3 Reasons Why Theism is Wrong.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pat wrote:

[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… [/quote]

That i have a brain is not a deductive truth? How about mindaltering drugs? A lobotomy that changes a person? A braintumor that renders a person mute, or changes short-term memory?

How can you even claim the existence of a brain can not be proven deductively without a brain?

Have you read the link i posted a page back? Do you think those scientists believe the brain is not a proven entity?

Perception is often wrong or incomplete, that is true. That does not mean that the simple fact that without the brain we wouldn’t have any kind of perception is therefore unproveable, or that the existence of the brain can’t be proven.

You are nothing without your brain. Literally.

142

[quote]pat wrote:

[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… [/quote]

Descartes’ Cotigo Ergo Sum is often translated ‘I Think Therefore I Am’ but many, myself included, believe it to be more accurately translated ‘I doubt therefore I am’ which fits the theme of his treatises more accurately. Descartes is considered in some ways to be the father of modern scientific method, but I like to refer to him as the king of the run on sentence. :wink:

The thought that to question and doubt your perceptions of reality were the basis of his idea that the self was or at least ‘could be’ real.

Or maybe I’m oversimplifying his argument…

143

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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… [/quote]

Descartes’ Cotigo Ergo Sum is often translated ‘I Think Therefore I Am’ but many, myself included, believe it to be more accurately translated ‘I doubt therefore I am’ which fits the theme of his treatises more accurately. Descartes is considered in some ways to be the father of modern scientific method, but I like to refer to him as the king of the run on sentence. :wink:

The thought that to question and doubt your perceptions of reality were the basis of his idea that the self was or at least ‘could be’ real.

Or maybe I’m oversimplifying his argument…
[/quote]

I read one translation that said it was “I think I am therefore I am”.

144

[quote]pat wrote:

[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…[/quote]

So what is your point?
Where are you going with this?

*edit Can you prove that something more than physical matter exists?

145

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Wait. You don’t believe in the mind?

P.S. I have the uncanny habit of scrolling until I see my name quoted at the top of the post.

146

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I hate religious war, intolerance, bigotry.[/quote]

Word, I have no problem with this.

147

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The one thing we have going for us as Americans is that our star atheist is far more handsome and good looking than Britain’s! :wink:

148

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Wait. You don’t believe in the mind?

P.S. I have the uncanny habit of scrolling until I see my name quoted at the top of the post.[/quote]

Mind-body dualism? No I don’t believe in it.

I’m not sure I understand the P.S. Did I miss a post?

149

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Wait. You don’t believe in the mind?

P.S. I have the uncanny habit of scrolling until I see my name quoted at the top of the post.[/quote]

Mind-body dualism? No I don’t believe in it.

I’m not sure I understand the P.S. Did I miss a post?[/quote]

Well, I don’t read all the posts so I didn’t know you didn’t believe in the mind.

150

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Not so recently, I have been interested in providing arguments against different illogical arguments in order to prove them to be wrong in day to day life. I decided that after I met the militantness which is the Sociological College, in which the army of lack luster atheists (if you can really call them that) reside when not protesting for their right to deny other people their first amendment right and pretending to be hipsters in scummy bars.

I came up with three (3) common wonders of the world that atheists simply cannot explain by science and with reason without coming to the conclusion of a supreme intelligence.

  1. Conscious
  2. Language
  3. The Self

Discuss.[/quote]

Wonders of the world? All three exist to some degree in other species, particularly mammals. All three things exist in chimpanzees and they’ve been documented since the 1970s.[/quote]

Great, that is not what I am arguing.[/quote]

I understand your argument, your arguments just aren’t supporting it.

151

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat 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.

Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?

Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!

I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.

That is going to be one hell of a last thought.[/quote]

I get your thoughts…I happen to hold that book of fairy tales in high regard, but I know better then to beat an unbeleiver over the head with it. One has to believe in God before a book about God makes any sense…
Anyhow, the book isn’t recycled pagan stories, the similarities are purely coinsidental. Most of the OT is the story of the Jewish people. The rise and the fall. Now many of the old texts were passed by oral tradition, prior to writing them down. Therefore the grape-vine effect is in order.
Despite that it’s definatly, just as a piece of literature, a very interesting read. I’ll give the ancient hebrews one thing, they put it all down, the good, the bad and the ugly. So it’s an honest account.

BTW, nobody is a biblical literalist. Least of those who claim to be. Those who claim to be, only pick and choose what parts they want to take literally. Those parts they don’t like, are suddenly symbolic.[/quote]

Most of that story of the Jewish people is made up back story to justify later claims.[/quote]

Proof?[/quote]

Prove your horseshit about coincidences.

152

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:
But you are an enemy of God because of sin.[/quote]

But sin is Gods creation. Who do you think you are, denouncing one of His creations?

153

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Not so recently, I have been interested in providing arguments against different illogical arguments in order to prove them to be wrong in day to day life. I decided that after I met the militantness which is the Sociological College, in which the army of lack luster atheists (if you can really call them that) reside when not protesting for their right to deny other people their first amendment right and pretending to be hipsters in scummy bars.

I came up with three (3) common wonders of the world that atheists simply cannot explain by science and with reason without coming to the conclusion of a supreme intelligence.

  1. Conscious
  2. Language
  3. The Self

Discuss.[/quote]

Wonders of the world? All three exist to some degree in other species, particularly mammals. All three things exist in chimpanzees and they’ve been documented since the 1970s.[/quote]

Great, that is not what I am arguing.[/quote]

I understand your argument, your arguments just aren’t supporting it.

[/quote]

What do you mean by my arguments just aren’t supporting it?

154

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:
But you are an enemy of God because of sin.[/quote]

But sin is Gods creation. Who do you think you are, denouncing one of His creations?[/quote]

What do you mean by sin is G-d’s creation?

155

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:
But you are an enemy of God because of sin.[/quote]

But sin is Gods creation. Who do you think you are, denouncing one of His creations?[/quote]

What do you mean by sin is G-d’s creation?[/quote]

Surely you understand that God is the Alpha and Omega, he created everything, nothing comes into existence outside His will. Even our acts are the will of God. Ergo, sin is a creation of God (as ultimately it could not exist without His permission).

156

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:
But you are an enemy of God because of sin.[/quote]

But sin is Gods creation. Who do you think you are, denouncing one of His creations?[/quote]

What do you mean by sin is G-d’s creation?[/quote]

Surely you understand that God is the Alpha and Omega, he created everything, nothing comes into existence outside His will. Even our acts are the will of God. Ergo, sin is a creation of God (as ultimately it could not exist without His permission).[/quote]

I agree that G-d is Alpha and Omega and he did create everything directly or indirectly, and nothing comes into existence outside His will, but I disagree that all our sins are G-d’s will, specifically our sinful acts as we have free will. There is a difference between it being G-d’s will and G-d tolerating it.

157

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I agree that G-d is Alpha and Omega and he did create everything directly or indirectly, and nothing comes into existence outside His will[/quote]

Except you don’t. You go on to contradict yourself in the same sentence.

158

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I agree that G-d is Alpha and Omega and he did create everything directly or indirectly, and nothing comes into existence outside His will[/quote]

Except you don’t. You go on to contradict yourself in the same sentence.[/quote]

How?

159

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I agree that G-d is Alpha and Omega and he did create everything directly or indirectly, and nothing comes into existence outside His will[/quote]

Except you don’t. You go on to contradict yourself in the same sentence.[/quote]

How?[/quote]

“nothing comes into existence outside His will”

“I disagree that all our sins are G-d’s will”

160

[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Surely you understand that God is the Alpha and Omega, he created everything, nothing comes into existence outside His will. Even our acts are the will of God. >>>[/quote]Doin good so far. [quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Ergo, sin is a creation of God >>>[/quote]And then ya had to go n ruin it with this. [quote]Makavali wrote:<<< (as ultimately it could not exist without His permission).[/quote]Although this is true. The way I’ve been stating it for 20 plus years now is that God rendered the earthly introduction and ongoing existence of sin and evil unchangeably certain without in any way being morally responsible for either. I can hear you thinking “how could this possibly be?”. No idea. Don’t care. Gave up probing the secret providence of the infinite God a long time ago. All I know is that’s what He says and as disturbing as it is to you (and Pat) to regard a God who commands the vast cosmos to exist from nothing by the breath of His mouth as a bit more reliable than myself, it is exactly that, which makes ultimate sense of every question we endlessly argue here with zero progress (depending on how one defines progress I suppose) since day one. Actually that mankind has been wrangling about with zero progress for a few thousand years.[quote]"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.[/quote]Deuteronomy 29:29