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.
The reason we have a soul is for our very existence, as without it, we are merely animals.
We are animals. 'Merely' is a snobbish irrelevance. We have just as much soul as animals and no more. If they have none, we have none. If you can give any better reason to believe in a soul, I shall welcome it. If you can adduce some hard evidence for a soul, there's a Nobel prize waiting, or at least a medal from the Pope.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-24-2010 at 09:59 AM..
OK...and exactly what are the "verifiable essentials" in your estimation?
You really are doing very well. And so is Mystic. His dismissing of all 'beliefs' and stripping it down to verifiable essentials is bang on. I'm with him all the way. But ,when we get down to the 'essentials', something goes wrong and he seems to adduce some 'obvious' element that isn't at all obvious and does seem to be just an assumption based on nothing very much but which is still supposed to be right in front of us.
If he wants to call that 'god' he can. I can't tell him what to think. But I see no reason to call it 'god' (implying some sort of forward -planning intelligence) rather than nature which doesn't. And, until some reason to accept that supposed forward planning intelligence is given, the god - label seems unjustified and actually misleading as, if it carries no religion - connotations for our pal Mystic, it does for many who use sorta god as a springboard for the leap of Faith to the Bible.
I still think that we can get onto the same page with the Mystic one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-24-2010 at 10:01 AM..
Mystic wrote (with a long -suffering sigh). "Analogies are used to illustrate a PRINCIPLE (in this case that of PARTIAL evidence as sufficient to establish existence) . . . and do NOT need to be literal comparatives."
Analogies can certainly be used to illustrate or clarify a point being demonstrated, but if they are being used as evidence or proof of some principle which itself is being questioned, then it needs to be absolutely watertight.
Your argument is that the 'tracks' (evidence of ) of a 'deer' ('god' a sorta cosmic mind..presumably problem - solving and having forward planning abilities) prove that if we see tracks even though we can't see a deer, we know a deer is there.
Similarly if we see tracks of god even though we don't see the god we know the god is there.
The analogy breaks down because these tracks are only assumed to be the tracks of god. We don't even know what this god is so how can we say the tracks are those of a god? You may say: 'what else?' We have said what else. We have said they are tracks of the unplanning forces of nature and you've gone off raving.
Your Deer analogy does not work. We know there are deer. We know they make certain tracks. One infers the other.
We do NOT know there is a god. The tracks we see do NOT imply or suggest a god. That you say they do is assuming a given - two givens (the existence of a god and the sort of tracks it leaves) - which you have consistently failed to demonstrate.
I have demonstrated at least somereason why the tracks we have do not imply anything that we could call 'god'.
Sorry to stick me nose in but hope that helps. You are doing well, Christy.
::Sigh:: Analogies are used to illustrate a PRINCIPLE (in this case that of PARTIAL evidence as sufficient to establish existence) . . . and do NOT need to be literal comparatives. So your reference to the Deer not being as unknown as God is irrelevant to the principle.
I beg to differ: a·nal·o·gy
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. 2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology . an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics . a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
When making analogies, one must be comparing similar or like things. Trying to compare something we HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT, SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN WITH OUR EYES against SOMETHING WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF, SOMETHING WE HAVE NEVER SEEN WITH OUR EYES is not a valid comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
We do not know that a mind is controlling the processes and parameters of our existence that enable our science and our understanding, consciousness, etc. . . . but "something" IS. That is all that is necessary to the principle in the analogy . . . that the "something"(Deer") be real. Then the evidence becomes confirmatory. BUT . . . it does NOT answer the questions about the "other" attributes (consciousness/mindlessness, etc.) extant in the myriad BELIEFS about it.
I agree with you...SOMETHING IS...but we have no clue about/no physical or scientific evidence about/we have never seen....EXACTLY WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is a ubiquitous and false statement. We know the partial evidence you unjustifiably assign to the artifice "nature" without justification . . . and I have shown my view has the advantage of using a known feature of reality as the exemplar for the Source.It is you that has given the unknown source the unjustifiable label of nothing ("Nature") with no existing exemplar for the Source.
For one...I have never done this. If you look back at my posts you will find this statement to be incorrect. You are the one assigning the title/label God to the UNKNOWN SOURCE OF ALL...not me. In my estimation, it should best be referred to as the UNKNOWN SOURCE OF ALL...FOR WE DO NOT DEFINITIVELY "KNOW" WHAT THAT SOURCE IS.THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR EXACTLY WHAT THAT SOURCE IS...NOTHING...NADA...ZIP...ZILCH!
I'm just befuddled by the fact that you keep referring to this UNKNOWN SOURCE OF ALL as God. Why do you feel the need to attach an existing name (especially one which gives an extremely different connotation/image/concept than the one you are giving it) to this UNKNOWN SOURCE and what do you find so frustrating about me calling it what it actually is....AN UNKNOWN SOURCE???
And above you refer to your title/label of God as a KNOWN FEATURE OF REALITY??? We've established, by your posts, that the known today concept/image of God is quite different from the image/concept of God that you have or are prescribing to the UNKNOWN SOURCE OF ALL. So please give some evidence for this KNOWN FEATURE OF REALITY that you refer to as God...because there is NOT one person who "KNOWS DEFINITIVELY" WHO OR WHAT GOD IS.
Mystic wrote (with a long -suffering sigh). "Analogies are used to illustrate a PRINCIPLE (in this case that of PARTIAL evidence as sufficient to establish existence) . . . and do NOT need to be literal comparatives."
Analogies can certainly be used to illustrate or clarify a point being demonstrated, but if they are being used as evidence or proof of some principle which itself is being questioned, then it needs to be absolutely watertight.
Your argument is that the 'tracks' (evidence of ) of a 'deer' ('god' a sorta cosmic mind..presumably problem - solving and having forward planning abilities) prove that if we see tracks even though we can't see a deer, we know a deer is there.
Similarly if we see tracks of god even though we don't see the god we know the god is there.
The analogy breaks down because these tracks are only assumed to be the tracks of god. We don't even know what this god is so how can we say the tracks are those of a god? You may say: 'what else?' We have said what else. We have said they are tracks of the unplanning forces of nature and you've gone off raving.
Your Deer analogy does not work. We know there are deer. We know they make certain tracks. One infers the other.
We do NOT know there is a god. The tracks we see do NOT imply or suggest a god. That you say they do is assuming a given - two givens (the existence of a god and the sort of tracks it leaves) - which you have consistently failed to demonstrate.
I have demonstrated at least somereason why the tracks we have do not imply anything that we could call 'god'.
Sorry to stick me nose in but hope that helps. You are doing well, Christy.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make...Thank You!
You really are doing very well. And so is Mystic. His dismissing of all 'beliefs' and stripping it down to verifiable essentials is bang on. I'm with him all the way. But ,when we get down to the 'essentials', something goes wrong and he seems to adduce some 'obvious' element that isn't at all obvious and does seem to be just an assumption based on nothing very much but which is still supposed to be right in front of us.
If he wants to call that 'god' he can. I can't tell him what to think. But I see no reason to call it 'god' (implying some sort of forward -planning intelligence) rather than nature which doesn't.
You tenaciously refuse to acknowledge that "Nature" is NOT the neutrality you assert. It implies no sort of forward planning intelligence and provides NO existing exemplar for the Source we do know scientifically must be there . . . the universal field. God consciousness DOES have an exemplar (our own forward planning intelligent consciousnesses) as a candidate for the universal field. So . . . while NEITHER can be verified (and NEITHER should be assumed as default ) . . . objectively WHICH one has more justification as the default?
Quote:
And, until some reason to accept that supposed forward planning intelligence is given, the god - label seems unjustified and actually misleading as, if it carries no religion - connotations for our pal Mystic, it does for many who use sorta god as a springboard for the leap of Faith to the Bible.
It is the "Nature" label that is unjustified and misleading. This revelation points to the actual source of your intransigence and reticence. It is the potential religious springboard that fuels your rejection of the God default . . . not logic or science. While I am sympathetic to that problem (so many of the religions are heinous abominations) . . . if there has to be a default . . . one that has a potential candidate for the Source using the example of a KNOWN phenonemon as its basis should have precedence, IMO.
Quote:
I still think that we can get onto the same page with the Mystic one.
Mystic wrote:"the "mindlessness" crowd who insist that their view be the default one with no more objective justification than I can provide for my view. Their arrogant insistence on a BELIEF about consciousness to QUALIFYthe Source as God is what creates the artifice word "Nature" ensconcing their unsupportable view as the default."
I hope I'm not breaking some rule or referrring to some orphaned subject, but in my debate with Tiggiemax I had to ask whether he accepted the rules of logic. Obviously that is a given in a debate about atheism being logical. It was equally obvious that he didn't accept the sort of logic you get if you Google 'logic'.
Mystic does seem to understand the concept of burden of proof. However, he seems to think that the burden of proof is on the 'mindlessness' crowd to prove their point.
We do not have to prove that Dragons don't exist. We do not have to prove that Bigfoot, ghosts or Nessie do not exist. Logic states that the person making the claim is the one who has to do the proving. Logically, to say that matter is mindless and that nature is not conscious in the way we'd think of it is not a claim. It is waiting for the evidence of the one who claims that it Is conscious ands it Is 'mind'.
As the evidence for Nessie, Bigfoot and ghosts has not been conclusive and much of it has been anecdotal, misinterpreted and distressingly often, hoaxed, so the evidence for a conscious nature is very inadequate.
It's true that Einstein was persuaded of an ordered and even planning universe which he called 'god', but he turned out to be wrong and Bohr was right. The attempts to show animal consciousness is linked with something Other or the undeniable experiences people have when they they are in an ectsatic mood are far from persuasive evidence of a conscious nature.
The Plantinga argument put forward so ably by Matrix (which Mystic enthusiastically supported) turned out to be horribly flawed as I was able to show once I'd got my head round it. None of the 'god' evidence really stands up, logically, reasonably or evidentially.
Logically, whether he likes it or not, the burden of proof is on Mystic and his ilk. If he accepts logic, he has to accept that.
As you say, I hope that he now sees that.
AGAIN---The "God Exists" concept is the "Champion Concept"...is, and has been for thousands of years.
I argue on the side of "Universally Known Standards of Fairness".
Science, Logic, Reason?....come to any conclusion you want...call it "fact"...it still means SQUAAAAAAAT! Many "facts" have been shown to be WROOOOOONG countless times. Info derived from intuition and perception (beliefs) hold as much, if not more, water...when it all comes down to REAL merit. You want a "fact"?...try THAT one!
Based on aforementioned "Fairness"...it is upon the "challenger" to bring what it can to defeat the Champion. So far the Atheist Platform (challenger) has gotten it's butt soundly whooped EVERY time it has come up against the God Exists Platform (Champion). Until you come with something that does more that result in you being crushed, trounced, and generally dusted with ease...you (the Atheist Platform) are relegated to your position of "Loser".
The Champion (God Exists Platform) needs to prove NOTHING...it's status as Champion says it all. "Fairness" dictates that any challenging the Champ, has to win by knockout or at least a majority decision to "Take the Title".
Summation--Know your role and your status. Make no more demands than "fairness" dictates your status permits. In this case...the burden of proof is 100% on the "No God Concept"...until it stages a successful challenge, the "God Exists Concept" reigns supreme.
I think I am not getting something here. The god consciousness, as I understand it, is the idea that in people, in their mind, there is a place that is open to the god. This is usually used to justify getting around the bible and church (inspiration) authority. When religious people wish to deviate they need a direct revelation, or a direct path to the god-in other words, they can come up with their own stuff-this consciousness is assumed to tap into the divine consciousness-one sees a lot of this on the christian forum-I usually chalk it up to bad gas; of course non-believers also have bad gas. One can say anything with their subjective feelings. Psychologically, it was assumed by some (atheists psychologists as well) that their is a place in mind that is turned toward the god concept. As usual, the draw is stronger in some more than others-it varies. Some psychologists, even though they did not believe in god, still felt that this area was still important to study and did. It is odd that a philosophy and religion page is predominantly engage in disproving or proving god-something that can't be done, and all the other questions of philosophy are ignored-obviously this has nothing to do with learning about thought and reason; just stating one's useless views and then a passel black slappers agree, all with no authority to change one single thing. Poor philosophy.
AGAIN---The "God Exists" concept is the "Champion Concept"...is, and has been for thousands of years.
I argue on the side of "Universally Known Standards of Fairness".
Science, Logic, Reason?....come to any conclusion you want...call it "fact"...it still means SQUAAAAAAAT! Many "facts" have been shown to be WROOOOOONG countless times. Info derived from intuition and perception (beliefs) hold as much, if not more, water...when it all comes down to REAL merit. You want a "fact"?...try THAT one!
Based on aforementioned "Fairness"...it is upon the "challenger" to bring what it can to defeat the Champion. So far the Atheist Platform (challenger) has gotten it's butt soundly whooped EVERY time it has come up against the God Exists Platform (Champion). Until you come with something that does more that result in you being crushed, trounced, and generally dusted with ease...you (the Atheist Platform) are relegated to your position of "Loser".
The Champion (God Exists Platform) needs to prove NOTHING...it's status as Champion says it all. "Fairness" dictates that any challenging the Champ, has to win by knockout or at least a majority decision to "Take the Title".
Summation--Know your role and your status. Make no more demands than "fairness" dictates your status permits. In this case...the burden of proof is 100% on the "No God Concept"...until it stages a successful challenge, the "God Exists Concept" reigns supreme.
In "Fairness"....there has not been ONE SHRED OF "PROOF" provided for an existence of God/a God/God Consciousness anywhere. I have read many personal suppositions, personal assumptions, redefinitions of known images/concepts, and personal opinions but have not seen ONE SHRED OF "ACTUAL PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF" of this alleged entity/image/concept you are referring to as God. Can you please provide us all with or show us where this alleged PROOF is???? un·known
–adjective
1. not known; not within the range of one's knowledge, experience, or understanding; strange; unfamiliar.
2. not discovered, explored, identified, or ascertained: the unknown parts of Antarctica.
There is AN "UNKNOWN" SOURCE OF ALL...just because you attach the title/label God...doesn't make it so nor does it PROVE anything. That is better known in boxing circles as a KO!
Mystic wrote (with a long -suffering sigh). "Analogies are used to illustrate a PRINCIPLE (in this case that of PARTIAL evidence as sufficient to establish existence) . . . and do NOT need to be literal comparatives."
Analogies can certainly be used to illustrate or clarify a point being demonstrated, but if they are being used as evidence or proof of some principle which itself is being questioned, then it needs to be absolutely watertight.
Your argument is that the 'tracks' (evidence of ) of a 'deer' ('god' a sorta cosmic mind..presumably problem - solving and having forward planning abilities) prove that if we see tracks even though we can't see a deer, we know a deer is there.
Similarly if we see tracks of god even though we don't see the god we know the god is there.
The analogy breaks down because these tracks are only assumed to be the tracks of god. We don't even know what this god is so how can we say the tracks are those of a god? You may say: 'what else?' We have said what else. We have said they are tracks of the unplanning forces of nature and you've gone off raving.
Sorry . . . the unplanning is as unproven as the planning . . . and you have not given any potential Source for the universal field we know must exist (Deer) using any known existing candidate as an exemplar (i.e., nothing).
Quote:
Your Deer analogy does not work. We know there are deer. We know they make certain tracks. One infers the other.
Wrong. We know there is a Source for the parameters of our reality.
Quote:
We do NOT know there is a god. The tracks we see do NOT imply or suggest a god. That you say they do is assuming a given - two givens (the existence of a god and the sort of tracks it leaves) - which you have consistently failed to demonstrate.
I have repeatedly demonstrated that a Source must exist. Neither of us have any proof about some of its characteristics (consciousness or mindlessness) . . . but one has to become the default. If you wish to use the one with NO EXISTING exemplar and nothing to even suggest what that Source is as YOUR BELIEF . . . you are free to do so. But objectively . . . what justifies your demanding that it be the default in preference to one that HAS an EXISTING exemplar for the Source?
Quote:
I have demonstrated at least some reason why the tracks we have do not imply anything that we could call 'god'.
I hope I have demonstrated why they SHOULD.
Quote:
Sorry to stick me nose in but hope that helps. You are doing well, Christy.
No need to stay out of it and I agree . . . she is doing very well.
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.
