Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I noticed that you disagreed with me that mathematics operates in ways that the reality it models does NOT. Our mathematics enable our models to mimic outcomes from real processes . . . but that does NOT mean the real processes are operating mathematically using the same processes and metrics in our artificial rubric.
I am minded to ask how you know that the Reality operates in ways that conflicts so much with the models that we make of it that it undermine mathematics.
Please don't bring up Quantum. Despite that, Black holes and all the rest of it, Reality operates in predictable ways, or science couldn't work. It does, and so does mathematics. Without that to rely on, we wouldn't have predicted Black holes or quantum.
Quote:
The Friar's principle has been shown not to apply so frequently that it is virtually useless when we do not know what components of a process are and are not truly necessary.
This is to misunderstand Occam's razor. It is not a predictive tool, but a necessary barrier against unsupported speculations being taken as equally as valid as an explanation that does not drag in unnecessary entities, such as God. It is a major barrier to the illogical argument you use to try to Prove God', so of course, you don't like it. But it is necessary, valid and based on reality, not just a human convention.
Quote:
When YOU do not have the experience to confirm . . . that is when you reserve judgment . . . something you are loathe to do. Those who do have the experience possess information you do not and that explains their certainty . . . that's all. It doesn't make them right . . . just certain.
I accept their feelings of certainty. But, like you, I agree that doesn't make them right. Nor you. I await better evidence that your certainty - not on the experience you had, but on your belief that you interpret it correctly. That is 'reserving judgement'. representing that as somehow passing judgement simply is another in the string of misrepresentations and wrongheaded reasoning that you indulge in, and only because faith has bollixed your brain up.
Quote:
I agree that the fundamentalists are definitely blinded and boxed in by their denial of factual knowledge. But strong atheists are similarly blinded and boxed in by their total reliance on material reality and refusal to acknowledge any other aspects.
Again the good old equivocation. We do not refuse to acknowledge other 'aspects' (Nobody can beat theist apologists for meticulously careful choice of sloppy and ambiguous wording - not even politicians ) but we do refuse to acknowledge those particular 'aspects' as the true explanation when there are others just as good or better.
It is the theist apologists who in fact refuse to 'acknowledge' other 'aspects' - just the one they happen to want to believe in, and not just as the preferred theory, but as actual undeniable facts. And in mathematics, logic or science gets in the way, then it is wrong, sneered as as a Friar's dictum' or rejected as 'beliefs about reality'. Which you of course, understand apparently on a faith experience.
It is the theist that has the closed mind - closed to any explanations other than their faith -based one. It is material reality that has the only fact -based case, and Occam's razor is merely stating what is undeniable anyway - except to a faith -based denialist.
No I don't get the idea. Drugs and trauma can alter the brain's functioning . . . but we are talking about the brain's normal functioning. Since our entire is comprised of field phenomena . . . it is presumptuous to conclude that the brain's response to fields is not part of its sensing abilities. The use of substances or the existence of brain traumas or dysfunctions can NOT be used to interpret the NORMAL workings of the brain. Meditation and the altered states it achieves are NORMAL workings of the brain.
Hello again MysticPhD.
Brain trauma is an entirely different matter; I'm not sure why you included it in the conversation. As for the effect of pharmacological agents, I fail to see the distinction between the brain's response to EM fields and the brain's response to chemicals. In both cases the brain is functioning normally until acted upon by an outside agent, at which point the behavior of the brain changes. Please explain the difference.
I myself am a weakly strong atheist, or a strongly weak atheist (both, as those are different claims, heh)
There are indeed, but just not crediting the existence of any god will do, never mind that not believing in a god is logically valid (for all Mystic says it isn't because God obviously exists) and saying that no kind of god could possibly exist is logically unsound.
I am familiar with the arguments about it all being "in the brain" . . . but since absolutely EVERYTHING we experience is all "in the brain" . . . I don't see the point. We know about the main sensory interfaces with reality that are responsible for our interpretations of what is or is not real. But our brain IS sensitive to fields (artificial weak EM fields are the only ones we know of so far from the God helmet and other experiments). This is relevant because our entire reality is nothing BUT fields . . . manifesting as various vibratory configurations of energy/mass/momentum . . . some 95% of which is currently not directly measurable (dark energy/matter). It seems quite presumptuous to say that the brain is NOT responding to actual external field phenomena when in altered states that suppress the main sensory system.
Like I said, it is the semantics of your argument that are wrong. If our brains are responding to an external stimulus, then you are still describing a sensory experience. In fact your concept would have us be even more reliant on external stimuli that a naturalist might, because you believe even ones own thought is external stimuli! You are not presenting an alternative to using one's senses, you are expanding on it. You have in essence added a 6th sensory mechanism, and called it "thought". I am not arguing that this is not a valid way to view the world, or even arguing about the particulars. My point is you are castigating atheists for relying on their senses, when you are doing the same thing but taking it one step further by postulating additional sensory inputs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Why would the brain interpret artificial weak EM fields in the ways that it does . . . if there is not something real that it is actually supposed to interpret that way???
This is simple! Why do poorly grounded loudspeaker systems pick up radio waves? I have been running sound for events and suddenly get CB radio over the main loudspeakers. This is not because the sound system was designed to pick up radio waves, it is an unintended consequence that happens because it uses electrical signals through wires to reproduce sound. In exactly the same way, the brain uses electrical impulses travelling over conductors to convey thought and emotion. It is simple physics that an EM field can induce a current in length of wire ( or other conductive medium), and stands to reason that the brain will interpret those signals the same way it interprets signals orignating in the body.(It, like the PA system, has no way to distinguish between the external signal, and the one it is supposed to be interpreting, so it handles them both in the same way).
[/quote]The problem is that neither of the preferences ARE actually explanations. One accepts our ignorance and essentially says "We don't know" but it doesn't matter because "It just is." The other rejects our ignorance and accepts everything as evidence for the existence of God.[/quote]
And as long as there are absolutely no differences in outcomes, it is irrelevant. If however, you postulate that a universe with ( or equivalent to ) God is would produce a different outcome than one without God, then it isn't simply preference, it can be tested and examined. Thus, we can choose to neither blindly accept or reject, but we can evaluate based on the evidence. So the onus is on the believer. Is your concept of God distinguishable for no god? If so, in what ways? How can it be tested? If there is no difference between no god and god, then you are correct, it is merely preference.
The absolute dominance of our subjective sensory experiences of materiality is the reason so many strong atheists are literally blinded by it and completely insensitive to any other aspect of our reality.
That and the fact that when we compare those subjective experiences with those of others, certain patterns emerge. Some things everyone shares, others are stuff one random person feels compelled to preach over and over and over and over and over despite the fact that no one else experiences it. One of these we call reality, the other faith.
No I don't get the idea. Drugs and trauma can alter the brain's functioning . . . but we are talking about the brain's normal functioning.
That's an arbitrary and meaningless distinction. The brain reacts to all sorts of inputs. To randomly label some as normal and others as abnormal just to prove your point that the brain was designed for the stuff you wish it was designed for is circular at best.
That's an arbitrary and meaningless distinction. The brain reacts to all sorts of inputs. To randomly label some as normal and others as abnormal just to prove your point that the brain was designed for the stuff you wish it was designed for is circular at best.
This is my point, that there is no reason I can see to refer to the brain's response to EM waves as "normal" and its response to pharmacological agents as "abnormal." Let us see if our friend MysticPhD can draw some sensible distinction.
On the other hand believing in deities without a shred of evidence to prove their existence is also logically unsound.
Indeed. So logically, the correct position is to reserve belief in the God -claim (to that extent we do make a judgement - on the evidence) until persuasive evidence is forthcoming. That is the rational basis of atheism, and it is logically sound.
Whether or not atheists may say 'There is no God', whether as a shorthand of 'there is no God as believed in by the religions of the Book or any others, and none that seems to have any input into our world and, for that matter, any kind of god so far as I know.
That would be the implications given in full, but 'There is no God' is a huge overall saving of time over a year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) but we do refuse to acknowledge those particular 'aspects' as the true explanation when there are others just as good or better.
