|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Good point, but when there is no common consensus, you're basically forced to either come up with the answer on your own, or "choose a side".
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10156106 - 04/13/09 03:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: I don't understand your statement "If mind is immaterial, mind could be something other; the something other could be God." because by that reasoning, music could be God too. Or love could be God. Or L'esprit de l'escalier could be God.
The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
Mind, alone, is different.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
So since music, which is material, is produced by the mind, which is most likely immaterial, that means that immateriality gives birth to materiality. Interesting...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Poid]
#10156129 - 04/13/09 03:13 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah Poid, think of all the things the mind has created! It is an amazing source. Look at your monitor.
Mind did that.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Come to think of it, what didn't mind do?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
I am glad I am not suffering from this dualistic misconception of reality.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Poid]
#10156151 - 04/13/09 03:18 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: Some need less evidence to be entirely convinced about things than others, and it's not necessarily a good or a bad thing.
What is "less evidence"? Is that like having seen a guy deliver a package to your house and knowing your wife's screwing him?
No, it's not a good or bad thing. It doesn't even matter here, because we're not discussing moral and value issues. We're talking about arguments and evidence for/against God.
Evidence is something that supports the correctness of a proposition. The most widely appreciated and accepted evidence is empirical.
The thread started with a request: give me arguments about why God does not exist. Sure, arguments, there are plenty. Evidence isn't needed. Actually the question is backwards: it's up to the theists to argue, explain and provide evidence for why God exists as God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10156161 - 04/13/09 03:20 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
I am glad I am not suffering from this dualistic misconception of reality.
Dualism is the devil.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
Lakefingers said: ...argue, explain and provide evidence for why God exists as God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
I wholeheartedly agree.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:
zouden said: I don't understand your statement "If mind is immaterial, mind could be something other; the something other could be God." because by that reasoning, music could be God too. Or love could be God. Or L'esprit de l'escalier could be God.
The link is a red herring. And yes, some say God is love. Therefore, the inverse would be true as well. God cannot be music because music is material. Sound waves are produced in matter. Without matter, no sound.
Mind, alone, is different.
Not as much of a red herring as your whole argument about the mind being immaterial is. Are you able to provide a cogent argument for the existence (or lack thereof) of God, or are you just going to spout more meaningless metaphysical drivel?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 2 hours, 38 minutes
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10156485 - 04/13/09 06:55 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i don't see how the mind can be material
material configurations of neuron activity can give rise to thoughts
but the fact that we have an internal -experience- and are not just cause-and-effect machines without....
the fact that the universe has self-experience through observation!
evolution alone can make sense if you forget we are sentient of our own existence... consciousness is more than just a processing control room... it's an experience of existence
and... if you TRULY 100% accept materialism only - I see no room left for free will. If we arose purely from random chance and are basically complex interactions of matter... that's pure determinism. If this is your view, why do you -live- as if it isn't? Why do you pretend in self individuality if you feel materialism has -solved- existence (such a ridiculously inadequate proof for me). Why would experience have to occur, when our programmed AI can make rational decisions without internal consciousness.
--------------------
|
Zanthius
Mean Alien
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,570
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10156576 - 04/13/09 07:33 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deff said: i don't see how the mind can be material
Well, you probably don't know everything about what matter is. It is also better to say that your consciousness is physical than to say that it is material, as everything physical isn't necessarily made of matter.
I don't see how my consciousness can be non-physical, as my consciousness can be altered by physical molecules like ethanol, psilocybin, tetrahydrocannabinol, etc.
Quote:
deff said: and... if you TRULY 100% accept materialism only - I see no room left for free will.
Perhaps you should study quantum mechanics. I also don't understand what you mean by "free will". Do you mean "random will" or do you mean "a will freed from the restrains of cultural conditioning and instinctive influences"?
Edited by Zanthius (04/13/09 07:50 AM)
|
BlimeyGrimey
Collector of Spores
Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 3,792
Loc: Puget Sound
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Zanthius]
#10156932 - 04/13/09 09:58 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zanthius said:
Quote:
deff said: and... if you TRULY 100% accept materialism only - I see no room left for free will.
Perhaps you should study quantum mechanics. I also don't understand what you mean by "free will". Do you mean "random will" or do you mean "a will freed from the restrains of cultural conditioning and instinctive influences"?
I too believe "free will" is a result of quantum mechanics.
-------------------- Message me for free microscopy services on Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and Gymnopilus species. Looking for wild Panaeolus cinctulus and Panaeolus olivaceus prints.
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10156983 - 04/13/09 10:14 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Not as much of a red herring as your whole argument about the mind being immaterial is.
Hardly a red herring as the existence of one immaterial entity, i.e. the mind, suggests other immaterial entities. We have solid, philosophical evidence that the mind is immaterial.
Quote:
zouden said: Are you able to provide a cogent argument for the existence (or lack thereof) of God, or are you just going to spout more meaningless metaphysical drivel?
Cogency, or lack thereof, has its correlation in the argument from personal incredulity. Not only is that a logical fallacy, it has zero bearing on the discussion as does the subjective opinion that philosophical discourse is meaningless drivel.
Nevertheless, at your request, here is one argument for the existence of God (from Adler, of course ):
1. The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause.
2. The Cosmos as a whole exists.
3. The existence of the Cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing).
4. If the Cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God.
Quote:
The Universe as we know it today is not the only Universe that can ever exist in time. We can infer it from the fact that the arrangement and disarray, the order and disorder, of the present Cosmos might have been otherwise. That it might have been different from what it is. That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist; and conversely, what necessarily exists can not be otherwise than it is. Therefore, a Cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also cannot be; and conversely, a Cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is. Applying this insight to the fact that the existing Cosmos is merely one of a plurality of possible universes, we come to the conclusion that the Cosmos, radically contingent in existence, would not exist at all were its existence not caused. A merely possible Cosmos cannot be an uncaused Cosmos. A Cosmos that is radically contingent in existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause, one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible Cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for merely a possible Cosmos, namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness.
M.J. Adler
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
would not exist at all were its existence not caused.
How is this proof of God? Does cause imply God?
I stubbed my toe and it throbbed. This implies God? Not likely IMO.
I would never argue against the possibility of a God or Creator consciousness but that is a far cry from seeing any evidence of it.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10157625 - 04/13/09 12:22 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
another example: If null is the rock is not red and the exp. hypothesis is the rock is red and your experiment is to ask someone what the color is, cuz your blind or something, if that person doesn't talk that doesn't establish the null to be correct.
No, it doesn't establish it to be correct, but it leaves the status of the rock as "probably not red". There's usually a reason why you set H0 to be "the rock is not red", rather than the other way around. Let's say it's because most rocks aren't red. So for this particular rock, you assume it is not red unless proven otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Quote:
In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (H0) formally describes some aspect of the statistical behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption.
A lack of evidence disproving the null hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis to be true, but it makes it reasonable, and rational, to believe the null hypothesis to be true.
Most rocks aren't red. I don't have evidence that this particular rock is red, so it's reasonable to assume it isn't.
Most gods aren't real. I don't have evidence that the Christian god is real, so it's reasonable to assume he isn't. (Substitute with Allah or Brahma as appropriate).
In my example it was presumed, as i stated, that the only data we had was wrapped up in that experimental result. So how do you choose the null hypothesis when you have no data to do so?
You are not defending your posited conclusion, you are simply saying "yeah but other evidence would make us presume the null (god does not exist) to be correct". This is meaningless when we assume that our experimental data is representative of the entirety of knowledge on the subject.
You are just appealing to the unknown. There's something that supports this.....
Anyways, are we on the same page that it is not the same thing to conclude a hypothesis is wrong as to conclude it is unsupported, logically?
I don't see the big problem here: it is different to say that logically god doesn't exist then it is to say logically l reject the purported logic demonstrating god's existance. If we wrap up the entirety of the evidence and arguments into these two cases, it describes exactly the difference. The experimental treatment we've discussed shows plainly why you cannot accept the null just because the experimental hypothesis was not supported. The only answer you have to this is that *something* would support that conclusion- which is meaningless when the whole point is we are subsuming the entirety of the evidence into this example/experiment.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
#10158775 - 04/13/09 03:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I dont understand how you guys are treating the null hypothesis here. AFAIK, the null hypothesis is just the hypothesis that there will be no statistical difference between your control group and experimental group. How does that apply to this discussion?
|
Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10158845 - 04/13/09 03:32 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That is the first time I've seen as far as I know turned into an acronym.
You learn something every day.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10158862 - 04/13/09 03:34 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The null hypothesis idea works for a scenario about red rocks, because you can take preexisting data ("most rocks aren't red") and assume that's the control group, the base case, then check to see if other rocks are different.
I think it also works in the scenario we are discussing, because most people, especially Christians, would agree that most Gods aren't real. This means each God can then be tested against that null hypothesis.
If Christians can't provide any more evidence that Jehovah is real compared to, say, Brahma, I'm going to presume the null hypothesis.
As we've already established (and this touches on John's post above) we still can't say for certain that Jehovah doesn't exist, but it's reasonable, and rational, to say that he probably doesn't.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: the existence of one immaterial entity, i.e. the mind, suggests other immaterial entities. We have solid, philosophical evidence that the mind is immaterial.
And we have solid, physical evidence that the mind is not immaterial. But in any case, I don't see how that argument would be particularly useful, as it doesn't prove the existence of God any more than, say, ghosts, or faeries.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
|