3 Reasons Why Theism is Wrong.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?

More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]

So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?

More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.

Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]

Well, next time they cut a skull in half please point out the self and conscious out to me. Or, since we’re on the internet shouldn’t be hard to find.

Are you saying complex language = wale song? As in you can read the language I am reading and that is the same thing as noise?[/quote]

I think it was Pat who called this a mind vs body question. If you believe that we were created by something(God) then it makes sense that language, the self, and the conscious would also need to just appear.

If, however, you believe that we have evolved then all these things(language, the self, the conscious) are as a result of the brain, throat, vocal chords, tongue, etc evolving.

If we can’t agree how we got here it is difficult to really argue/discuss this topic.

To other animals our language is nothing but noise. Wild cats do not meow like domesticated cats, some vets say they are just imitating us, making a bunch of noise.[/quote]

Are you saying that all that is real is only what can be sensed?

Mind/ body problem isn’t necessarily related to existence vs. non-existence of God.[/quote]

If it’s not related then…

Are you an atheist who believes in the mind?

Or a believer who believes in the body?

I’m not really sure where the “what can be sensed question” is coming from. I don’t recall saying anything about it. Is this just a general curiosity question?

[/quote]

I am not, I am a theist. Atheism is actually kind of absurd and illogical to me. But people do exist who, acknowledge the mind and do not believe in God.

The question is do our senses tell us everything there is to know about what is real and what actually exists?[/quote]

Well I don’t know of any who believe in the mind and not god.

If you want to carry on having the discussion about the last question then you will have to get to the point. I don’t like traps or being lead. I have given my honest opinion to the ops question.

[/quote]

Is the only thing that exists physical matter? Or do you believe in metaphysics as well. That’s all I am getting at, can things that do not have material, exist?

122

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I think it was Pat who called this a mind vs body question. If you believe that we were created by something(God) then it makes sense that language, the self, and the conscious would also need to just appear.

If, however, you believe that we have evolved then all these things(language, the self, the conscious) are as a result of the brain, throat, vocal chords, tongue, etc evolving.[/quote]

Yes, I am close to a Theistic Evolutionary as they call them. However, this does not explain these three things. They are non-material, involving non-material functions, and in a purely atheist evolutionary point of view, they cannot exist as they are non-material. None of these have been found to be materialized in any fashion.

I have no problem with the Big Bang theory and Evolution, I actually quite enjoy reading on both subjects.

You’re equating communication the same thing as syntactical language, it is not. Language is part of communication, but communication is not always language. [/quote]

We are going no where with this.
To the original question, all within the brain and body and evolved with brain and body.
I have heard of no other place this stuff could have come from.

So whatever your alternative theory of where this came from you’ll have to explain to me.
[/quote]

As Einstein called it, the Intelligent Mind. How can something non-physical evolve with the physical is my point.

123

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

  1. The guys in dresses and all of that make up, I guess you are referring to the catholic priests. Most of them draw attention to themselves, and I don’t agree with alot of the dogma of the catholics. As most of what they practice isn’t even in the Bible. I also find it sad that Catholicism is the face of Christianity to most of the world.

[/quote]

The church was before the Bible was…The church assembled the bible, Everything is scripturally based. Look it up.
[/quote]

No. The scriptures have been around since the old testament. The Church did not start until the book of Acts. The Bible however was not complete until the church finalized which books would be in the finished version. Google as much as you want, or actually read the Bible to figure it out.
[/quote]

The OT was around, but there were many books floating in and out of favor that did not make it to the final cut. The NT was written by the people in the church and it was assembled by the church in the Synod of Carthage for final assembly in 397 Anno Domini…

http://www.ntcanon.org/Carthage.canon.shtml[/quote]

Let me clarify for you because you are saying little things which make your entire statement wrong. First, the books of the old testament were collected by Ezra. Although there were many scribes who had many books in the Apocrypha floating around, God limited the extent of the canonical books of the old testament because he accused the scribes of murdering all of the prophets he sent to Israel from Abel to Zacharias. This is in Luke 11:51. Abel is killed in Genesis or course and Zacharias is killed in Chronicles chapter 24. The Hebrew Bible has Zacharias as the final book in the OT as the English Bible has Malachi as the last book in the OT. This clearly tells you that the Bible has been around since before the Church as the church was not started until the NT. So your statment “The church was before the Bible was” is completely WRONG!!!
[/quote]
The you must be claiming that all of the NT was written between the ressurection and the ascension. Because the church started with the decent of the Holy Spirit in Act Chap 3. The NT was clearly written before then. The church was first, NT scripture was being written at the time of the early church, but the church already existed.

[quote]
As far as the new testament, The Council of Carthage was the first to list all 27 books of the NT in AD 397. The took part in canonizing these books which were already acknowledged as scripture before 391. However, THEY DID NOT WRITE THEM. So you stating that the church wrote those books are completely WRONG!!!

Check out the book called A survey of Bible Doctrine by Charles C. Ryrie. Great book for basic understanding of Christianity. [/quote]

So by this logic, you are telling me that St. Paul did not write his epistles, nor St. Peter, Nor St. John? That the gospels were written apart and separate from the church?
This is a matter of historical fact, if that book told you that partcipants in the church did not write the NT, then that book is flatly wrong.[/quote]

The Church actually came from the second Adam’s side, as Eve came from the first Adam’s side.

124

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
On the subject of the Conscious Self, I like Marvin Minsky’s ‘Society of Mind’ and arguments that look at the mind as less of a single entity, and more of a disparate and loosely unified ‘crowd’. I couldn’t even begin to get into a detailed discussion at the moment, but would recommend the book as a well thought out treatise on the nature of conscious thought.

In short it explains a great deal of why we are often ‘riddled’ with self doubt, and hesitation.

It would seem that we often hold forum within ourselves, as if a tiny ‘Brother Chris’ and ‘smh23’ we’re deadlocked in heated debate within our skull. I for one am fascinated by how we can be at odds ‘within’, then so immediately galvanize for or against something from without.

It would seem that conscious thought conforms neatly to ‘crowd dynamics’ on many occasions.

Say Brother Chris, if we manage to nail this down, my next suggestion for topic would be what about our conscious causes or facilitates our attraction to someone else. (Be it Friend, Mate, or Deity)[/quote]

You’ve peaked my interest…Do go on.[/quote]

Yes, do.

125

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I actually do believe in God, in a way. I’m an agnostic who thinks that matter is best explained as being contingent upon an uncaused, non-contingent entity, which we call God. I actually find the notion of an infinite causal regress to be more far-fetched than the notion of a creator (though I admit that I cannot with certainty eschew any of the popular theories). However, I don’t believe that any of the world’s religions have anything to do with the true God, if it exists.

But I could be wrong. Which will probably be pretty bad for me, lol. Relatedly, your statement about hocus pocus brings up an interesting question for me: do you allow that your belief may be wholly incorrect? Do you ever worry that it is? And, if it were to turn out to be, would you regret having been devout?
[/quote]

This is an interesting perspective. Do you hate religion because it sounds ridiculous, or is it the practitioners of religions that make you want to hurl? [/quote]

In debate I am often driven into territory far harsher and more radical than I am actually comfortable with. I do not actually hate religion and I’m sorry that my language sometimes crosses into vituperation.

It is the tenets of the religions themselves, rather than the people to whom they are sacred, with which I take issue. I like very many devoutly religious people, and don’t like others–just like every other generalized demographic on this planet. I admire and even revere some. I do, though, dislike when the religiosity of one man is brought as a political force against his neighbors. I hate religious war, intolerance, bigotry.

126

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.

In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?[/quote]

‘smh’ wouldn’t happen to stand for ‘Sam Harris’ would it? You write a LOT like him, and use a lot of the same types of arguments. :wink: [/quote]

I’m flattered by the comparison. Unfortunately I am quite the opposite of Sam Harris–undistinguished and unemployed.

127

[quote]pat wrote:

The question is do our senses tell us everything there is to know about what is real and what actually exists?[/quote]

You don’t need to acknowledge the existence of god because the mind exists.

The mind exists because the brain exists.

Now you want to reduce the argument back to god, that’s fine.

128

[quote]pat wrote:

Is the only thing that exists physical matter?
Or do you believe in metaphysics as well.
That’s all I am getting at, can things that do not have material, exist?[/quote]

Yes.
I have never studied metaphysics.
No, and if things did exit without material, how would you know about them existing?

129

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I think it was Pat who called this a mind vs body question. If you believe that we were created by something(God) then it makes sense that language, the self, and the conscious would also need to just appear.

If, however, you believe that we have evolved then all these things(language, the self, the conscious) are as a result of the brain, throat, vocal chords, tongue, etc evolving.[/quote]

Yes, I am close to a Theistic Evolutionary as they call them. However, this does not explain these three things. They are non-material, involving non-material functions, and in a purely atheist evolutionary point of view, they cannot exist as they are non-material. None of these have been found to be materialized in any fashion.

I have no problem with the Big Bang theory and Evolution, I actually quite enjoy reading on both subjects.

You’re equating communication the same thing as syntactical language, it is not. Language is part of communication, but communication is not always language. [/quote]

We are going no where with this.
To the original question, all within the brain and body and evolved with brain and body.
I have heard of no other place this stuff could have come from.

So whatever your alternative theory of where this came from you’ll have to explain to me.
[/quote]

As Einstein called it, the Intelligent Mind. How can something non-physical evolve with the physical is my point.[/quote]

Not a believer in the mind, just the brain.
Like I said we’re going nowhere because we can’t agree on this.

130

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Is the only thing that exists physical matter?
Or do you believe in metaphysics as well.
That’s all I am getting at, can things that do not have material, exist?[/quote]

Yes.
I have never studied metaphysics.
No, and if things did exit without material, how would you know about them existing?
[/quote]
Reason and logic?
(Which are metaphysical entities, BTW)

Lay out a proof that anything physical exists. Pick anything, it doesn’t have to be vague. To avoid leading you I’ll tell you why…You can’t. So if you cannot prove physical matter of any kind exists, then how can you know that is all that exists…

131

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The question is do our senses tell us everything there is to know about what is real and what actually exists?[/quote]

You don’t need to acknowledge the existence of god because the mind exists.
[/quote]
Didn’t say that and wasn’t going there.

Prove it…Does the brain exist? Lay out your proof.

132

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I actually do believe in God, in a way. I’m an agnostic who thinks that matter is best explained as being contingent upon an uncaused, non-contingent entity, which we call God. I actually find the notion of an infinite causal regress to be more far-fetched than the notion of a creator (though I admit that I cannot with certainty eschew any of the popular theories). However, I don’t believe that any of the world’s religions have anything to do with the true God, if it exists.

But I could be wrong. Which will probably be pretty bad for me, lol. Relatedly, your statement about hocus pocus brings up an interesting question for me: do you allow that your belief may be wholly incorrect? Do you ever worry that it is? And, if it were to turn out to be, would you regret having been devout?
[/quote]

This is an interesting perspective. Do you hate religion because it sounds ridiculous, or is it the practitioners of religions that make you want to hurl? [/quote]

In debate I am often driven into territory far harsher and more radical than I am actually comfortable with. I do not actually hate religion and I’m sorry that my language sometimes crosses into vituperation.

It is the tenets of the religions themselves, rather than the people to whom they are sacred, with which I take issue. I like very many devoutly religious people, and don’t like others–just like every other generalized demographic on this planet. I admire and even revere some. I do, though, dislike when the religiosity of one man is brought as a political force against his neighbors. I hate religious war, intolerance, bigotry.[/quote]

Fair enough, you sound like an intelligent person.
If you have any questions on those tenets, and I know the answer, I will tell you what I know; just let me know.
If not, that’s cool too.

133

C’mon son get back to the basics. You said “before the Bible was, the church was”. Which is flat out wrong because the Bible was around before the church was. I didn’t say the Bible was complete before the church came about. I said the Bible was around as in existence before the church.

134

[quote]pat wrote:
Prove it…Does the brain exist? Lay out your proof.

[/quote]

I’d have a MRI or catscan made of my head and mail you the photos if you’d accept that as proof?

135

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

C’mon son get back to the basics. You said “before the Bible was, the church was”. Which is flat out wrong because the Bible was around before the church was. I didn’t say the Bible was complete before the church came about. I said the Bible was around as in existence before the church.

[/quote]

But that is not correct. The Torah certainly existed, the history books existed, the pslams and provebs existed, the prophesies existed, but the assembled collection known as the Bible did not exist until 397 AD. Loose scripture existed, but not the assembled works. It is significant because prior to that there wasn’t much uniformity across the churches. They may or may not have been reading the same scriptures. They may or may not have been sacred scripture.

136

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Prove it…Does the brain exist? Lay out your proof.

[/quote]

I’d have a MRI or catscan made of my head and mail you the photos if you’d accept that as proof?

[/quote]

No. I would accept that as evidence, not as proof. The reason you cannot prove it is that you cannot prove your senses are providing you with correct information. And even if they are, there can be no proof you are interpreting the information correctly. We ususally verify physical facts by consensus. If I say I see a red ball and you say you see a red ball, then we will likely agree that the red ball exists, but the doesn’t mean it does. It just means we agree it does. Now what I understand as a ball may be different then what you understand a ball is, and if you hopped into my brain, the red I am seeing you may describe as blue, who knows. In this respect, it doesn’t matter if we’re right, it only matters if we agree.

It could all be in a “mind” and you only have a delusion of having a body or a physical presence. It’s a study in epistemology, i.e. what can be known, not thought or inferred. See DesCartes, he started it…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-modal/

Hell, and if some of the more recent quantum theories are right, physical matter is an illusion as it is basically, empty space and energy, nothing ‘physical’ about it.

137

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Prove it…Does the brain exist? Lay out your proof.

[/quote]

I’d have a MRI or catscan made of my head and mail you the photos if you’d accept that as proof?

[/quote]

No. I would accept that as evidence, not as proof. The reason you cannot prove it is that you cannot prove your senses are providing you with correct information. And even if they are, there can be no proof you are interpreting the information correctly. We ususally verify physical facts by consensus. If I say I see a red ball and you say you see a red ball, then we will likely agree that the red ball exists, but the doesn’t mean it does. It just means we agree it does. Now what I understand as a ball may be different then what you understand a ball is, and if you hopped into my brain, the red I am seeing you may describe as blue, who knows. In this respect, it doesn’t matter if we’re right, it only matters if we agree.

It could all be in a “mind” and you only have a delusion of having a body or a physical presence. It’s a study in epistemology, i.e. what can be known, not thought or inferred. See DesCartes, he started it…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-modal/

Hell, and if some of the more recent quantum theories are right, physical matter is an illusion as it is basically, empty space and energy, nothing ‘physical’ about it.[/quote]

Semantics. In a court of law you’d seek evidence to prove a crime was committed.

An MRI, or opening up my skull is sufficient evidence to prove that my brain exists.

It does not matter if matter is condensed energy. It does not matter if perception is a mirage of the brain in order to be able to function.

Within our sphere of existence, perception is all there is.

138

Been a very hectic day at work…

Pat and Brother Chris, and any who are interested, please realize that it has been a while since I read the book but, basically the gist of Marvin Minsky’s arguments as I perceived them were that the mind tends to operate and behave more like a crowd of independent agents or a society, if you will. On the one hand this can be incredibly advantageous when engaging in creative problem solving or rational debate, but can prove to be a disadvantage when one feels stifled or rendered inert or impotent by doubt or internal argument.

It could almost appear that the often sited quality of free moral agency is plural within each of us.

Some immediate questions that jump into my mind are:

How does the crowd mind model factor into -

Belief
Doubt
Attraction
Revulsion

I find it staggering that we seem to take for granted how complex and remarkable the construct of (for instance) Guilt really is. Guilt is not from without, it is an internal conversation and condemnation. Yet it also relies on a willful transgression against a specific value which can be either complex or simple and either from without (learned moral codes or values) or from within (personal standards, subject to or apart from, reality or rational explanation).

Guilt is an easy target to begin to argue the pluralistic conscious mind model. If the mind were a singular voice, Guilt would seem to have no place in it. Say I am committing adultery. I am on the one hand driven by a consuming desire to copulate while simultaneously being seemingly assailed by small but ever growing ‘counter arguments’ to this course. These conflicts within me will likely produce ever more apparent physiological changes if not silenced, including but not limited to, nausea, an agonized facial expression, momentary or prolonged impotence, etc. Only when the mind is ‘brought into accord’ can I then act harmoniously. Thus I might rationalize that my mate is cold and indifferent to my needs etc.

Do all of ‘I’ really need to believe these rationalized arguments, or only some of ‘I’. ‘Self’ becomes a far more mobile and illusive target. Is the singular experience an illusion, or can consciousness be described as a state of personal congress? The later might explain why we consider the those who are ‘single minded’ to be more put together and capable of action, and why the opposite, a scatterbrained person, appears untrustworthy and difficult to communicate or work with.

Did ‘God’ design the Human mind to function ‘E Pluribus Unum’? Can’t say, but if you were to set out to design an ‘Artificial’ Intelligence capable of advanced contemplative ability, with adequate checks and balances to insure task focus but avoid obsessive behavior etc, it wouldn’t be a bad way to go about it. (Marvin Minsky is or at least was at the forefront of AI research at MIT)

This is all I have time to type now, but please present any opinions or criticisms and I 'll try to log on later to discuss. Anyway, hopefully it will stir good debate and discussion. :slight_smile:

139

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
…that the mind tends to operate and behave more like a crowd of independent agents or a society, if you will…
[/quote]

Cases of multiple personalites seems on one hand to support this view and on the other to complicate it immensely. The most known case is this, I believe:

140

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Prove it…Does the brain exist? Lay out your proof.

[/quote]

I’d have a MRI or catscan made of my head and mail you the photos if you’d accept that as proof?

[/quote]

No. I would accept that as evidence, not as proof. The reason you cannot prove it is that you cannot prove your senses are providing you with correct information. And even if they are, there can be no proof you are interpreting the information correctly. We ususally verify physical facts by consensus. If I say I see a red ball and you say you see a red ball, then we will likely agree that the red ball exists, but the doesn’t mean it does. It just means we agree it does. Now what I understand as a ball may be different then what you understand a ball is, and if you hopped into my brain, the red I am seeing you may describe as blue, who knows. In this respect, it doesn’t matter if we’re right, it only matters if we agree.

It could all be in a “mind” and you only have a delusion of having a body or a physical presence. It’s a study in epistemology, i.e. what can be known, not thought or inferred. See DesCartes, he started it…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-modal/

Hell, and if some of the more recent quantum theories are right, physical matter is an illusion as it is basically, empty space and energy, nothing ‘physical’ about it.[/quote]

Semantics. In a court of law you’d seek evidence to prove a crime was committed.

An MRI, or opening up my skull is sufficient evidence to prove that my brain exists.

It does not matter if matter is condensed energy. It does not matter if perception is a mirage of the brain in order to be able to function.

Within our sphere of existence, perception is all there is.
[/quote]

In this realm, the semantics are an important distinction. This is not a court of law where your proof has to be reasonable. In this court, it has to be absolute. It is reasonable to based on your evidence, that your brain is a real entity…But it’s a correlational inference. Not a deductive truth.

Your last sentence is the most important, yes it’s all we have to know the physical world. Perception is malleable, perception can be wrong and often is…