Dont Tell Me What To Believe....

[Boult]

The truth is, I've never heard of the Gnostic Bible. I did ask you of it was whether of God's words or the Human's words. To see that God did not acknowledge the existence of Satan is simply unrealistic and is rather a fabrication - the work of human beings. I say this because you and I know that God dislikes those that follow the wrong source. However, your perspective rings in true because you can ignore the belief of Satan but you have to acknowledge that there is one. Based on many things you see (such as corruption) have all been influenced by Satan (due to contrary belief) and you need to acknowledge that.

-J.

here you go: http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/

 

[RedFox]

Part of the reason (as far as I understand it) is that the treason is a symptom of a deeper flaw in us than just the action itself. I think what the difference is between that and human legal systems is the fact that unlike God, we are unable to take all of the variables into account, hence the need to put some restraints on what we do as far as punishment goes.

As far as God, I don't know that all Christians see it this way, but I personally think He's going out of His way to ensure a maximum number redeemed--NOT a minimum. How He's doing this, what parts of it I do not see, I'm not sure of. Please understand I'm 22 years old and still at the elementary stages of the kind of theological research I'd like to be doing. But, this is a premise I'm working off of, the only one that makes sense to me.

There are Christians out there who think that most people are going to hell, like Fred Phelps.

One book of the Bible you might be interested in breaking down into a logic chain if you get some spare time is Ecclesiastes...

I know about that book, it's one of my friend's favorite books.

The reason I see that the scientific standard doesn't work is that it is insufficient--it only reflects a subset of the human experience...that is, the physical, material world, with no regard for anything that might not be measurable and definable with the limited powers of our senses. The function of science as far as I see it--that is, where I think it belongs--is in a descriptive, not philosophical function.

Don't forget that we can extend our senses with instruments. There is experience in the material world and experience with what is in the mind like philosophy. It exists on a higher level of emergent complexity because it's based on neural networking, which is based on biochemistry which is based on physics. The patterns of neural connections don't depend on the details of how the neurons work. The information that can be represented in neural networks is not very restricted by the lower levels. That's why we can have a descriptive framework like science about the external world and philosophical frameworks for what happens in our heads.

I may have said this before in other threads, but my worldview is such that I see science and philosophy as two different arms of an integrated discipline with which to approach the world.

I know what you mean.

Anyway, how DOES one find out about God? Ultimately I would have to say personal experience. Science--and even logic--will only get you so far, though I daresay a seeker is invited to look at those things, not discouraged. Science can show you the nature of the physical universe, and logic can help with some of the implications of different philosophical principles if you were to apply them to the universe, but ultimately something gets in there that is intangible, subjective, and that's a wildcard that science is not up to the task of handling. And that boils down to a personal, internal choice.

(Again, sorry for the rambling...it's late and I had a bad day with an ugly class project.)

Personal experience is subjective and based on one's ideas plus interpreations of what is seen in the world. The ideas in the neural network in the head are not required to correspond to reality.

What seems to be in question as far as I understand you is something I alluded to earlier--what kind of evidence is and is not admissible.

Ultimately simple faith is what it's going to boil down to in the end...but, I don't think logic is discouraged.

Yeah, it's a question about what evidence is good evidence. I think personal experience isn't good like stuff from the world because what's in our head doesn't have to be real.

About "God being real in one's head", you may be interested in researching St. Anselm's deontological argument. I'll warn you it's a toughie and I'm not convinced it's the BEST of the logical arguments out there. You'll want a site that has a good explanation accompanying the original text, because St. Anselm left out some of the linkages he was making in his head and modern philosophers have had to go back and reinsert them. But, your phrasing reminded me of that one, hence the recommendation. I do not have all the answers for you and I know it...that's why I keep referring you to outside sources. All I can do is help get you started in feeding your curiosity, if you decide you want to.

I found this. Is it a good description?

The plate motion is the HOW and the WHAT...I have no argument with plate tectonics.

But the WHY? God's wrath? That's not how I see it. If anything, perhaps there is a wake-up call for us survivors to become more compassionate, less condemning--to get us to learn to reach out to those in need (not our first instinct, for sure!). I don't see it as a punishment against those who died or who were impacted otherwise by it.

The tsunami does not need to have a god cause it for it to be a reminder that we should be compassionate.

I don't see Christianity as encouraging inaction. Remember what I said the purpose would be, of that event. Would that not demand that Christians in a position to do so act to teach people what to do in the case of a tsunami, to save lives and prevent future loss? That's a call to action, not inaction.

Thinking that a god could cause a tsunami at any time might make some people think that teaching people what to do would be cheating the god. Seeing tsunami as something that the planet has once in a while for reasons known to science won't make it cheating to teach people what to do. The planet won't get mad about you knowing what to do. :P

Not all Christians are anti-gay or anti-woman; please be careful about broadbrushing. I am incensed by people who use Christianity as a reason to be cruel to homosexuals--believe me. The abortion issue is tougher...I personally don't think I'd be up to getting one, psychologically. But I'm not sure I like the idea of striking down Roe v. Wade. Again, an issue I need more research on.

Yeah, I know of gay people who said that the Christian god made them gay for his reasons. Religion shouldn't be used to force agendas onto others.

Those are inappropriate power-trips caused by human greed, not by Christianity itself, if you ask me. I see no need for the book-burning, Crusades, or witch trials. As for scientific work, those people were too far on the OTHER side of the spectrum (dismissing the physical)...whereas an integrated approach like mine doesn't have that trouble. They are excesses that should rightfully be condemned. But I see the people who DID them as responsible, for their warped interpretations.

Maybe the people who are in control and greedy for power could be taking advantage of religion by telling their followers how their religion justifies those things to have them do those things. Those activities suppress other memeplexes. Some versions of the Christian memeplexes that has people in power and in the position of commanding believers, like the Catholic church, encourages such things. Other versions where believers talk individually to the god are less prone to such things.

I see things differently...I DO believe that Satan exists and causes problems in this world. But I ALSO believe Satan gets a kick out of it when we fail to take action when it's within our power to try to control or stop those problems. That's a failure in our duty of compassion. Take mental illness. I'm all for investigations into the physical/neurological mechanisms at work--but integrated with counseling to try to get at the spiritual mechanisms at work, since to my view body and spirit are intertwined, and there's a feedback loop between the two. (Again, an approach that does not exclude, but accounts for both sides of the coin.)

Sure I think it's a good idea to have counseling. The counseling talks to the dynamically encoded information in the neural network and the drugs talk to the biochemistry aspect.

Since there is no evidence for Satan out there in the physical world, the only place we know where Satan is is in the realm of what's stored in the neural networks in people who say they believe in Satan.

As I imagine you're starting to see, I am one of those who gets flamed by both sides. I've been treated very cruelly both by staunch Christians and staunch atheists--atheists have called me stupid, and Christians have called me hellbound. I strike a balance that seems to really irritate a lot of people. So yes, I have definitely endured the kind of criticisms you're talking about.

You remind me of somebody I know.

Which gets down to the question of, does the universe need a Creator? That's one of the very first questions that has to be addressed. I have not yet been able to find a single argument that makes any sense, suggesting that the universe somehow "always was" without some kind of kick-start from a force that set things up and wrote the laws. That's a whole other thread there.

Sure, that's a lot to talk about. Does the creator need a creator? Can Occam's razor be used to say the universe had existed, without an infinite chain of creators before it. That's a lot.

One question for you, because I'm curious. Why is it that you ever do anything good for anybody else? Why do you consider it worth your effort? This is not a personal attack in any way. I just want to see the logic flow.

Doing good things keeps humanity together and allows us to do things that we can't do alone.

 

[Rose Immortal]

There are Christians out there who think that most people are going to hell, like Fred Phelps.

I'm drawing a blank here...is he a Pat Robertson type?

Don't forget that we can extend our senses with instruments. There is experience in the material world and experience with what is in the mind like philosophy. It exists on a higher level of emergent complexity because it's based on neural networking, which is based on biochemistry which is based on physics. The patterns of neural connections don't depend on the details of how the neurons work. The information that can be represented in neural networks is not very restricted by the lower levels. That's why we can have a descriptive framework like science about the external world and philosophical frameworks for what happens in our heads.

Yet our interpretation of those instruments--even the process of creating them--is subject to those same senses.

You take an argument that reminds me of the philosopher Hume, assuming that the material is all that you can prove exists...however, I take an approach that is more like Déscartes: the one certainty I start with is the existence of my soul--my emotions, the "subjective" experiences, and I work out from there. For me the subjective--what cannot be proven through material, scientific processes, is the one thing I CAN be certain of. On a very simple matter, how do I know that what I think of as the color red is the same thing that you think of as red? You can measure the frequency of red light--but how do I know that the way you experience it as the same? It was Déscartes who started from this point and also attempted a proof of God's existence. There's debate over how well HIS proof is done, but it gets closer to the way I approach it than St. Anselm's proof.

To compare and contrast if you're curious:

Descartes
Hume

This is one of the most fundamental divisions in philosophy and I suspect it's one that lies at the root of our differences with each other.

I should note that while to me it is unprovable, I have faith in the existence of the material world and that's why I act in a way that avoids denying it.

I believe there is a spirit that interacts with the body and causes the neural firings that you can measure. I do not see the brain as the repository of self, but rather acting as a transceiver or transformer (like the kind for electricity) between the physical and spiritual. It is the place where the physical and spiritual meet. We are not aware of this divide under normal circumstances because of the immersive nature of sensory input.

You could also see it this way: that I (spirit) am like the user of a computer (brain/body). You're sitting there and typing, and in the same way, the spirit is manipulating the physical body. But it works like this: I wish to do something, and it's like typing a command into a computer, which responds to the command. The computer (body) may also be receiving inputs from outside (think of an Internet cable, for instance)...these would be our senses. The computer must filter the input it receives and display it to the user (spirit) in a form he or she can handle. In this way the brain both organizes and filters what one perceives in order to prevent overload to the finite (and as I see it, flawed) spirit.

Physical damage to the brain has effects like damage to a computer--imagine a computer with a short circuit. In the case of the brain, this could be something like Alzheimer's, or schizophrenia. The spirit is fully, completely intact, as I see it--but receiving faulty input from the outside world, which leads to inappropriate responses (or inability to respond entirely, depending on how bad the damage is).

This conception of the body and spirit thus allows for BOTH what a doctor would say about a psychological problem and what a minister would say. It also provides a simple solution (the drawn-out explanation is my fault!) to issues like near-death experience that I think fits Occam's Razor; it allows both elements (physical and spiritual) to fit simply and neatly together.

Personal experience is subjective and based on one's ideas plus interpreations of what is seen in the world. The ideas in the neural network in the head are not required to correspond to reality.

See above...personal experience is the only reality I know for certain I have.

Yeah, it's a question about what evidence is good evidence. I think personal experience isn't good like stuff from the world because what's in our head doesn't have to be real.

Hopefully now you have a better understanding of why I consider personal experience admissible.

I found this. Is it a good description?

That grounds you in the general idea of what the deontological branch of ethics is like, and so it's a good start--these are the ethics that come from the assumption that there are universal duties.

But...leave it to me, I made a typo!

I should have said, St. Anselm's ONTOLOGICAL Argument. My bad!!!

This page will give you a look at the various ontological arguments out there: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ Be forewarned, it's a LOT of reading! It doesn't do a good job on St. Anselm's argument, though.

This one is interesting, though, and also shows you some of the criticisms of the argument (in interest of fairness): http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm

There's one thing about St. Anselm's argument that intrigues me, in spite of my doubts that it's the best one. I'm not sure how to articulate it, but there is something in it that reminds me of calculus every time I read it, and of trying to understand the concept of limits. And for me, any mirroring of a spiritual argument in the physical world gets my attention and makes me look again (considering that I treat both places as valid sources of information).

The general type belonging to St. Anselm's argument is a reductio ad absurdum--basically, negative reasoning: it attempts to show that the alternative (that there is no God) is logically unacceptable. Parts of my own argument (WHY do I post so late at night to where I'm too tired to type it out?) are negative reasoning, as well.

The tsunami does not need to have a god cause it for it to be a reminder that we should be compassionate.

But, if one is assuming the existence of an infinite God who designed the universe, one would also assume that all events have a purpose.

Thinking that a god could cause a tsunami at any time might make some people think that teaching people what to do would be cheating the god. Seeing tsunami as something that the planet has once in a while for reasons known to science won't make it cheating to teach people what to do. The planet won't get mad about you knowing what to do. :P

Some people might think that, and that's actually not unlike the "Christian Science" view on medical science. However, it is not my view (and I don't think the majority view of Christians.

Yeah, I know of gay people who said that the Christian god made them gay for his reasons.

Hm...I've never heard that before...

Maybe the people who are in control and greedy for power could be taking advantage of religion by telling their followers how their religion justifies those things to have them do those things. Those activities suppress other memeplexes. Some versions of the Christian memeplexes that has people in power and in the position of commanding believers, like the Catholic church, encourages such things. Other versions where believers talk individually to the god are less prone to such things.

One personal reason why I am not Catholic. But I don't take my beefs with the Vatican out on individual Catholics, rest assured.

Sure I think it's a good idea to have counseling. The counseling talks to the dynamically encoded information in the neural network and the drugs talk to the biochemistry aspect.

Or to the intangible spirit and the tangible body.

Since there is no evidence for Satan out there in the physical world, the only place we know where Satan is is in the realm of what's stored in the neural networks in people who say they believe in Satan.

You'd have to tie a proof of Satan's existence first to a proof of God's existence, and both would have to come through non-physical means.

You remind me of somebody I know.

While I'm not sure I agree with this particular guy's logic, I did find that interesting. I don't think children should be forced to say the pledge, either, but I also don't think children should be forced to be silent if their parents teach them it's a good thing to say it with the class (that would infringe on the rights of the parent).

Sure, that's a lot to talk about. Does the creator need a creator? Can Occam's razor be used to say the universe had existed, without an infinite chain of creators before it. That's a lot.

The way you phrase that question may be limited by the human notion of linear time, which I'd suggest is a matter of our finite perceptions, not necessarily a reflection of the complete nature of things.

It raises another interesting question, about the meaning of God's name according to the Old Testament: "I AM". Just sit there and think about that one for a minute...pretty deep for something set in writing that long ago, for people who did not understand the concept of either zero OR of infinity.

Doing good things keeps humanity together and allows us to do things that we can't do alone.

Next questions: Those things you do together are for the benefit of future generations, correct? What about when there are no more future generations and thus all record of humankind is gone? What purpose, then, is left in your actions?

 

[RedFox]

I'm drawing a blank here...is he a Pat Robertson type?

He's worse. He hates gay people and does things like protest at every performence of the play inspired by Matthew Stepherd's death. He also protested at Ground Zero after 9/11 and tried to stop the rescue of people because he believed that it was their fault that America was attacked because they were supportive of gay people.
Here's a page about him.

Yet our interpretation of those instruments--even the process of creating them--is subject to those same senses.

You take an argument that reminds me of the philosopher Hume, assuming that the material is all that you can prove exists...however, I take an approach that is more like Déscartes: the one certainty I start with is the existence of my soul--my emotions, the "subjective" experiences, and I work out from there. For me the subjective--what cannot be proven through material, scientific processes, is the one thing I CAN be certain of. On a very simple matter, how do I know that what I think of as the color red is the same thing that you think of as red? You can measure the frequency of red light--but how do I know that the way you experience it as the same? It was Déscartes who started from this point and also attempted a proof of God's existence. There's debate over how well HIS proof is done, but it gets closer to the way I approach it than St. Anselm's proof.

I say that our subjective experience is encoded in the patterns in the neural network. And that thinking that there is a fundamental division between the material and the subjective is an artifact of us only recently beginning to probe how the brain works and how the information is sensed and stored there.

We could also measure the firings of the neurons that are invovled with seeing color. Doing such measurements would bring what only philosophy covered into the realm of science.

To compare and contrast if you're curious:

Descartes
Hume

This is one of the most fundamental divisions in philosophy and I suspect it's one that lies at the root of our differences with each other.

Thanks for the reading, this reminds me that I have a friend who took a class about people like those.

I believe there is a spirit that interacts with the body and causes the neural firings that you can measure. I do not see the brain as the repository of self, but rather acting as a transceiver or transformer (like the kind for electricity) between the physical and spiritual. It is the place where the physical and spiritual meet. We are not aware of this divide under normal circumstances because of the immersive nature of sensory input.

That would make the brain a way to detect the spiritual realm and therefore bringing it into the realm of what can be detected. Then we'd need to figure out what makes brains able to be controlled by the spiritual realm and then try building something that can be too.

This conception of the body and spirit thus allows for BOTH what a doctor would say about a psychological problem and what a minister would say. It also provides a simple solution (the drawn-out explanation is my fault!) to issues like near-death experience that I think fits Occam's Razor; it allows both elements (physical and spiritual) to fit simply and neatly together.

Won't Occam's Razor be used to say that near death experiences are the effects of an oxygen starved brain?

That grounds you in the general idea of what the deontological branch of ethics is like, and so it's a good start--these are the ethics that come from the assumption that there are universal duties.

But...leave it to me, I made a typo!

I should have said, St. Anselm's ONTOLOGICAL Argument. My bad!!!

This page will give you a look at the various ontological arguments out there: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ Be forewarned, it's a LOT of reading! It doesn't do a good job on St. Anselm's argument, though.

This one is interesting, though, and also shows you some of the criticisms of the argument (in interest of fairness): http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm

The general type belonging to St. Anselm's argument is a reductio ad absurdum--basically, negative reasoning: it attempts to show that the alternative (that there is no God) is logically unacceptable. Parts of my own argument (WHY do I post so late at night to where I'm too tired to type it out?) are negative reasoning, as well.

Here's the argument from http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

God exists as an idea in the mind.

A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

Therefore, God exists.

The problems would be the second and third premises. If there was a god, could mere humans have a full concept of it in their minds? The arugment depends on people being able to imagine god and nothing greater. The third premise assumes that to be perfect, something has to exist. Why is that? And what is meant by greatness and perfectness?

With this kind of arugment, anything could be imagined into existence. I define the most perfect monster as a monster that exists and that we can fully imagine, without being able to imagine anything more perfect. Therefore that monster exists. We'll hope that the monster I imagined into existence is a good monster if it exists on this planet.

The most perfect anvil is an anvil that exists above somebody's head and can be imagined and has nothing more perfect than it that can be imagined. So that anvil exists somewhere. Let's hope it's not over our heads.

But, if one is assuming the existence of an infinite God who designed the universe, one would also assume that all events have a purpose.

What about a deist god that decided to let things happen as they would? An infinite god could do anything including letting things happen as they would without his control.

You'd have to tie a proof of Satan's existence first to a proof of God's existence, and both would have to come through non-physical means.

If the evidence has to be non physical, how are you supposed to detect it? Brains and the senses are physical things. If spiritual things can influence physical things, that means there is a way to detect it. If it can be detected, it would be put in the realm of the physical.

Things encoded in a neural network are another matter. It doesn't have to correspond to reality. It's called imagining things or making up things.

If it is said that the spiritual realm can tinker with the neural network to create ideas, then what are the mechanisms of such interactions. Since the brain is a physical thing, we could figure out what bumps into what when the spiritual realm does its thing with brains. Nobody had found anything out of the ordinary in brains yet, so what is being done is figuring out how things are encoded in the neural network, because we know the network exists.

The way you phrase that question may be limited by the human notion of linear time, which I'd suggest is a matter of our finite perceptions, not necessarily a reflection of the complete nature of things.

It raises another interesting question, about the meaning of God's name according to the Old Testament: "I AM". Just sit there and think about that one for a minute...pretty deep for something set in writing that long ago, for people who did not understand the concept of either zero OR of infinity.

Are you saying that the god sees block time? Saying "I AM" could either mean "I exist now" or "I can see all of block time." Saying that the god can see block time has nothing to do with if the god was created or not. The god could have always existed and created the universe and be able to see block time, or another creator could have created the god who created the universe. The created god would always have been able to see the universe in block time since the universe was created. So the god would always have existed from the universe's point of view. Something simpler would be an universe that had always existed with a block time form, without having a creator.

Next questions: Those things you do together are for the benefit of future generations, correct? What about when there are no more future generations and thus all record of humankind is gone? What purpose, then, is left in your actions?

What we do is for the past, present and future. Things are maintained out of respect for those who came before us and we help people in the present and do things to benefit future generations. It doesn't matter if humanity ends. We can still help future generations because it should be a while before humanity ends. It's unlikely that we are the last ones. If a generation found that it could be the last one, it'd focus on helping in the present in attempts to not be the last generation, if possible. The purpose of helping future generations is to benefit all future generations there will be, up to the end. After the end of humanity, there will be no humans to worry about this, making it moot. Not helping anybody because of humanity ending in the future is silly. It's better to help a finite number of people than nobody.

 

[Rose Immortal]

He's worse. He hates gay people and does things like protest at every performence of the play inspired by Matthew Stepherd's death. He also protested at Ground Zero after 9/11 and tried to stop the rescue of people because he believed that it was their fault that America was attacked because they were supportive of gay people.
Here's a page about him.

Wow, that IS seriously scary.

I say that our subjective experience is encoded in the patterns in the neural network. And that thinking that there is a fundamental division between the material and the subjective is an artifact of us only recently beginning to probe how the brain works and how the information is sensed and stored there.

Remember the computer metaphor I was using? I'm sure the brain does change and grow with each thought--just as a hard drive stores data when you write a file and save it. But it doesn't rule out the idea of the end user being there (in this case, spirit).

We could also measure the firings of the neurons that are invovled with seeing color. Doing such measurements would bring what only philosophy covered into the realm of science.

You could measure that, and I have a feeling it would be useful for something (the equivalent of CIs for those who have lost their sight and wish to regain it?). But here's the question. Does the same firing of neurons translate to the same experience as mine? We may agree that a certain light frequency is "red", but is my experience of that frequency the same? That's the thing we can't measure or prove. Does this distinction make sense?

Thanks for the reading, this reminds me that I have a friend who took a class about people like those.

Ya welcome.

That would make the brain a way to detect the spiritual realm and therefore bringing it into the realm of what can be detected. Then we'd need to figure out what makes brains able to be controlled by the spiritual realm and then try building something that can be too.

It's crossed my mind, although I have my doubts of how possible that would be. But think of the weapons potential...that could lead to something worse than the H-bomb.

Won't Occam's Razor be used to say that near death experiences are the effects of an oxygen starved brain?

But what of the cases when there is a measurable time where the brain is completely flatlined (no electrical activity at all), yet the person registers the passage of time and is aware of things said and done in the room...or maybe even outside the room? How can it be that the person remembers those things when the brain had completely ceased all functions? That's where it gets really tricky, and to me it seems like when the spirit and body reconnected, the spirit would have to "upload" all of that information to the brain. That sudden upload at the moment of resuscitation would have to be a strange thing to experience.

Here's the argument from http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm

The problems would be the second and third premises. If there was a god, could mere humans have a full concept of it in their minds? The arugment depends on people being able to imagine god and nothing greater. The third premise assumes that to be perfect, something has to exist. Why is that? And what is meant by greatness and perfectness?

I believe his idea was, if the thing does not exist, it is inherently imperfect due to its inexistence.

With this kind of arugment, anything could be imagined into existence. I define the most perfect monster as a monster that exists and that we can fully imagine, without being able to imagine anything more perfect. Therefore that monster exists. We'll hope that the monster I imagined into existence is a good monster if it exists on this planet.

The most perfect anvil is an anvil that exists above somebody's head and can be imagined and has nothing more perfect than it that can be imagined. So that anvil exists somewhere. Let's hope it's not over our heads.

If I recall right, one of the pages I gave you deals with a logical objection a lot like yours; you might be interested in seeing that.

Like I said, I didn't think it was the BEST argument out there--the reason I posed it was because of the "God in one's head" comment you made...it just reminded me of this.

What about a deist god that decided to let things happen as they would? An infinite god could do anything including letting things happen as they would without his control.

While He theoretically could, I'm not sure that could be reconciled with the idea of a God who is also infinitely just and merciful. I'll have to do more reading into the argument of a deistic god vs. an active god, but I know I've seen it discussed before. It may have been in C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity. Now, he's not one of the "great" philosophers like Descartes or Aristotle or anything, but he's interesting to read and think about.

If the evidence has to be non physical, how are you supposed to detect it? Brains and the senses are physical things. If spiritual things can influence physical things, that means there is a way to detect it. If it can be detected, it would be put in the realm of the physical.

Things encoded in a neural network are another matter. It doesn't have to correspond to reality. It's called imagining things or making up things.

It is part of the reality YOU personally know, though, even if you suspect it to be imagined (so we shall call it of a lesser order of reality to this, a senior reality). But how can you ultimately prove that I am real--or that anything outside yourself is real?

If it is said that the spiritual realm can tinker with the neural network to create ideas, then what are the mechanisms of such interactions. Since the brain is a physical thing, we could figure out what bumps into what when the spiritual realm does its thing with brains. Nobody had found anything out of the ordinary in brains yet, so what is being done is figuring out how things are encoded in the neural network, because we know the network exists.

And for the physical sciences, they should continue that research. I'm not suggesting scrapping neurology. I suggest simply accepting the possibility that there is more than what we can measure. Like I said, it's possible (though I consider it highly unlikely) that somebody might start to discover some way to find the way the spirit and brain interface--but I'd be really worried about the weapons potential if that happened.

I actually wrote a sci-fi fanfiction once where there was a weapon based on that premise, and the effect of that weapon's discharge was something like an EMP for the brain (for lack of better words), and resulted in death to any living thing exposed and disrupted long enough...not a pleasant weapon to contemplate, that's for sure.

Are you saying that the god sees block time? Saying "I AM" could either mean "I exist now" or "I can see all of block time." Saying that the god can see block time has nothing to do with if the god was created or not. The god could have always existed and created the universe and be able to see block time, or another creator could have created the god who created the universe. The created god would always have been able to see the universe in block time since the universe was created. So the god would always have existed from the universe's point of view. Something simpler would be an universe that had always existed with a block time form, without having a creator.

I lean towards the "block time" idea, as you call it...that also fits with the "Alpha and Omega" description implying that God is equally present and unchanging at what we see as the beginning and end of time. However, your idea of a god creating another god leads into something interesting--if an infinite being "creates" an infinite being, then really they must be united because of the inherent nature of infinity (terrible phrasing, forgive me!). There could only be one God, even if He is "beyond [our finite notions of] personality," as C.S. Lewis would put it. The reason this is interesting to me is because you're getting at a description that sounds a LOT like the Christian Trinity...

What we do is for the past, present and future. Things are maintained out of respect for those who came before us and we help people in the present and do things to benefit future generations. It doesn't matter if humanity ends. We can still help future generations because it should be a while before humanity ends. It's unlikely that we are the last ones. If a generation found that it could be the last one, it'd focus on helping in the present in attempts to not be the last generation, if possible. The purpose of helping future generations is to benefit all future generations there will be, up to the end. After the end of humanity, there will be no humans to worry about this, making it moot. Not helping anybody because of humanity ending in the future is silly. It's better to help a finite number of people than nobody.

Why is it better--what is that value rooted in, if ultimately it's all a moot point in the end? Is it simply because you decide so? Why would you give sacrificially, at a cost to yourself? Would not the better choice be to do what is expedient for yourself and only yourself, if nothing matters in the end?

 

[RedFox]

Remember the computer metaphor I was using? I'm sure the brain does change and grow with each thought--just as a hard drive stores data when you write a file and save it. But it doesn't rule out the idea of the end user being there (in this case, spirit).

Sure, it doesn't rule out a lot of possible things, like us being simulated inside a vast computer in another universe, being in the matrix or being aliens on another planet who are just dreaming. We work with what we know exists. It seems like a neural network operating with action potentials is good enough. Maybe someday they'll build a good AI and some people might ask if the AI has a soul.

You could measure that, and I have a feeling it would be useful for something (the equivalent of CIs for those who have lost their sight and wish to regain it?). But here's the question. Does the same firing of neurons translate to the same experience as mine? We may agree that a certain light frequency is "red", but is my experience of that frequency the same? That's the thing we can't measure or prove. Does this distinction make sense?

There would be a distinction if different people used somewhat differnt ways to mean the same thing. Studies of how vision works show that everybody's basic structures are pretty much the same, but some details might be different like what photoreceptors there are. We agree on what is red by making references to agreed upon red objects. We haven't gotten to where we can examine the details of everybody's vision system easily yet.

But what of the cases when there is a measurable time where the brain is completely flatlined (no electrical activity at all), yet the person registers the passage of time and is aware of things said and done in the room...or maybe even outside the room? How can it be that the person remembers those things when the brain had completely ceased all functions? That's where it gets really tricky, and to me it seems like when the spirit and body reconnected, the spirit would have to "upload" all of that information to the brain. That sudden upload at the moment of resuscitation would have to be a strange thing to experience.

The flatlining doesn't take up all of the time that a person is out. There's the process of being oxygen starved and running down. Dreams can seem to take a long time, but they don't take up the whole sleep time.

I believe his idea was, if the thing does not exist, it is inherently imperfect due to its inexistence.

That's an assumption that the arguement makes. I consider the perfect planet destorying mothership to be one that doesn't exist. :P

If I recall right, one of the pages I gave you deals with a logical objection a lot like yours; you might be interested in seeing that.

Like I said, I didn't think it was the BEST argument out there--the reason I posed it was because of the "God in one's head" comment you made...it just reminded me of this.

The objection to the objection depended on the god having intrinsic maximums of the characteristics to make sure that everybody would agree what would make a god great. The objection was an objection to the example with the greatest island because different people might have different ideas of what makes an island great. Would people really think that an omnimax god is the greatest possible god? People who don't like Big Brother would not like a god knowing every detail of what goes on in their bedrooms and the room with the white throne. So there could be disagreement about what would make a god great. So that's an objection to an objection to an objection.

It's interesting how Kant said that existence shouldn't be considered a great-making property. Before other great-making properties can be assigned to something, existence must be presupposed. So it's not proper to consider existence a great-making property because existence isn't really a property. Here's what one of the sites says about it:

While Kant's criticism is phrased (somewhat obscurely) in terms of the logic of predicates and copulas, it also makes a plausible metaphysical point. Existence is not a property (in, say, the way that being red is a property of an apple). Rather it is a precondition for the instantiation of properties in the following sense: it is not possible for a non-existent thing to instantiate any properties because there is nothing to which, so to speak, a property can stick. Nothing has no qualities whatsoever. To say that x instantiates a property P is hence to presuppose that x exists. Thus, on this line of reasoning, existence isn't a great-making property because it is not a property at all; it is rather a metaphysically necessary condition for the instantiation of any properties.

It is part of the reality YOU personally know, though, even if you suspect it to be imagined (so we shall call it of a lesser order of reality to this, a senior reality). But how can you ultimately prove that I am real--or that anything outside yourself is real?

What does "real" mean? I say that it means things that I can detect in some way. We each have our own little realities that includes things we've detected in the external reality and things we've come to believe in despite those things not being in external reality.

I actually wrote a sci-fi fanfiction once where there was a weapon based on that premise, and the effect of that weapon's discharge was something like an EMP for the brain (for lack of better words), and resulted in death to any living thing exposed and disrupted long enough...not a pleasant weapon to contemplate, that's for sure.

Interesting ideas.

I lean towards the "block time" idea, as you call it...that also fits with the "Alpha and Omega" description implying that God is equally present and unchanging at what we see as the beginning and end of time. However, your idea of a god creating another god leads into something interesting--if an infinite being "creates" an infinite being, then really they must be united because of the inherent nature of infinity (terrible phrasing, forgive me!). There could only be one God, even if He is "beyond [our finite notions of] personality," as C.S. Lewis would put it. The reason this is interesting to me is because you're getting at a description that sounds a LOT like the Christian Trinity...

If you say that the inherent nature of infinity would make an infinite number of creators into one god, then what about a finite number like three?

Why is it better--what is that value rooted in, if ultimately it's all a moot point in the end? Is it simply because you decide so? Why would you give sacrificially, at a cost to yourself? Would not the better choice be to do what is expedient for yourself and only yourself, if nothing matters in the end?

People who help each other help humanity to survive. It is rooted in the desire to have one's own kind survive. If I give at a cost to myself, it would be for the greater good. If I cannot do this, I would try to survive myself so I may be helpful in future situtions. Knowing that humanity would end in some way in the future doesn't make me feel like doing things for only myself because it's likely to be in the far future compared to human lifespans. For me, the point of helping humanity is to allow other people to experience life and enjoy it while there still is humanity. Once humanity doesn't exist, that would not change how plenty of people have had enjoyable lives as a result of helping each other. So why not help people have positive experiences while there are still people?

 

[Rose Immortal]

Sure, it doesn't rule out a lot of possible things, like us being simulated inside a vast computer in another universe, being in the matrix or being aliens on another planet who are just dreaming. We work with what we know exists. It seems like a neural network operating with action potentials is good enough. Maybe someday they'll build a good AI and some people might ask if the AI has a soul.

The effect of binding a soul to a machine rather than an organic body could be pretty strange, that's for sure...something I was planning to cover in a different fanfic...

In physical science we have to stick to the physical world--but, it doesn't mean other things can't be there. That's the main point I'm trying to make.

There would be a distinction if different people used somewhat differnt ways to mean the same thing. Studies of how vision works show that everybody's basic structures are pretty much the same, but some details might be different like what photoreceptors there are. We agree on what is red by making references to agreed upon red objects. We haven't gotten to where we can examine the details of everybody's vision system easily yet.

While we have that agreement on what is red (well...you could argue that since I apparently don't have an agreement with most people on what some shades of blue and green are... ), how am I to know that if I were to process input through your brain rather than mine (and somehow be able to compare the two experiences), that you experience "red" in the same way that I do? For all I know, you could experience "red" as what I would call blue...but since all you would've ever heard it called is "red", you would've learned that word for the concept.

The flatlining doesn't take up all of the time that a person is out. There's the process of being oxygen starved and running down. Dreams can seem to take a long time, but they don't take up the whole sleep time.

I heard something like 15 seconds for a dream, right? Under my theory that would certainly prove that the potential for the kind of "rapid upload" I described is there, if the spirit could imprint experiences upon the brain that fast upon rejoining the body. Anyway, I agree there is a part of death where the brain slowly shuts down--but what of the things that occur after that's happened (when they are truly and completely flatlined), yet the person who's had the experience knows about it?

The objection to the objection depended on the god having intrinsic maximums of the characteristics to make sure that everybody would agree what would make a god great. The objection was an objection to the example with the greatest island because different people might have different ideas of what makes an island great. Would people really think that an omnimax god is the greatest possible god? People who don't like Big Brother would not like a god knowing every detail of what goes on in their bedrooms and the room with the white throne. So there could be disagreement about what would make a god great. So that's an objection to an objection to an objection.

The problem with Big Brother (assuming that's referring to humans) is we can't trust what he'll do with the information. With a perfect God, one trusts that the information will be used 100% properly. It's daunting to contemplate, but I'd much rather have God knowing all of that stuff than having you (or any other human being, for that matter) know it.

What does "real" mean? I say that it means things that I can detect in some way. We each have our own little realities that includes things we've detected in the external reality and things we've come to believe in despite those things not being in external reality.

For me, accepting that sensory input reflects an external reality has to be a matter of faith (which as I said, I do accept, but still). How can I prove that I am not in the equivalent of a virtual-reality simulation? Sorry to sound like "The Matrix", but it is a consideration. The one thing I know for sure is my thoughts, my feelings, my ideas.

Interesting ideas.

Thanks.

If you say that the inherent nature of infinity would make an infinite number of creators into one god, then what about a finite number like three?

Same deal...you'd get the idea of "three persons in one" simultaneously--of course, I think this is one of the places where human understanding runs up against its limits, but it would seem to me that the reason for three persons being presented to us is something to help us finite beings get a mental grip on a VERY difficult thing. I know I sure can't pretend to have perfect undertstanding!

People who help each other help humanity to survive. It is rooted in the desire to have one's own kind survive. If I give at a cost to myself, it would be for the greater good. If I cannot do this, I would try to survive myself so I may be helpful in future situtions. Knowing that humanity would end in some way in the future doesn't make me feel like doing things for only myself because it's likely to be in the far future compared to human lifespans. For me, the point of helping humanity is to allow other people to experience life and enjoy it while there still is humanity. Once humanity doesn't exist, that would not change how plenty of people have had enjoyable lives as a result of helping each other. So why not help people have positive experiences while there are still people?

But if those people are gone, and all record of the human race (or any other intelligent life) is gone, then it would not matter at the end of time. The end state of the universe would be no different because of what you did or did not do. This makes any attempt at action futile in the end, without purpose. To act, to do anything at all--most especially self-sacrificial acts of kindness--would be a sign that you are deluding yourself about the true nature of the universe, which is that everything is futile.

 

[RedFox]

In physical science we have to stick to the physical world--but, it doesn't mean other things can't be there. That's the main point I'm trying to make.

For all I know, you could experience "red" as what I would call blue...but since all you would've ever heard it called is "red", you would've learned that word for the concept.

We might know more once we can trace connections in the vision system better.

I heard something like 15 seconds for a dream, right? Under my theory that would certainly prove that the potential for the kind of "rapid upload" I described is there, if the spirit could imprint experiences upon the brain that fast upon rejoining the body. Anyway, I agree there is a part of death where the brain slowly shuts down--but what of the things that occur after that's happened (when they are truly and completely flatlined), yet the person who's had the experience knows about it?

There's also the waking up part.

The problem with Big Brother (assuming that's referring to humans) is we can't trust what he'll do with the information. With a perfect God, one trusts that the information will be used 100% properly. It's daunting to contemplate, but I'd much rather have God knowing all of that stuff than having you (or any other human being, for that matter) know it.

That uses a definition of a perfect god to include being completely trustworthy.

For me, accepting that sensory input reflects an external reality has to be a matter of faith (which as I said, I do accept, but still). How can I prove that I am not in the equivalent of a virtual-reality simulation? Sorry to sound like "The Matrix", but it is a consideration. The one thing I know for sure is my thoughts, my feelings, my ideas.

We could use Occam's razor.

Same deal...you'd get the idea of "three persons in one" simultaneously--of course, I think this is one of the places where human understanding runs up against its limits, but it would seem to me that the reason for three persons being presented to us is something to help us finite beings get a mental grip on a VERY difficult thing. I know I sure can't pretend to have perfect undertstanding!

What is the difficult thing to understand? Is it how three persons can be in one god? Could it be thought of as roles filled by one being? There's interesting stuff about the concept here.

But if those people are gone, and all record of the human race (or any other intelligent life) is gone, then it would not matter at the end of time. The end state of the universe would be no different because of what you did or did not do. This makes any attempt at action futile in the end, without purpose. To act, to do anything at all--most especially self-sacrificial acts of kindness--would be a sign that you are deluding yourself about the true nature of the universe, which is that everything is futile.

It does not matter if all intelligent life is gone someday if the kind actions are done within the frame of the time there still is intelligent life. Such actions matter when such life exists. It doesn't when the life doesn't, so there's no need to worry about such actions being purposeless right now. They are with purpose because there are other intelligent beings who would appreciate the actions. It may be futile on the scale of the universe's entire existence, but if we know we cannot last forever, let's not make it our goal to do that. Let's have the goal of being helpful for as long as it is possible to be helpful. Satisfaction comes from being helpful to others who are alive or will be alive.

We enjoy helping our families even if our family would one day no longer exist. We also enjoy helping our communities even when they one day will be in ruins. There's no reason not to enjoy life and help others now and in the near future, even when none of that will be around in the far future.

 

[Rose Immortal]

We might know more once we can trace connections in the vision system better.

Possibly...what are you thinking of, finding a way to display the neural firings on a TV screen so others can see what you see? Of course, even then it's subject to the filter of your own sight.

There's also the waking up part.

Yep--but what about the in-between part?

That uses a definition of a perfect god to include being completely trustworthy.

I don't think a perfect God would be a lying backstabber.

We could use Occam's razor.

Yep--and that's why I think that most likely the sensory reality is real, even if I can't prove it. But still, the question has to be posed.

What is the difficult thing to understand? Is it how three persons can be in one god? Could it be thought of as roles filled by one being? There's interesting stuff about the concept here.

Some people I've talked to get kinda bogged down in the Trinity concept. I think the key sticking point people have is in distinguishing it from polytheism on one end and unitarianism on the other. That article does a pretty good job of dealing with it, though.

I do notice a neat statement in here that lines up with the point I was making: ""St. Irenaeus of Lyons was the final major theologian of the second century. He writes "the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God." [emphasis added]" This is what I was trying to get at, put more elegantly than I did.

It does not matter if all intelligent life is gone someday if the kind actions are done within the frame of the time there still is intelligent life. Such actions matter when such life exists. It doesn't when the life doesn't, so there's no need to worry about such actions being purposeless right now. They are with purpose because there are other intelligent beings who would appreciate the actions. It may be futile on the scale of the universe's entire existence, but if we know we cannot last forever, let's not make it our goal to do that. Let's have the goal of being helpful for as long as it is possible to be helpful. Satisfaction comes from being helpful to others who are alive or will be alive.

We enjoy helping our families even if our family would one day no longer exist. We also enjoy helping our communities even when they one day will be in ruins. There's no reason not to enjoy life and help others now and in the near future, even when none of that will be around in the far future.

Why should one not consider the end-purpose? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of necessity ingrained in humans to ignore what would be a central truth to an atheistic universe? What good is served through willful ignorance?

But if one does take that path, is enjoyment or satisfaction the end to which one should strive in life? If so, then what if one determines that their satisfaction comes through something that is hurtful to others?

 

[The Heretic]

If i may interject....

You take an argument that reminds me of the philosopher Hume, assuming that the material is all that you can prove exists...

Pardon for the intrusion, but i'm afraid this is incorrect.

David Hume never said that "the material is all that you can prove exists."

Given that he was a mitigated skeptic, even "materialism" or matter was not free from his skepticism.

As for Anselm's specious argument, the best counter argument is Kant's insight that existence is not a predicate, not a property.

An example might do Kant's dense philosophy justice: let's say I get a bonus from my boss, plenty enough to spring for a sparkling new 2007 Lamborghini Gallardo. My nosy neighbor wanders over and admires my new toy. I start bragging to him about all the equipping: 520bhp V10 manual engine, the Lamborghini multimedia system, the Callisto steering wheel, rack and pinion power assisted steering, ABS power brakes, fog assistance driving lamps, touring suspension, and one final, most important thing.

Of course, the neighbor couldn't hold back his curiosity and inquired about the mysterious final thing.

I replied, "Well, that cost me extra, but what the heck. It ....EXISTS!!!!"

 

[Rose Immortal]

The Heretic--

I see what you're saying about Hume. However, would you say that in the vast preponderence of cases, Hume would have gone with the material over the spiritual/emotional/theological? Or would he have suggested the idea that perhaps nothing exists at all? I'm not trying to pick at you, I just want to dig further with this.

Oh, and just so you don't misunderstand, I didn't think Anselm's argument was a flawless thing at all--I've just been trying to figure out exactly where the breakdown is. That's included a certain amount of devil's advocacy in this thread.

 

[The Heretic]

God bless David Hume!

I see what you're saying about Hume. However, would you say that in the vast preponderence of cases, Hume would have gone with the material over the spiritual/emotional/theological?

Not even. For one thing, you create a false dichotomy between "material" and "spiritual," and for another, Hume would've gone with sensations over materialism, and you and i both know emotions are sensations.

Hume was a thorough-going empiricist who claimed that all we can every have direct access is to our own experience, but this remains permanently inside of us, and that there is no way to demonstrate the validity of inferences from it to the existence of a world separate from us and outside of us in space. IOW, we can never prove the existence of the external world. The arguments of the skeptic, according to Hume, are valid, that we cannot validate the existence of the external world by experience or by logic.

Or would he have suggested the idea that perhaps nothing exists at all? I'm not trying to pick at you, I just want to dig further with this.

Perish the thought!

Hume knew that even though we can never prove that there is an external world, we cannot prevent ourselves from believing in the existence of an external and material world. Even though Hume claims that the skeptic is right, he also pointed out that the skeptic is correct only theoretically - his arguments are valid, but it is impossible to live as an skeptic, and carry on life without doing things that involve making choices and decisions, and they are based on the beliefs about our situation.

Where Hume is at his best is his relentless demolition of things we have taken for granted - his sophisticated and powerful arguments demonstrate that, besides the inability to prove the external world, neither can we validate the existence of causality, inductive logic is impossible, our existence as continuous selves a mere figment of our intellect, and the existence of God is doubted. His witty, stylish, yet modest writings, totally serious yet unpretentious and deeper than almost all other philosophers, penetrate uncannily into the nooks and crannies of our beliefs and pries them apart. He does in fact, succeed in showing that almost everything we believe or take for granted is not know and cannot be known. Ever since Hume, we can never use the word "proof" in human life outside of mathematics.

But remember this - Hume never said that the common sense world we take for granted does not exist, but that we cannot validate the existence of the world by rational demonstration or argument.

 

[RedFox]

Possibly...what are you thinking of, finding a way to display the neural firings on a TV screen so others can see what you see? Of course, even then it's subject to the filter of your own sight.

Yep--but what about the in-between part?

The in between part is the flat line scan. The pattern of neural connections are still there, just with no activity. If oxygen and fuel can get flowing again through the brain soon enough, it'd not decay and destroy the connections. The near death experiences happen when there is still firing, either during the shutting down or the restarting part, or both.

I don't think a perfect God would be a lying backstabber.

I think that people project their values onto their god(s). Who knows? With people like Fred Phelps out there, maybe there'd be somebody whose vision of a perfect god would mean a god that is a lying backstabber, at least to other people.

Yep--and that's why I think that most likely the sensory reality is real, even if I can't prove it. But still, the question has to be posed.

I do notice a neat statement in here that lines up with the point I was making: ""St. Irenaeus of Lyons was the final major theologian of the second century. He writes "the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God." [emphasis added]" This is what I was trying to get at, put more elegantly than I did.

That makes it look like god-dom is passed like family names can be.

Why should one not consider the end-purpose? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of necessity ingrained in humans to ignore what would be a central truth to an atheistic universe? What good is served through willful ignorance?

But if one does take that path, is enjoyment or satisfaction the end to which one should strive in life? If so, then what if one determines that their satisfaction comes through something that is hurtful to others?

The purpose of helping others is to hold people together, reducing the chances of groups falling apart within your lifetime or in the near future when younger people you know and people they will know would be alive. There is a drive to aid the survivial of one's descendants and members of one's group, which could include genetically unrelated, but memetically related people. In this global age, there are people who make the whole planet's population of their concern.

As we learned about the world, we've found that the end is likely to lie in the far future. We're not ignoring it because we know that our genes and memes would get diluted or changed. That is beyond our control. The drive to help others is primary for the people living now and in the near future, when things would still be familiar to us.

The world of the far future would seem different enough so there is less feeling of connection. We would still have a low-level connection to the people of the far future, because they'd still be people even if their cultures and gene pools would be different. So, we'd still help them in a basic, but important way, by doing things like reducing pollution to leave them a cleaner planet.

That world would belong to the people of that time, not us or descendants we would recognize as members of our families and cultures. If they face the end of humanity, it'd not be a problem for our family lines and cultures because those things would be greatly changed or gone by then.

There doesn't have to be an end-purpose for humanity, except to survive for as long as possible. It may be sad that humanity will end, but not too sad because, here, it says that over 99 percent of species that ever existed on Earth are already gone. Extinction isn't really unusual in geological time. We'd just be joining the ranks of the 99 percent already extinct.

We can create our own purposes for humanity through things like culture, which includes religion, althrough some religions could make their followers think that the religion dictates the only true purposes of life to hold onto followers to aid its survivial as a memeplex.

If we feel good about doing things hurtful to others, of course, the others would want to stop us and would try if they could.

 

[Rose Immortal]

The in between part is the flat line scan. The pattern of neural connections are still there, just with no activity. If oxygen and fuel can get flowing again through the brain soon enough, it'd not decay and destroy the connections. The near death experiences happen when there is still firing, either during the shutting down or the restarting part, or both.

But what I've been trying to get at is, what about people who are aware of events that occur during the time of complete shutdown? Can we truly prove when the near-death experiences are occurring--that there is not an upload that takes place as the brain restarts in which information gained by the spirit during the completely shut-down time is written into the neural connections?

I think that people project their values onto their god(s). Who knows? With people like Fred Phelps out there, maybe there'd be somebody whose vision of a perfect god would mean a god that is a lying backstabber, at least to other people.

I would say that Phelps has fallen victim to deception--be it self-deception or that from an outer source...his idea just doesn't logically work. And I do think that while not all matters dealing with God are logical, I think the vast preponderence actually are. To be clear, I do not think I have a perfect grasp of what God is like--I know better than to think I do. Nor do I think my logic is perfect. That's part of why I engage in discussions like this, to try to refine my understanding.

That makes it look like god-dom is passed like family names can be.

I'm not sure that's what it's getting at, though. I think the suggestion this is making is that no Person of the Trinity is inferior to the other (the Son is not lesser than the Father, for instance).

The purpose of helping others is to hold people together, reducing the chances of groups falling apart within your lifetime or in the near future when younger people you know and people they will know would be alive. There is a drive to aid the survivial of one's descendants and members of one's group, which could include genetically unrelated, but memetically related people. In this global age, there are people who make the whole planet's population of their concern.

As we learned about the world, we've found that the end is likely to lie in the far future. We're not ignoring it because we know that our genes and memes would get diluted or changed. That is beyond our control. The drive to help others is primary for the people living now and in the near future, when things would still be familiar to us.

The world of the far future would seem different enough so there is less feeling of connection. We would still have a low-level connection to the people of the far future, because they'd still be people even if their cultures and gene pools would be different. So, we'd still help them in a basic, but important way, by doing things like reducing pollution to leave them a cleaner planet.

That world would belong to the people of that time, not us or descendants we would recognize as members of our families and cultures. If they face the end of humanity, it'd not be a problem for our family lines and cultures because those things would be greatly changed or gone by then.

There doesn't have to be an end-purpose for humanity, except to survive for as long as possible. It may be sad that humanity will end, but not too sad because, here, it says that over 99 percent of species that ever existed on Earth are already gone. Extinction isn't really unusual in geological time. We'd just be joining the ranks of the 99 percent already extinct.

We can create our own purposes for humanity through things like culture, which includes religion, althrough some religions could make their followers think that the religion dictates the only true purposes of life to hold onto followers to aid its survivial as a memeplex.

If we feel good about doing things hurtful to others, of course, the others would want to stop us and would try if they could.

Looking at this, you seem to take a very immediately-focused view of the world. What I've been trying to get at is that if you suggest we must create purpose--a thing that is artificial and ultimately meaningless--it is a form of self-deception. It ignores the true reality of the universe...we may try to survive as long as possible but ultimately we will fail at some point.

Yet often I see atheists (maybe not you in particular, but I've seen this in other forums) make the accusation that those of us who believe are essentially deceiving ourselves in suggesting that there is a higher purpose to things. This is sometimes used as the launching pad for an attack on the intellect of believers (that we must be inferior somehow). What I am trying to say is that if the atheist believes it necessary to create a purpose that is not real--that is to say, not an inherent property of the universe--then one cannot distinguish oneself from believers in that one is somehow more grounded in reality than the other.

I know I'm not going point-by-point with each paragraph you wrote, but I think this will suffice.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Not even. For one thing, you create a false dichotomy between "material" and "spiritual," and for another, Hume would've gone with sensations over materialism, and you and i both know emotions are sensations.

Interesting--I think we are so used to the idea of material and spiritual as opposing forces (I think this came along with the conversion of Darwinism into a philosophy instead of just a scientific theory where it belongs) that to look back at Hume's theory, it's hard not to see it through that modern lens.

Hume was a thorough-going empiricist who claimed that all we can every have direct access is to our own experience, but this remains permanently inside of us, and that there is no way to demonstrate the validity of inferences from it to the existence of a world separate from us and outside of us in space. IOW, we can never prove the existence of the external world. The arguments of the skeptic, according to Hume, are valid, that we cannot validate the existence of the external world by experience or by logic.

Which actually bears a shocking similarity to the points I was making in my conversation with RedFox--that I cannot prove external reality to exist and what I DO know is my personal experience (which is why I was saying that scientific processes do not work for matters of faith but rather experiential ones).

Perish the thought!

Hume knew that even though we can never prove that there is an external world, we cannot prevent ourselves from believing in the existence of an external and material world. Even though Hume claims that the skeptic is right, he also pointed out that the skeptic is correct only theoretically - his arguments are valid, but it is impossible to live as an skeptic, and carry on life without doing things that involve making choices and decisions, and they are based on the beliefs about our situation.

I've described this as a kind of "paralysis" in my private writings dealing with theology. Have you ever read any of Hemingway's fiction? I found it completely repugnant--and part of it is he seems to have decided there is no purpose (and perhaps nothing worthwhile in existence at all). You really see it boiled down to its extreme in the short story "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place". And what was Hemingway's ultimate choice? Suicide.

Where Hume is at his best is his relentless demolition of things we have taken for granted - his sophisticated and powerful arguments demonstrate that, besides the inability to prove the external world, neither can we validate the existence of causality, inductive logic is impossible, our existence as continuous selves a mere figment of our intellect, and the existence of God is doubted. His witty, stylish, yet modest writings, totally serious yet unpretentious and deeper than almost all other philosophers, penetrate uncannily into the nooks and crannies of our beliefs and pries them apart. He does in fact, succeed in showing that almost everything we believe or take for granted is not know and cannot be known. Ever since Hume, we can never use the word "proof" in human life outside of mathematics.

But remember this - Hume never said that the common sense world we take for granted does not exist, but that we cannot validate the existence of the world by rational demonstration or argument.

So his philosophy does not actually preclude the existence of the real world--or of God?

This is probably the clearest explanation I've ever seen of Hume, if that last question proves I've followed you correctly.

 

[RedFox]

But what I've been trying to get at is, what about people who are aware of events that occur during the time of complete shutdown? Can we truly prove when the near-death experiences are occurring--that there is not an upload that takes place as the brain restarts in which information gained by the spirit during the completely shut-down time is written into the neural connections?

The people might think that the experience was during the whole time they were out. Since we found that dreams and experiences like that could last for short times, but seem like a long time, the shutdown and rebooting periods should be enough time for such experiences.

I would say that Phelps has fallen victim to deception--be it self-deception or that from an outer source...his idea just doesn't logically work. And I do think that while not all matters dealing with God are logical, I think the vast preponderence actually are. To be clear, I do not think I have a perfect grasp of what God is like--I know better than to think I do. Nor do I think my logic is perfect. That's part of why I engage in discussions like this, to try to refine my understanding.

It may look like logic. It may actually be logic. But if it's based on false premises, it'd be true within the belief systems and not necessary in the real world.

I'm not sure that's what it's getting at, though. I think the suggestion this is making is that no Person of the Trinity is inferior to the other (the Son is not lesser than the Father, for instance).

Here's an interesting page on the Shield of the Trinity. It looks similar to governments because we could say that the governement is interested in something if Congress is, or if the President is, or the FBI are. But Congress is not the President and the President is not the Congress. They are members of the same group and can sometimes be called by the name of the group, the United States federal government.

Looking at this, you seem to take a very immediately-focused view of the world. What I've been trying to get at is that if you suggest we must create purpose--a thing that is artificial and ultimately meaningless--it is a form of self-deception. It ignores the true reality of the universe...we may try to survive as long as possible but ultimately we will fail at some point.

It is a view focused the most on the present and the amount of focus falling off the futher into the future. Knowing how to survive what will come in the far future would be no good if one doesn't know how to survive things encountered in the short term future, which come by more frequently. So, naturally, the focus on the present is the highest because we need to watch out for things like cars and banana peels on stairs. Having less focus on the far future doesn't mean that it is ignored by everybody. Some people thought of how we could prolong our survival when the sun goes red giant by doing things like controlling asteroids to use them to transfer energy from the large outer planets to Earth to shrink their orbits a bit to enlarge the Earth's orbit a lot.

I did some thinking on creating purposes. What sorts of purposes are these? A lot of purposes seem to be aids to survival of the indivdual or to the culture.

Yet often I see atheists (maybe not you in particular, but I've seen this in other forums) make the accusation that those of us who believe are essentially deceiving ourselves in suggesting that there is a higher purpose to things. This is sometimes used as the launching pad for an attack on the intellect of believers (that we must be inferior somehow). What I am trying to say is that if the atheist believes it necessary to create a purpose that is not real--that is to say, not an inherent property of the universe--then one cannot distinguish oneself from believers in that one is somehow more grounded in reality than the other.

The higher purpose suggested would be whatever religions say about the purposes of their gods with some religions leaving it at saying "it's a mystery." The created purposes I've been thinking about might be based on helping indivduals, families, cultures or other groups to survive and actually be highly varied expressions of that. It might look like self-deception because those expressions might be highly developed within higher level things such as society and art that are higher level than things like biology and physics and seemly far removed from mere survivial.

As an example, art allows the expression of emotions. Depending on the artwork, it could express emotions and values that are basic to a culture and therefore to the survivial of that culture. Good examples of this would be Christian artwork and Communist artwork. Such artwork were sponsored by institutional powers. Art made by indivduals expressing their emotions and values seem to come from times when society went through changes, like with Dada art after World War I. This helped people to cope with the changes that were happening at the time.

Being more grounded in reality would mean not assigning a purpose as a fundamental property to the universe. Admitting that one's purposes in life is not tied to the nature of the universe to such a high degree, like physics is, is being more realistic. If there are any created purposes of life that are not based in some way on surviving, then such things may be self-deception, but at least they won't be tied tightly to the universe or seen to be more important than they really are to the universe at large.

 

[Rose Immortal]

The people might think that the experience was during the whole time they were out. Since we found that dreams and experiences like that could last for short times, but seem like a long time, the shutdown and rebooting periods should be enough time for such experiences.

That still doesn't account for people conclusively knowing the events that occurred between those windows (such as exact words said). There have been cases of that.

It may look like logic. It may actually be logic. But if it's based on false premises, it'd be true within the belief systems and not necessary in the real world.

Big IF...when you're dealing with premises that can't be proven 100%, then you still can't say I'm wrong.

Here's an interesting page on the Shield of the Trinity. It looks similar to governments because we could say that the governement is interested in something if Congress is, or if the President is, or the FBI are. But Congress is not the President and the President is not the Congress. They are members of the same group and can sometimes be called by the name of the group, the United States federal government.

Nice simile. Although with the Trinity I'd suggest you have more of a synergistic effect rather than checks and balances with the government where the purpose is limitation of power rather than the multiplication of it--after all, you know what they say about absolute power, when it comes to human beings...

Being more grounded in reality would mean not assigning a purpose as a fundamental property to the universe. Admitting that one's purposes in life is not tied to the nature of the universe to such a high degree, like physics is, is being more realistic. If there are any created purposes of life that are not based in some way on surviving, then such things may be self-deception, but at least they won't be tied tightly to the universe or seen to be more important than they really are to the universe at large.

The last statement you make continues to be troubling, and gets at my whole problem with this logic. Even your survival is irrelevant to the universe at large--perhaps infinitessimally small (or almost so if the universe happens to be finite in side). The conclusion that follows from this is that there is no reason why one should not simply commit suicide if survival is unimportant. If the end state is extinction and the importance of fighting this is infinitessimally small (or almost so), then isn't any energy expended in fighting extinction wasted energy, a futile effort? Compare that to the amount of energy that would be expended in committing suicide. One way would "cost" less: suicide. What I am trying to demonstrate is that survival is an irrational goal in a universe where there is no inherent purpose to live--essentially that survival would go against self-interest, or even the interests of the human race (why not just have a mass suicide of all intelligent beings?).

(Apologies to anybody upset by the mention of this. I do not advocate suicide in the least!)

 

[RedFox]

That still doesn't account for people conclusively knowing the events that occurred between those windows (such as exact words said). There have been cases of that.

Thinking that they experienced something during the whole time they were out doesn't mean that they did. We know that dreams can happen in short times, shorter than they seem. There's interesting stuff here that includes stuff about drugs that has the side effect of causing out of body experiences and studies on electric stimulation of regions of the brain that causes such experiences. It also says that the similarity of experiences between different people suggests that how their brains react to dying and coming back are similar. About the experiences where the brain wasn't hurt, maybe it could be from lack of oxygen due to loss of blood pressure or the heart stopping.

Big IF...when you're dealing with premises that can't be proven 100%, then you still can't say I'm wrong.

It could be said you might not be wrong, but another dimension would be how probable those premises are. Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable.

Nice simile. Although with the Trinity I'd suggest you have more of a synergistic effect rather than checks and balances with the government where the purpose is limitation of power rather than the multiplication of it--after all, you know what they say about absolute power, when it comes to human beings...

The last statement you make continues to be troubling, and gets at my whole problem with this logic. Even your survival is irrelevant to the universe at large--perhaps infinitessimally small (or almost so if the universe happens to be finite in side). The conclusion that follows from this is that there is no reason why one should not simply commit suicide if survival is unimportant. If the end state is extinction and the importance of fighting this is infinitessimally small (or almost so), then isn't any energy expended in fighting extinction wasted energy, a futile effort? Compare that to the amount of energy that would be expended in committing suicide. One way would "cost" less: suicide. What I am trying to demonstrate is that survival is an irrational goal in a universe where there is no inherent purpose to live--essentially that survival would go against self-interest, or even the interests of the human race (why not just have a mass suicide of all intelligent beings?).

(Apologies to anybody upset by the mention of this. I do not advocate suicide in the least!)

Our survival may be unimportant on the scale of the universe. But thinking that has to be unimportant is thinking only at one level. There are multiple levels, including the global biosphere, cultures and families. What may not have importance at a higher level may have importance at lower levels. The universe at large would not care about the biospheres on the planets in it. The biosphere as a whole would not care about indivduals. The higher levels are like backgrounds for the action in the lower levels, althrough the higher levels could influence the lower levels sometimes, like with an asteroid impact.

I think that what everybody should do is enjoy our lives and not let the nature of the universe get them down. Most likely, everybody alive now will die before humanity becomes extinct, so it's not a immediate worry. It's not wasted energy to stay alive if it is done to enjoy life and to learn about all of those layers from you up to the universe and make what you would of it while you're still around. It is focusing on the part of time where you can do things within the systems you have access to, like your family or culture, instead of worrying about what would happen long after you are gone. Life is played out within those levels, not on the scale of the entire universe. It is not irrational to keep surviving within the contexts of those lower levels. Committing suicide would be a waste because it would stop you from doing those things.

Dividing things in different levels doesn't mean that the higher levels like the universe are ignored all the time. We can still learn about them, as part of our enjoyment of life. We don't think about the higher levels sometimes because some of the activities in the lower levels don't need direct references to the higher levels. Playing a board game is enjoyable within the context of gaming and having fun with others and doesn't need a direct reference to how the Earth will end up getting fried by the dying sun.

I think that maybe people get upset if they think that the universe might have no inherit purpose for people because they haven't thought of thinking about things as being in different levels and contexts.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Thinking that they experienced something during the whole time they were out doesn't mean that they did. We know that dreams can happen in short times, shorter than they seem. There's interesting stuff here that includes stuff about drugs that has the side effect of causing out of body experiences and studies on electric stimulation of regions of the brain that causes such experiences. It also says that the similarity of experiences between different people suggests that how their brains react to dying and coming back are similar. About the experiences where the brain wasn't hurt, maybe it could be from lack of oxygen due to loss of blood pressure or the heart stopping.

I've read about ketamine experiences, and it would not surprise me if some chemicals or types of electrical stimulation disrupted the brain to a degree where it became useless to the spirit.

The trouble with your statement is, how do you account for those things corroborated by others who were not in the dead/out-of-body state, that the person knew about? Corroboration by others puts a clear time reference to an event, which can then be checked against medical records to see what the state of the body and brain was at the time.

It could be said you might not be wrong, but another dimension would be how probable those premises are. Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it's probable.

And ultimately you're left with only your personal opinion to determine probability.

Our survival may be unimportant on the scale of the universe. But thinking that has to be unimportant is thinking only at one level. There are multiple levels, including the global biosphere, cultures and families. What may not have importance at a higher level may have importance at lower levels. The universe at large would not care about the biospheres on the planets in it. The biosphere as a whole would not care about indivduals. The higher levels are like backgrounds for the action in the lower levels, althrough the higher levels could influence the lower levels sometimes, like with an asteroid impact.

I think that what everybody should do is enjoy our lives and not let the nature of the universe get them down. Most likely, everybody alive now will die before humanity becomes extinct, so it's not a immediate worry. It's not wasted energy to stay alive if it is done to enjoy life and to learn about all of those layers from you up to the universe and make what you would of it while you're still around. It is focusing on the part of time where you can do things within the systems you have access to, like your family or culture, instead of worrying about what would happen long after you are gone. Life is played out within those levels, not on the scale of the entire universe. It is not irrational to keep surviving within the contexts of those lower levels. Committing suicide would be a waste because it would stop you from doing those things.

Dividing things in different levels doesn't mean that the higher levels like the universe are ignored all the time. We can still learn about them, as part of our enjoyment of life. We don't think about the higher levels sometimes because some of the activities in the lower levels don't need direct references to the higher levels. Playing a board game is enjoyable within the context of gaming and having fun with others and doesn't need a direct reference to how the Earth will end up getting fried by the dying sun.

I think that maybe people get upset if they think that the universe might have no inherit purpose for people because they haven't thought of thinking about things as being in different levels and contexts.

Ultimately, such compartmentalizing is a form of self-deception--and what's worse is that the closer one comes into contact with the "higher levels" as you call them, the deeper truths about the universe, the more destabilizing it becomes to one's mind because that ugliest truth of all becomes more and more inescapable. That's quite discouraging of study and inquiry into the nature of things. The higher levels are inextricably woven in with the lower ones; any separation is entirely artificial. You end up, then, with a system where ignorance and denial of reality are the things keeping humankind alive--and if one proposes that the need for purpose is an inborn survival drive, then that means there's something genetically in us that encourages keeping us stupid. That is antithetical to the sorts of values I hear most people espouse, regardless of belief.

 

[RedFox]

I've read about ketamine experiences, and it would not surprise me if some chemicals or types of electrical stimulation disrupted the brain to a degree where it became useless to the spirit.

It could be the chemicals or electricity temperory disrupting the brain's functions with the patterns of connections being the person's mind, or the brain being the interface for the spirit to use, or something else. What do we have evidence for? How about proposing what parts or chemicals in the brain are controlled by the spirit so we can watch for behavior in those things that cannot be accounted for by present scienific knowledge?

The trouble with your statement is, how do you account for those things corroborated by others who were not in the dead/out-of-body state, that the person knew about? Corroboration by others puts a clear time reference to an event, which can then be checked against medical records to see what the state of the body and brain was at the time.

Do you have an example so I could understand what this is about?

And ultimately you're left with only your personal opinion to determine probability.

It's not only personal opinion. It may work like that for faith based systems, but with things like science, opinions are limited by what's really seen out there.

Ultimately, such compartmentalizing is a form of self-deception--and what's worse is that the closer one comes into contact with the "higher levels" as you call them, the deeper truths about the universe, the more destabilizing it becomes to one's mind because that ugliest truth of all becomes more and more inescapable. That's quite discouraging of study and inquiry into the nature of things. The higher levels are inextricably woven in with the lower ones; any separation is entirely artificial. You end up, then, with a system where ignorance and denial of reality are the things keeping humankind alive--and if one proposes that the need for purpose is an inborn survival drive, then that means there's something genetically in us that encourages keeping us stupid. That is antithetical to the sorts of values I hear most people espouse, regardless of belief.

It's self-deception if one avoided thinking about the higher levels. I don't avoid thinking about those things. My fields of interests include astronomy, which has a lot of such things like stars dying. I find happiness within things like culture while acknowledging that such things don't last forever. Since they'd outlast me, I can still enjoy it.

Thinking that this reality is ugly and without much meaning for humanity reminds me of Lovecraft stories, which I like to read. Thinking that it's terrible that the universe makes humanity be so insufficient makes it seem like humanity somehow had to be the pinnacle of the unvierse, making it terrible that it is not. Instead, I accept that humanity isn't the pinnacle of the entire universe because the universe's structure clearly prevents that from happening. I think of humanity as a tiny, but interesting feature of this part of the universe.

I don't think that humanity is trying to be stupid by ignoring its environoment. For thousands of years, people had been looking at what's in the sky and what's on Earth. We have missions in space just to find out about what's out there. Looking at what's up there makes me think of the many stars and galaxies out there and imagine what life is like on some of the planets out there. Humanity may disappear someday, but there'll be other planets and other civilizations. The universe is big enough to have plenty over the many trillions of years there will be stars to warm planets.

Thinking about the vastness of the universe doesn't scare or horrify me. Instead, I find wonder in it. A nice way to experience this wonder is to look at sites like this one that shows things at different powers of ten for the spatial scales. The series of images covers 42 orders of magnitude. Life is found over 11 orders of magnitude and is closer to the smaller orders than the larger ones.

I think that maybe there are different sorts of people, people who get scared by things from unfamilar scales like the vastness of the universe or the nondeterminate nature of quantum mechanics, and those who find wonder in those.