SecularFuture

mnkbdky
I didn’t say ‘material' only. I said ‘material beings’.

A “brain scientist” can explain how material beings can have thought. Why can’t you, a theologian in training, explain how an immaterial being can have thought?

I live in Chicago also. What’s your address? I promise I won't hurt you.

So your “theory” isn’t consistent? “- From time to time -” Theories are consistent. Assumptions, like your statement, are not.

No amount of belief can turn something into a fact or a theory. Like I said earlier. For the average person, worshiping is much easier than trying to make sense of macroevolution and quantum mechanics. People would rather have comfort through fantasy than mystery through realism. Primitive-societies are usually the most-religious; have you noticed this?

The material world is objective. The supernatural / metaphysical / “immaterial” world is very subjective; opinion based. The material world consists of facts, theories, and assumptions. The supernatural world consists of assumptions only. There is a difference. As a theist, you can’t confirm anything that you believe.

And how can an immaterial being have thought?

SecularFuture

POST #2

===============

mnkbdky
Saying that you've experienced an immaterial being and proving that you've experience an immaterial being are two - totally - different concepts. You have not proven anything.

But if he doesn't, he exists only in your mind.

Read this, and read it hard!
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...xperience.html

davros4269

You haven't disproven my RED dragon god. First off, I don't want to get caught in your definition trap - immaterial things can be detected. Your god cannot, neither can mine.

My god is therefore supernatural. Yours is as well.. Since my god is supernatural, it can be red, no?

Another Angle to is lets pretend you are right. My god can't be a color and it can't be much of anything - neither can yours. What can your god do? How can it affect the world? On that note, what is your religion based on this sense of god? If my invisible colorless god is as valid as your invisible colorless god, what good are they to the real world?

Should I start a dragon religion? Whether or not I can prove or disprove my dragon is the issue, the same as your god. If I can't, it's a worthless concept, except to me.

As for the rape victim, alas, if she cannot prove it, then we can never be sure she was raped. Consider two things, however. First, rape is plausible - omnipresent beings, with or without color, are not. Second, we could uses a systematic process for determining if she was raped. We could ask her the same questions over again, over time, to see if her story changes. We can look for samples of dna from her agressor and so forth.

After all of this, we will have arrived at the closest possible truth, given the technology at the time. Sounds like science to me, and, none of this would work on either of our gods.

You said:
As for immaterial sentient beings I would say we are aware of ourselves. The person who is a dualist believes that they have a soul. The soul is an immaterial sentient thing. There are also angles both good and bad--these are normally refered to as demons or devils.

It is my opinion that those who do not believe in the soul have a hard time expaining personal identity through time. The soul, an immaterial substance that does not change in any of its essential properties through time, is the only way for me to continue to exist through time. However, that is a different topic. But you asked what other sentient immaterial beings we are aware of. I answer every human being.

This sounds a lot like Biblical information to me. We haven't proven that your god exists and already you jump to the bible! Recall, you have confined your god to being pretty much useless - how can you justify the leap to the bible?

How you explain angels? What proof do you have that they exist? Do you also have an innate sense of angels? I can't accept any of these as valid to the debate.

I also cannot accept your idea of a soul. What is the evidence? Does your god talk to you in English to explain the details of the soul? My supernatural god dragon god tells me that souls are baby dragons, remember? We can't discuss angels or souls in any non-mythical fasion, since there is no evidence for either. They aren't even plausible.

Human beings are sentient, yes, and have immaterial properties, such as the energy that makes us tick yes, but this is your definition trap again. Angels and gods aren't merely immaterial, they are supernatural. As I've said, and you've ignored, thought is to some extent detectable. Angels and gods are to no extent detectable.

Apples and oranges once again.

Finally, you said: So the real question is not if immaterial beings can be detected the real question is why would you want to believe in immaterial beings.

Fine. Don't believe. I do not care. But do not say it is impossible to detect immaterial beings, if they exist. That is false.


Well, why would you want to believe in supernatural beings is certainly what I meant. Definition trap again!

I'm not interested in debating the meanings of immaterial and supernatural - I think that's been covered. Lets put them aside and consider it like this.

Take a rock, a human and an angel and my red dragon god.

Why is it silly to believe in the angel and the dragon, but not the rock and the human? Would you agree that the angel and the dragon are in their own category? Label this category 'bloopless'.

I don't believe in the bloopless, because there is no evidence for their existence. Further, nothing that is blooples is plausible. Further, outside of our own imaginations, there is no example of anything that is bloopless.

Now, I DO care that you believe, because you somehow make the quantum leap from your imagination to Christianity/Bible. Since you vote and influence people, this is a danger to humanity, but we can get to that another day.

Excuse spelling errors/not proofread.

mnkbdky

Let me respond to this first and to the rest some time later today.

I am not sure why you think this is bible talk. There are no scripture references. Furthermore, the bible doesn't exactly come out and say that humans are material and immaterial. That is, the bible does explicitly concern itself with the teaching of the ontological make up of humanity. I do think that dualism is the best interpretation of some passages. However, there are Christians who are materialist or monists that have different interpretations of those passages which are not doing injustice to the text. For a good discussion on this topic see John W. Cooper's book Body, Soul & Life Everlasting.

It is my philosophical views that shape my reading of those texts. I don't think it is possible for a person to retain numerical identity over time with the existence of the soul. That is, it is impossible, without the existence of the soul, for me to be the same person numerically as the one who first responded to SF's thread a few days ago.

I will say one more thing concerning you red-dragon god.

The quick answer, which I have already given and you grant for the sake of argument, is, No. Your dragon cannot be red. If your dragon becomes incarnate it may be able to manifest itself as a red. However, while it is immaterial it cannot be red. Only material extended things can have color. Furthermore, since your dragon is essentially immaterial the redness of the incarnate dragon would only be an accidental property. So, it would be a mistake to say that the immaterial dragon is essentially red. Rather, the dragon could manifest itself as any color, it merely choose red.

Let me also say this: A dragon is a concept that if it had existence must have extension. That is, it must have a body, a tail, a head, perhaps wings, arms and legs. Immaterial substances can have none of these, because extended substances require material. You may say that your immaterial god has manifested him/herself as a dragon that happened to be red. But it is impossible--that is, it is a contradiction--to say that there is an immaterial dragon. Now since contradictions cannot be true it is impossible that you experience an immaterial dragon. You may experience some immaterial god who manifested itself to you in a material form that resembles dragon-hood. But it cannot be a dragon essentially.

If you can prove that the concept of God in the Judeao-Islamic-Xian-Hindu traditions is a contradiction, then, the theist will be forced to say that they did not experience God. However, I highly doubt you or anyone else can do that. At least there have been no successful attempts as of yet. If you can, you will have no problem get tenure and some institution teaching philosophy. Nor will you be lacking in money or in fame.

Did you see the Simpsons episode where Homer became a genius and proved God did exist and Flanders burn the paper with the proof on it? I love the Simpsons. But I digress.

Ok I am doing more than I wanted, so let me comment on this as well.

There is a difference in what the victim is able to believe and those who are judging the case. The victim has every right to believe she/he was raped regardless of what evidence there is to prove it. Even if there is no dna to link someone to it. Even if there are no bruises or marks of any kind. The victim of the crime is the one who experienced it. If they actually where rape and there is no evidence whatsoever, they are justified in believing so. We are not talking about what the judges are justified in believing.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. Do not worry about typos, there is plenty of grace on this board. Just look at my posts. For some reason I always forget to put the "s" on the end of words to make them plural. Or I will change what I am saying in the middle of the sentence and not go back and erase the part that no longer fits. It just happens.

mnkbdky

Proved God did not exist, did not exist.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. Lately I have been forgetting to put my "nots" in too. Please forgive. There are a couple of more places in the post were "not" should be typed. You should be able to identify where.

davros4269

Well, no, you didn't refer directly to Bible passages. But angels? Demons - in relation to good and evil?

What are the properties of your god that make him/she/it/colorless god? If you list any properties at all, there must be a link to an external source. If you list a single property, can't I say the same that you have said about my dragon? concerning my dragon, watch the definition trap here - if my dragon is supernatural, it can be anything and everything, including a color. I realize you may not have had time to address this, but my dragon, and your god, are bloopless - something I concocted to avoid pages of definiton debate.

You missed my point, I think, about the rape victim. I agree that she may in fact have been raped. However, she brushes against the limits of science and forensics. We may only be able to approach the truth and we may have to concede that she was not in fact raped, even if she knows she was.

This is assuming she really was, of course. As an outsider, she could be making it up. And you could be making up your god. You have given us no evidence that your god exists.

The poor woman might even _think_ she was raped, but was really _not_. Does her belief that she was raped make it so? If we took her at her word, lets say, because she believes so much that she can pass a polygraph, or, some hypothetical full-proff machine that can determine lies from truths, should we then lock up her agressor, even if he is innocent?

Can't you concede the problems here? What valitidy can you give us about your god? I don't doubt that you believe, but what does matter in grand scheme of things?

Lets chop my god into the mold that you've created for him. Colorless, no tail, no shape to speak of, etc. Now, I give him dragon properties because I link to ancient chinese texts, lets say. Your god and his properties also only exist because of links to the outside.

If our belief is enough "evidence", why don't you worship my god instead? We have avoided the nasty topic of religion, but I'm sure that you just aren't merely content to have this vauge notion of some god. what would be the point? If you live your life in a certain way, and expect perhaps an afterlife, then you are extending your innate notion to the real world and, I'd imagine, some book, lets assume the Bible.

You said:
If you can prove that the concept of God in the Judeao-Islamic-Xian-Hindu traditions is a contradiction, then, the theist will be forced to say that they did not experience God. However, I highly doubt you or anyone else can do that. At least there have been no successful attempts as of yet. If you can, you will have no problem get tenure and some institution teaching philosophy. Nor will you be lacking in money or in fame.

We've come full circle. I can't prove that those gods don't exist. You can't prove that zeus doesn't exist - why do you dwell on the mono-theistic crowd? You can't prove a negative, rather, it's REALLY hard (you also can't prove a negative that has been gramaticaly turned into a positive )

However, if you could prove any of those mono-theistic gods, you'd get similar stated positions.

The default position is that gods don't exist, because there is no evidence for any of them. I've made this point before, but the default position should also be that invisible red dragon's don't exist. You of course realize that they don't in fact exist. Use these same reasons and apply to any other gods. Black swans may exist and can seem plausible. We could find out for sure, I suppose, if we wanted.

We cannot do the same for invisible dragons, omnipresent gods, and sentient, immortal, invisible, flying, angels. Not only is there a complete lack of evidence, but they aren't even plausible; not even very probable.

The only reason why we know anything about angels or gods is from texts, and we both know, thoses texts are easily disproven as historical/scientific books of fact. If you cut out the external-link, the texts, what are you left with?

If you escape into the metaphysical realm, anything goes! Reincarnation? sure! Herds of invisible dragons? Why not?! upside-down rainbows and the like? OK!

I simply can't accept your internal belief without "outside" supporting evidence. While I generaly believe you to be a sane person, why should we accept whatever any crackpot can conjure up internaly?

Further, I can't accept your "identity over time" statements about souls. Science hasn't detected the soul yet - why then should I accept the validity of the soul? Any religious text that I've read that refers to the soul I find silly. What else is there? If we show evidence, some day, about souls, then on that day will I accept the soul concept, without regret and without shame.

Tootles,

Davros

davros4269

mnkbdky, let me add one point. The concept of those gods you mentioned itself might be without contradiction (isn't everything without evidence without contradiction, sortof, by definition?)

However, the texts that allow us to give names to those "god concepts" most certainly contradict each other and make no allowances for the other.

If you have connections, I'd like now a post at one of the cushy jobs you mentioned.

mnkbdky

Not every concept of God is without contradictions, broad or narrow. Broad contradictions are those that are not formally contradictory, such as X is both p and ~p, but rather are statements like, "pink is the president of the USA," or "my immaterial dragon god is red." The latter two examples are impossible and if someone were to take the time they could make them formal contradictions.

Let me give an example of a concept of a god that is logically impossible yet is currently worshipped by people . The state I am currently living in is heavily populated with people who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). While these people are very nice and several of them are my dear friends, I do believe their god is logically impossible. I would not necessarily say they are irrational for believing in their god, because I do not think most of them know or realize that what they believe in could not possibly exist.

Their god is a glorified man. This man lived on an earth very similar to our earth. He once did not exist in material form and then was born of parents just as we are and he grew up just as we do. Before he was born on earth, however, he was born of heavenly parents, both a bodily mother god and a bodily father god. Once he was born or sent to earth he excepted his savior, lived until he died and then went to heaven. While in heaven he advanced in learning until he progressed to the point to become a god himself. He then created our universe, our earth, and sent his heavenly children down to populate the earth. This is the cycle of every god. He is born of heavenly parent, then of earthly parents, and then progresses to the point of god-hood.

This, however, is logically impossible. Why? Because it requires that a causal infinite regress could be true. However, an infinite regress of causal events is impossible. If there is a domino standing waiting to be knocked over and there is an infinite amount of dominioes that have to fall and cause the next one to fall, the standing domino will never fall. The same is the case with the LDS god. There are an infinite amount of gods that would have to exist--be born and progress to god-hood--before there god could exist. This is impossible.

It may be possible that they do indeed experience a God. However, they could not be experiencing the god they say they are. If they are experiencing God, they are mis-identifying him.

This is one instance of a god that is currently worshipped that we can say for sure does not exist. The LDS god does not exist and could not exist for it is a contradiction--that is, the LDS god is logically impossible.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. I will respond to the other stuff later.

davros4269

Of course I agree that the Mormon god doesn't exist and is quite silly, no offense to your friends.

The Argument from Casaulity that you mention amoutnts to circular logic, or, if true, allows for an infinite number of gods - the same for the Argument from Design. Either circular logic and therefore false or an infinite number of gods.

The religions that you meantioned all state in their holy texts that, obviously, there is only one god - we all know this.

i wonder then, if you are a theist, what is your religion? Certainly after everything you've said you can't possibly follow one of the common holy books...how many contradictions can one tolerate before one considers that maybe, just maybe, their religion is false?

Yes, please do respond to the other posts...

I wonder though, according to what you have told me previously, wouldn't their sense (your friends) of their god be enough/be counted as _evidence_? If so, then we have a problem...

If not, then why would your evidence of "senses devinous" (sp?) be acceptable? Do you concede then that you do require something else, some outside-of-your-brain evidence? Would you also consider then that this evidence/detection can only be considered evidence of detection for you and you alone?

Tootles,

Davros

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
I didn’t say ‘material' only. I said ‘material beings’.

A “brain scientist” can explain how material beings can have thought. Why can’t you, a theologian in training, explain how an immaterial being can have thought?

So your “theory” isn’t consistent? “- From time to time -” Theories are consistent. Assumptions, like your statement, are not.

No amount of belief can turn something into a fact or a theory. Like I said earlier. For the average person, worshiping is much easier than trying to make sense of macroevolution and quantum mechanics. People would rather have comfort through fantasy than mystery through realism. The more primitive the society, the more religious it is; have you noticed this?

The material world is objective. The supernatural / metaphysical / “immaterial” world is very subjective; opinion based. The material world consists of facts, theories, and assumptions. The supernatural world consists of assumptions only. There is a difference. As a theist, you can’t confirm anything that you believe.

Saying that you've experienced an immaterial being and proving that you've experience an immaterial being are two - totally - different concepts. You have not proven anything.

But if he doesn't, he exists only in your mind.

Read this, and read it hard!
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...xperience.html

===========================

5 Points against Religious Theism
REVISED

The existence of a god can not be tested by science, seen by the naked eye, nor detected by electronic devices. Therefore, “God” must be a supernatural being if he/she/it is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Definitions for the word ‘supernatural’:
- of or relating to existence outside the natural world
- attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
- of or relating to a deity
- of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous

Definitions for the word ‘natural’:
- present in or produced by nature
- of, relating to, or concerning nature
- conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
- not acquired; inherent

1) What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “blind religious-faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one.

2) Unlike non-religious history books, many religious scriptures include stories about supernatural worlds and events that can only be believed and not tested. Freethinkers dismiss religious scripture because it is subjective and inconsistent when compared to the objective and consistent nature of the natural world. Unlike religious scripture, non-religious history can be accepted though “reasoned-faith”, a kind of faith that is supported by the five senses, reason, and/or supporting evidence.

3) Anyone with a little spare time and creative writing ability could have written religious scripture. A god is not the only being capable of inspiring or writing books.

4) If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being a violation of a natural law, there is still room for doubt and further investigation. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Untested and personal interpretations of so-called supernatural events could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

5) Any philosophy that promotes the use of magical thinking over the use of critical thinking is a hindrance to scientific and intellectual accomplishment. Progress toward objective solutions can not be made through the promotion of subjective thinking alone.