If a belief is reasonable it is also justified.

For example, a neurologist may tell you that “Your broken leg does not hurt. Your mind is only constructing something called pain. The pain is ‘only in your mind’ in the form of neurological pulses. Therefore you should stop screaming and line up with reality.”

Absurd, isn’t it. I would keep screaming because the pain is more real than just electrical signals to me. Most people would say that this belief is reasonable and therefore justified.

In other words, our "immediate sensory or memorial experience" is enough to make resonable decisions about things, if those things can not be factually proved or disproved by science or logic.

And by the way, you may not agree with me, and my arguements may not be PhD class, but they are not "childish." Let's stick to the issues and refrain from prideful comments such as this.

Oh yeah, and if you were honest about your experience of your god, then YOU would be justified in believing in her.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: wild ox ]

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: wild ox ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WJ:
[QB]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? [/b]

What is "higher levels of consciousness?" Human consciousness evolved to help solve the problems of living among primates who have an extremely complex sociality; you bet the more complex processing functions of the brain have survival advantages.

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.

I didn't miss the point. You didn't make one. You're just spouting ungrammatical nonsense.

We wonder about our origins for a variety of reasons, from innate primate curiousity, to the devices in our brains that ascribe intentions to things, to the need we have to construct sensible models of the world so we can interact with it.

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?

Don't make the commonplace error of assuming any detailed application of a particular skill must confer some survival advantage. The possession of the ability to perform logical operations (of which mathematical calculation is one) is vital to survival among highly competitive social primates like H. sapiens.


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'?

That some consciousness other than our own is operating directly on the matter in our brain by application of will in violation of known natural laws.

Now, do you have positive evidence that something is going on in the brain that requires violations of natural law in order to explain? And don't throw any tendentious {i]science cannot explain....[/i] arguments at me. I want positive evidence.

Vorkosigan

Philosoft

Don't worry about it, this isn't what I asked. Since I can have a concept without experiencing the thing being conceived, I should be able to have a concept of God without an experience of the thing 'God.' You ought to be able to give me at least a rough description of the concept you claim to have.

<strong> How can you have a concept of something non-objective with no properties?

<strong> I really have no idea how a government can hold a belief nor do I understand how this follows from my statements. I'm not claiming anyone should believe anything. See Koy's next-to-latest post for a mirror of my position.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Wild Ox--

Again, all you are doing is confusing two different intended meanings of the word "existence."

A concept, such as "love" or "anger" exists, but not in any tangible sense of that word "exists." In other words, "love" does not exist in the same manner that your or I exist.

So it is with "God."

You cannot compare the "existence of love" with the "existence of God," since they are not comparable concepts.

According to the Bible, God is an actual creature, not an abstract, intangible construct.

You're going the wrong way with your interpretations of words. You should be getting more and more specific; instead you're getting more and more vague and therein lies the fallacy.

For example. Say you want to declare that a person named "Timmy" factually exists. Just replace the word "God" with the word "Timmy" and then you'll get it.

Now, the fact that "Timmy" is a special kind of creature that has unique qualities that makes him fundamentally different than all other creatures, does not negate the fact that he's still a creature of some nature and not an abstract concept.

Understand?

So to turn to me and say, "Well, concepts like 'love' exist, therefore, Timmy exists" is fallacious and invalid.

To say, (as you are), "Well concepts like 'love' exist and I have personally experienced 'love' emanating from the mysterious, invisible, impossible to physically verify Timmy, therefore Timmy exists," is, likewise fallacious.

If Timmy is invisible and otherwise impossible to physically verify, then there simply is no possible way to know the "love" you felt emanated from him; you can only personally believe based on nothing other than your own personal desire that it be so that the "love" you felt came from Timmy.

Especially if I come along and say, "No, no, no, it wasn't Timmy you felt, it was Vishtimmy," and then someone else comes along and says, "Timmy and Vishtimmy are myths based on Zuestimmy! All love comes from Zuestimmy!"

Ad nauseum...

So, yes, absolutely, for you in the privacy of your own mind, if you want to believe that the love you felt came from Timmy, have at it. No one here is arguing that you aren't entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, which is why I stated that beliefs are irrelevant.

The only thing relevant here (and in the world outside your mind) is what it is about Timmy that you can prove and the only reason that would be important would also be in your own mind.

Obviously, no one here is going to care whether or not you believe that an invisible, impossible to physically verify being known as Timmy fills your life with love (other than the psychologists/psychiatrists lurking around).

It's only when you come forward and state, "You all must believe that Timmy is real; that he factually exists even though I can offer no proof of this existence. If you don't, you will burn eternally in his wrath when you die, so I must now take over your schools and convince you to give me your children to indoctrinate in the ways of Timmy for your own good!"

It is this that we atheists primarily object to. Let me clarify that: it is this that I primarily object to, the preaching and indoctrination of the Cult of Timmy as a powerful and prevalent effectual force in society.

Now do you see the distinction?

Ok, let's look at this now. What is reasonable to believe about a warrior-deity creature written about by largely anonymous cult members from the Middle Eastern deserts thousands of years ago?

A creature who is claimed to be invisible, omnipotent, omniscient and pure forgiving, merciful love, whose alleged actions utterly contradict every one of those logically inconsistent constructs?

A creature who trifurcated so that it could send itself to Earth (out of the unimaginable trillions of planets created by this unimaginable creature) in order to kill himself as a necessary sacrifice to himself in order to save all of us from himself?

A creature that magically blinked all matter/space/time into existence in order to punish it/worship him?

A creature that made the first man out of dirt and the first woman out his rib?

A creature who has all of that power and yet, has to resort to global genocide--such as a flood--in order to "start fresh," causing untold suffering and terror in the hundreds of billions of creatures he created that will now drown as a result, instead of him just blinking his eyes again and making it all right, or who was actually omniscient so he got it all right to begin with and didn't have to destroy it all (twice)?

A creature who...etc., etc., etc.?

Would this be the "reasonable to believe" creature you're talking about?

Not in the slightest. You have, ironically, just described precisely how people are in fact capable of overriding their pain impulses by thinking those very things.

Only because you're on "auto pilot." Millions of people have and do control such "electrical signals" all the time. You're doing it right now, you're just not consciously aware of it precisely because you're on autopilot and have conditioned yourself to ignore certain signals.

When you were a baby, for example, the first set of signals you learned to control and eventually (largely) ignore were the overwhelming signals of all of your sense; sight being primary.

If you actually "saw" everything that your eyes (as objective sensory input devices) see on a second to second basis, you'd go insane. The amount of information--electrical signals--that your optical receptors register is so overwhelmingly huge that you just simply could not comprehend the amount of information pouring into your optic nerve unless you had learned from a very early age to adjust, adapt and filter that information into a manageable process.

The fact that you are reading and comprehending this as opposed to reading and comprehending aljare;lkjnnane;lka;elh;h;lhj;lkt is proof enough.

It's not a "belief," it's a fact. It's a fact that electrical signals are processed by your brain and, likewise, a fact that you can consciously alter your "auto pilot" settings for those electrical signals.

Once again, you are simply misusing the intended meaning (or, better, the contextual meaning) of the word "belief."

Not about abstract creatures that don't factually exist, beyond the imagination. Electrical signals are a fact of existence; ineffable warrior-deities are only a fact of mythology.

Again, you're equivocating disparate contextual or intended meanings of these words.

An electrical signal can be "factually proved or disproved by science."

A memory of an event is not subject to scientific proof in the manner you are here equivocating, but that's a fault in your reasoning and a mistake in your misapplication of terminology, not in the scientific process, so please stop doing those things until you clearly delineate the specific meanings of the terms you are here confusing.

It is not a "prideful" comment; it is literal. This thinking is childish in that it can be compared to the manner in which a child would attempt to process this kind of information.

"It just is," would be a perfect example of a childish proclamation, yes?

This proclamation is, in essence, exactly what you are saying, so my use of the term "childish" is descriptive, not invective.

Then you will burn eternally in her ocean of fire for not believing in her, especially since I do and you have just granted that I am justified in that belief.

Now do you see how irrelevant such an argument is when deconstructed?

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

wild ox

Philosoft and Koy,

You guys are really making me work hard to justify my simple little statement. But that’s OK!

Let me address Phil’s post first:

QUOTE:
“How can you have a concept of something non-objective with no properties?”

I assume that you mean:

How can one have an idea about something that one cannot physically experience and does not have properties?

Good question. You can’t! But I never claimed that these ideas do not have properties. I only meant that the concept of God, for instance, has no MEASURABLE PROPERTIES. In other words, the concept of God is not one that can be tested and verified by any form of measurement. I can say that “God is red” but this property of my idea of God cannot be measured. Thanks for the clarification.

Koy,

About “confusing two different intended meanings of the word "existence."”

When I said:

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.

In both references to existence, I meant being a factual part of reality. I only assume that reality MAY entail more than what “physically” exists.

About your references to the Christian God: Based on my study of the beliefs of Christians, their Bible provides a different description of God then you attribute to it. Herein lies one fundamental descrepancy.

You said:

QUOTE:
“According to the Bible, God is an actual creature, not an abstract, intangible construct.”

Actually the Bible states that “God is Spirit.” Don’t ask me to explain what “spirit” is. But, in most Christian literature “spiritual” things are contrasted to “physical” things. They seem to believe that non-physical things exist and are call “spiritual” things.

I am only clarifying their beliefs for you.

Also they do not claim that God is a “creature.” A creature is, as Webster puts it, “1 : something created either animate or inanimate.” Christians do not claim that God is a creature.

Maybe this will clarify my claim.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: wild ox ]</p>

WJ

Vork!

"What is "higher levels of consciousness?" Human consciousness evolved to help solve the problems of living among primates who have an extremely complex sociality; you bet the more complex processing functions of the brain have survival advantages."


The reason you missed the point is that making bigger bombs and 'more complex processing functions' [cognition] doesn't change the basic need to nihilate each other.

Otherwise, prove that the ability to compute math equasions have a biological advantage over other species in dodging falling objects. You can't. Therefore, when you make these assertions, you don't really know what you are talking about, really.

Make any sense?

Walrus

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Mageth

Otherwise, prove that the ability to compute math equasions have a biological advantage over other species in dodging falling objects. You can't. Therefore, when you make these assertions, you don't really know what you are talking about, really.

Our intellectual abilities don't have to have a biological advantage, and so no one has to prove they do, that's the point. Our bigger brains give us survival advantages - tool making, cooperative hunting, speech, etc. Abilities such as mathematical skills, etc. are just beneficial side effects of our higher intelligence, just as the mastery of fire, boat building, etc. are.

A parallel is in our opposing thumb and ability to grasp. It evolved as a basic survival mechanism to aid us in food gathering, climbing, etc. We've found many more functions, many of which are not particularly survival functions, for our hands.

Koyaanisqatsi

Sorry, Wild, but you're just not getting it.

But the concept "Love" is not a "factual part of reality." The word exists on paper, yes. The concept, however, does not actually exist anywhere at all.

Let's make that abundantly clear. The word "exists" is the [b]wrong word to be using when attempting to discuss abstract concepts. That is why we have the word "abstract."

You are attempting to equate the abstract qualities of a concept like "love" with the misapplied abstract qualities of the being described in the Bible, commonly known as "God."

Understand? You are trying to equivocate the two disparate constructs and that cannot be done in any valid, legitimate, aka, meaningful sense.

I don't mean I personally wish it cannot be done, I mean it cannot objectively be done in any meaningful, useful sense in regard to the question of establishing proof of this being's existence.

Once again, belief is entirely irrelevant to the question of factual existence of a being; no matter what qualities are assigned to it by the authors of the bible.

Now do you understand what is going on here?

You are stating that if "love" exists, therefore God exists.

The state of existence between "love" and "God" are irreconcilable; meaning they are not equivalent states of existence and therefore you are equivocating two disparate meanings or intended, contextual meanings of the word "exists."

Understand?

IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANS AND JEWS AND ANYONE ON THE PLANET ASCRIBE CERTAIN QUALITIES TO THIS BEING KNOWN AS "GOD."

That is also irrelevant to what you're talking about.

Pair it down to it's essentials; get as specific as you can and you will see the fallacy your are here committing.

Science/logic is the wrong cognitive tool to use to either prove or disprove abstract concepts like "love." Ok? Got that?

It isn't that they aren't "able to prove or disprove," it is that they are the wrong tool to use, just as you would not use a hammer to saw a tree limb, got it?

Wrong tool. Not applicable or useful.

So, what you are here doing is attempting to state, "Since science and/or logic is the wrong tool for proving or disproving the existence of 'love,' it is therefore equally the wrong tool for proving or disproving 'God,'" which is incorrect.


You follow? Incorrect.

NO MATTER HOW PEOPLE DESCRIBE THEIR GOD, it is still a being of some kind. It also has a gender ascribed to it, thus "he" or "him."

He can effect nature. He can speak. He can create animals, trees, planets, suns. He can destroy your body and your soul in the fires of a place called "Hell."

We are made in His image, which means that we look like Him.

He is only concerned with humans and cares absolutely nothing whatsoever for animals as evidenced by his demands of animal sacrifice.

He is cruel at the same time he us merciful; fearful at the same time he is all loving; unjust while mandating ultimate justice; etc., etc., etc.

All of these things are ascribed qualities, of course, but the fact is that they are descriptive of an actual being of some nature and not simply an abstract concept like "love".

That's the distinction that your analogy is not taking into account, which is why it fails.

NO MATTER WHAT ATTRIBUTES ARE ASCRIBED TO "GOD," IT IS STILL ALLEGED TO BE A SENTIENT BEING THAT EFFECTS REALITY.

"Love" is not and cannot be a "sentient being" of any kind at all and as such cannot effect reality in a similar enough fashion as to be comparable in any relevant manner.

You, however, are trying to force this comparison; we are here describing to you why it demonstrably fails and is not applicable.

See? Here's where it all hinges for you. The blurred, vague netherland between the "physical" and the "non-physical."

You are saying, "love is non-physical, yet it exists, so God is non-physical and also must therefore exist."

You're not using those words, of course, and attempting to obfuscate "all you're actually trying to do," but we're not idiots and it isn't valid.

A sentient being-regardless of the nature of that being--either exists or does not.

The concept "love" is not a "sentient being" that either exists or does not, so to keep making forced comparisons and equivocating the disparate intended or contextual meanings of the word "exists" during that comparison is not valid.

Entirely irrelevant as I have previously explained.

And flesh and something else (the Trinity). Regardless, you must deconstruct using the most specific language possible in order to delineate your own argument, not confuse the definitions, which is what you are doing.

Irrelevant. From now on just call it a "sentient being." "Love" is not and cannot be a "sentient being," so that's where your fallacy lies.

There you go on your way to steal the intended meaning of one word and apply it to the intended meaning of another.

That's what it means to equivocate disparate meanings.

Watch. You will now take the tenuous link established by contrasting "spiritual things" with "physical things," even though there is no such thing as a "spiritual thing."

The word "thing" is being misapplied repeatedly and deliberately, by the way, so that you see what a pointless semantics shell game you're trying to force.

Specificity of intended and/or contextual meaning is what is necessary here; not the opposite as you are doing.

See? "Things" A "non-physical" thing does not exist and cannot exist, since a "thing" is necessarily physical.

To correctly deconstruct what "they" seem to believe the terminology you should use would be along the lines of:

But then, you're apparently not interested in clarifying your intended and/or contextual meaning. From what you've been posting, it appears you're more interested in blurring your meaning, than specifying.

Either that, or you're just not understanding the contextual meanings of the words you're here confusing.

Sentient beings exist or don't exist.

Abstract concepts, by their very nature cannot be said to exist or not exist in any contextually meaningful way, so to attempt to equate the two based on confused or fuzzy semantics is just deliberate obfuscation on your part.

And fooling no one in the process .

Actually, you are not clarifying their meaning; you are doing precisely the opposite as I have here demonstrated.

Irrelevant. Use the term "sentient being" from now on and there will be no confusion.

Using the term "sentient being" for "God" will indeed clarify your claim.

Here, I'll take you through it:

Now that your claim has been correctly specified and the contextual meaning correctly applied, you can easily and readily see that your conclusion (the same logic can be applied to a sentient being) is valid.

It also, however, utterly pointless, for all you've actually stated was a person has the right to believe anything they want to believe, which has never been in contention.

Philosoft

Stop this needless rephrasing. My original question means exactly what I intended it to mean. You said you have a concept of something that is non-objective and has no properties. Tell me how this is possible.

<strong> Ahem.

<strong> Of course not. I am asking, "what are the properties of this thing so that I may create my own concept?"

<strong> You are assuming that by saying you have a concept, you actually have a concept. You are simply assuming what I am asking you to show. The upshot of this whole thing is you cannot have a concept of something that has no physical properties.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>