Refuting the notion that there is no evidence for a God

[Interesting Ian]

There seems to be this universal misconception amongst atheists that there is no evidence for a God. I intend in this post to refute this notion. To make it real simple, throughout this post I'm going to assume a materialist perspective, or at least a materialist based perspective (i.e. physical reality is primary, and minds or consciousnesses are somehow derived from this primary physical reality).

We can just use the minimal definition of "God" as a mind or consciousness, albeit a mind very large or unlimited in scope.

Now one might argue that given that God is a mind or consciousness, it might be a good idea to provisionally suppose that the nature of any evidence for God's mind may be of a similar nature to the evidence for our minds.

So what evidence do we have for the existence of other minds? I would suggest that we do not see other peoples’ minds directly. If we look into a living brain we will only ever see various physical processes operating according to physical laws. You can of course simply declare that minds are identical or are a function of these physical processes, but still that assertion itself is just a stipulation. The pertinent point here is that we could only know that other people are conscious by literally partaking in their conscious experiences. Which we don't.

Nor do we have any scientific evidence that other people are conscious. Now people might find this a very surprising assertion. After all many scientific entities are invisible, but we do not dispute their existence. This is because we can infer their existence from their effect in the world. So if minds have an effect in the world, then why can't minds play a role in some scientific theory describing the world?

The thing about electrons is that we can infer their existence (and other scientific entities) because electrons play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world. Or to put it another way, electrons are physically causally efficacious. They need to be supposed to exist in order to explain some aspect of reality (for the pedants out there I agree this is not strictly true, but I'm trying to make it simple!).

Now being materialists we suppose that the world is physically closed. By this I simply mean that everything that ever happens is wholly explicable in terms of prior physical causes. In particular, there is no non-material mind effecting processes in the brain. Physical processes in the brain, like everything else in the Universe, can be wholly understood as an unbroken chain of physical cause and effect. In other words everything that ever occurs in our brains, and hence by extension all our behaviour, can be completely described with reference to the physical laws of nature.

This being so, minds are not required for an understanding of our behaviour. To have a scientific understanding of our behaviour it is sufficient that we have knowledge of all facts accessible from the third person perspective. By a third person perspective I mean that anyone with unimpaired sense and instruments could potentially corroborate. This would then include neurons firing in a living brain, but would not include mental states such as emotions. This is because a person cannot literally partake in another person's conscious experiences. So the totality of our behaviour can be explained with reference to third person facts.

As an aside this is why minds can never be scientifically explained. Minds can neither be perceptually sensed nor play a fruitful role in our theories describing the world, therefore from a scientific perspective they are superfluous. Thus within any materialist based understanding of the world, it simply has to be arbitrarily stipulated that they are identical to, or are a function of, or are somehow derived from physical processes within the brain. Sort of like a faith if you will.

A couple of things to point out here. If we can neither perceptually perceive other peoples’ minds, nor scientifically prove the existence of other peoples’ minds, then what justification do we have of supposing other peoples’ minds apart from our own exist whatsoever? I would simply suggest the obvious answer here. Namely we infer other peoples’ minds by noting that other peoples’ behaviour is very similar to my own. I know in my own case that my behaviour is apparently a consequence of my internal mental states; therefore it is reasonable to assume that other people in turn possess internal mental states. Another point is that simply because minds (defined, if you like, as the phenomenal aspect of physical processes in the brain) are not required to scientifically explain our behaviour, this doesn't mean that everyday explanations of our behaviour are redundant. Sure, one could explain why I get up to make myself a cup of coffee in terms of purely physical processes occurring in my brain, but we can also provide an explanation in terms of intentions (e.g. I need something to keep me alert). These explanations are not incompatible; rather they apply at different levels.

A related point is that simply because the world is physically closed this does not necessitate we do not have free will. It’s true that our behaviour is wholly determined, or to use a better term, described by physical laws. But this need not imply at all that we are hapless puppets dancing to the tune of the physical laws of nature. To suppose this you are thinking of physical laws as somehow necessitating change in the world, where as it is more appropriate to think of physical laws as simply describing change in this world. But once we have adopted this latter view then the physical laws of nature do not compel our behaviour, rather they describe our freely chosen actions! Of course this interpretation of free will, referred to as compatibilism represents a somewhat impoverished interpretation of free will compared to the libertarian interpretation. Nevertheless, in an appropriate sense, it would still be true to say that we have free will!

Now, having got all the foregoing out of the way, we can at last address the issue of the evidence for the existence of a God. The essential point is this. Just as a complete physical description of the physical processes occurring in someone’s brain and accounting for their behaviour doesn’t necessitate that that person is not possessed of a mental life, so does the fact that just because the Universe and all change within can be accounted for in terms of physical laws, this doesn’t mean to say that consciousness is not associated with the physical Universe as a whole. Indeed, just as we have differing levels of explanations for peoples’ behaviour in terms of either physical laws, or in terms of the intentions of minds, so it may be possible to have differing levels of explanation for processes in the Universe as a whole, either in terms of physical laws, or in terms of what we might describe as a metamind or “God”.

Now of course notice that whether it is in fact legitimate to infer the existence of a metamind will depend upon the character of the Universe as a whole. But the assertion of every atheist I have ever met is that there is no evidence whatsoever for any “God”. They are indeed quite emphatic in this assertion. But this position simply cannot be maintained, as it is clear that the characteristics of the physical Universes as a whole could have been less suggestive of an associated meta-consciousness than what we actually witness. We just simply need to consider logically possible Universes. One might imagine for example that it could have been logically possible for us to have subsisted in a Universe where no physical laws at all pertained, and we found ourselves existing in a bodiless state experiencing a stream of random perceptual experiences through our senses.

But even if we are to suppose that such a Universe were somehow not logically possible, it certainly seems that we could have subsisted in a differing Universe from the one we find ourselves in, but which didn’t exhibit the regularities exhibited by our Universe. Regularities, don’t forget, which can be captured by our scientific theories written in the language of mathematics, and whose theories, at least in physics, turns out not to depict a literal state of affairs, and are found to be limited in their scope. Notwithstanding this, our theories still work in the sense of accurately predicting the cause of our perceptual experiences! One almost gets the impression that the Universe is contrived in such a manner that intelligent sentient beings are just to say able to do this! After all, we can easily imagine a Universe not exhibiting any patterns, or if it did exhibit patterns those patterns not being amenable to mathematical investigation or being too abstruse for us to discern.

It should be noted that I am not arguing that the existence of a “God” is proved, nor that the existence of a “God” is as likely as the existence of other people, nor even that the existence of a God is even likely. What I have just done is to demonstrate that even under a materialist interpretation of the world, it is not only possible to believe in a “God”, but that the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God. If I am able to do this by assuming a materialist framework, then a fortiori I will be able to do this under any other metaphysical interpretation of the world such as for example immaterialism.

[Interesting Ian]

The person who voted no, you haven't had damn time to read my post! :mad:

[RSLancastr]

I haven't voted, but I dno't think there's enough time in the day to read that post! :)

Seriously Ian, large posts like that, even if well-written, discourage many from reading them. I think that most people come here to read (and participate in) discussions, not to read short stories.

Just my opinion of course.

[DrChinese]

I think this was well done. I am an atheist and dosavow evidence for a god in the traditional sense. But I agree there is some evidence that is compatible with the existence of a god. It depends to an extent on the definitions of god and of evidence.

For example, I believe that god created the universe by initiating the big bang. I still consider myself an atheist, because to me god is the unknown. Other people may see certain things as anecdotal evidence of a god (the existence of consciousness, for example).

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What I have just done is to demonstrate that even under a materialist interpretation of the world, it is not only possible to believe in a “God”, but that the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God.I don't see the reasoning behind the claim that our universe is at all "suggestive of an associated meta-consciousness", or how some other universe could be less suggestive. Can you explain the suggestion in a more clear and concise manner?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

We can just use the minimal definition of "God" as a mind or consciousness, albeit a mind very large or unlimited in scope.


Once you define god, your argument disintegrates

[Yahzi]

I have proven. beyond all doubt, the existance of god. Even the most hard-core athiest must bow his head in acknowledgement of my absolute, empirical proof of god. Simply walk into any Italian resteraunt and ask for grated cheese on your pasta. They will usually bring god right to your table and grate the cheese fresh with it!

Oh, btw, I define "god" as "cheese grater." For some reason many people think I should make that explicit right away, but I think they are just being difficult.

So there, you stupid athiests, dispute my proof of god! You can't, so you might as well admit that god exists. I win! Now give me all your money or god will surely punish you in some grating way.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I don't see the reasoning behind the claim that our universe is at all "suggestive of an associated meta-consciousness", or how some other universe could be less suggestive. Can you explain the suggestion in a more clear and concise manner?

Well not really. I did try to express myself in as much detail and in a readily accessible manner as possible.

If you're maintaining that no matter what the characteristics of the Universe we find ourselves inhabiting might have been, there is still zero evidence for any sort of metamind associated with the Universe as a whole, then you risk the accusation of atheism being wholly compatible with any possible physical state of affairs. Certainly it then is unreasonable to request that theists give empirical evidence for a "God" since there is nothing that they could conceivably say which you would accept as constituting any evidence whatsoever for such a concept.

But I'll throw the ball in your court. What must the Universe be like before you would consider there is at least some evidence for the existence of a "God"?

But please bear in mind 2 things before responding. First I do not necessarily mean by evidence that "God" is likely. Secondly bear in mind that I am not interested in a ""god" of the gaps" conceptualization of "God". As I made clear in my opening post, the idea of "God" I am putting forward is one where the behaviour of the Universe as a whole is a consequence of a metamind ("God") in a roughly analogical manner in which our behaviour is a consequence of our minds.

[evildave]

How can we even begin to judge "evidence" based on suppositions about an undefined thing?

Easy. It's called "B.S.". As in "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S." A phrase most of us are familiar with, and which we also have fairly clear definitions for.

Interesting Ian has no new evidence to present, so he simply tries to confuse the simple matter with more gibberish.

At the very least, Interesting Ian must describe his "God" in unambiguous terms. Give us repeatable tests that demonstrate this God's existence clearly.

At least Yahzi's "God" is believable. On pasta, even. I have a whole plastic bottle of americanized "God" in my cupboard with a flip-top lid. I believe in the "God" Yahzi has just defined.

Of course, if we unambiguously define Interesting Ian's God as "B.S.", I can certainly agree that it exists by the truckload.

[Roadtoad]

I think, Ian, that you've missed one element in your post:

Saint Augustine pointed out that once you have stated that God is "ineffable" (to use his term), you have, in fact, made Him "effable" (mine). God, by definition, if we can grasp the paradox, is indefinable. Most materialists reject that idea, and in turn, reject God, since there's a lack of observable physical evidence for His existence. Since the Bible describes God as being pure Spirit, (your definition follows this), it's going to be almost impossible to convince a strict materialist that God exists, even if you define God as being the element behind the the observable phenomena.

(My gut instinct tells me Hal Bidlack's definition has a better shot, but I've read more than a few replies to that idea that give me pause.)

Personally, I liked your post. I'd like to read more.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But I'll throw the ball in your court. What must the Universe be like before you would consider there is at least some evidence for the existence of a "God"?


A God that makes him/herself known would be a nice start.

Originally posted by DrChinese
I think this was well done. I am an atheist and dosavow evidence for a god in the traditional sense. But I agree there is some evidence that is compatible with the existence of a god. It depends to an extent on the definitions of god and of evidence.

For example, I believe that god created the universe by initiating the big bang. I still consider myself an atheist, because to me god is the unknown. Other people may see certain things as anecdotal evidence of a god (the existence of consciousness, for example).

Hi Dr.:

So, you think that God crated the universe?

So, why you are an atheist?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ex-latin

So, you think that God crated the universe?


Yes, God crated the universe. But it is still in a warehouse in Cleveland.

Originally posted by Roadtoad

(My gut instinct tells me Hal Bidlack's definition has a better shot, but I've read more than a few replies to that idea that give me pause.)




You used your "skeptical instict" to understand Hal letter.

Hal is clear, he said that he is not an atheist and that he pray.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by triadboy
Yes, God crated the universe. But it is still in a warehouse in Cleveland.
BTW, that warehouse was converted into a strip bar last year.

Originally posted by Pyrrho

BTW, that warehouse was converted into a strip bar last year.

Hi Pyrro:

Remember that some members here are not atheist and pray, also some of them are your friends....maybe you can give to them a little of respect


I am atheist and I don`t pray.
I am a pure skeptic.

[Interesting Ian]

I said


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can just use the minimal definition of "God" as a mind or consciousness, albeit a mind very large or unlimited in scope.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To which there were the following comments.


triadboy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once you define god, your argument disintegrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yahzi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, btw, I define "god" as "cheese grater." For some reason many people think I should make that explicit right away, but I think they are just being difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It seems then that there are a couple of atheists who are unhappy with my minimal definition of "God". Essentially it would seem then that they dispute that a "God" can be minimally be defined as a mind or consciousness. This is most curious. If they do not understand "God" to be mind or consciousness, then what on earth do they understand "God" to be? A giant p-zombie in the sky perhaps?

It doesn't of course matter how they think of "God" since it is the theists "God" they should try to argue against, not some preposterous atheist conceptualisation of "God".

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you're maintaining that no matter what the characteristics of the Universe we find ourselves inhabiting might have been, there is still zero evidence for any sort of metamind associated with the Universe as a whole, then you risk the accusation of atheism being wholly compatible with any possible physical state of affairs.Sorry, Ian. I'm not maintaining anything. I'm simply trying to understand what you are maintaining.
But I'll throw the ball in your court. What must the Universe be like before you would consider there is at least some evidence for the existence of a "God"?That's a whole different question, and should be irrelevant to your refutation. Let's not confuse things any further.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It doesn't of course matter how they think of "God" since it is the theists "God" they should try to argue against, not some preposterous atheist conceptualisation of "God".

Now you have stumbled into your own foxhole: Please define a non-preposterous definition of god.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you're maintaining that no matter what the characteristics of the Universe we find ourselves inhabiting might have been, there is still zero evidence for any sort of metamind associated with the Universe as a whole, then you risk the accusation of atheism being wholly compatible with any possible physical state of affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Ian. I'm not maintaining anything. I'm simply trying to understand what you are maintaining.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I'll throw the ball in your court. What must the Universe be like before you would consider there is at least some evidence for the existence of a "God"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a whole different question, and should be irrelevant to your refutation. Let's not confuse things any further.

I really didn't expect any sort of answer to my question. Atheists are invariably completely flummoxed when I declare I have no interest in the "god of the gaps" concept of "God". It seems to be the only type of "god" they understand. Which might go some way to explaining their atheism!

No, my post was simply an attempt to try and illustrate my original meaning. If you are being absolutely genuine in your non-understanding in my essential point, then I don't believe there is much I can add to facillitate understanding. Just accept that there's an interpretation of "God" you are failing to understand, and that you might therefore very well be incorrect in your atheism.

[stamenflicker]

Seriously Ian, large posts like that, even if well-written, discourage many from reading them. I think that most people come here to read (and participate in) discussions, not to read short stories.

That's mostly the problem with posters in this forum. Not only are the posts too long, but so is most serious scholarship.

I personally voted that it depended on the definition of evidence. It's clear from the responses you drew Ian that whether or not folks voted this way, it is in fact their position. They just happen to fundamentally believe that their form of evidence (empiricism) is not only the best (which I would agree with), but the only form of evidence (which I would disagree with).

Flick

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DrChinese
I think this was well done.

Yes I emphatically agree ;)

[c4ts]

There seems to be this universal misconception amongst atheists that there is no evidence for a God. I intend in this post to refute this notion.

It should be noted that I am not arguing that the existence of a “God” is proved, nor that the existence of a “God” is as likely as the existence of other people, nor even that the existence of a God is even likely.

Unless you are arguing that there is proof, you have failed to refute the notion.There might be proof, and there might not. Your misconception is no better than the atheists', and worse, because your failure to provide the atheists with proof despite possibility only helps their position. That which is possible is not necessarily true. In your conclusion, you admit there is no evidence for God despite the possibilty that there could be.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c4ts
There seems to be this universal misconception amongst atheists that there is no evidence for a God. I intend in this post to refute this notion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that I am not arguing that the existence of a “God” is proved, nor that the existence of a “God” is as likely as the existence of other people, nor even that the existence of a God is even likely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Unless you are arguing that there is proof, you have failed to refute the notion.


I have failed to refute the notion that there is no evidence for the existence of a God? I think not.


There might be proof, and there might not.


I am talking about evidence, not proof.


Your misconception is no better than the atheists',


Enlighten me as to what misconception I have.



and worse, because your failure to provide the atheists with proof despite possibility only helps their position.



I cannot prove the existence of God. I cannot prove that other people exist. I cannot prove that the Universe didn't spontaneously come into existence 10 minutes ago together with all our mutually consistant memories. In short I cannot provide proof of anything regarding the world.



That which is possible is not necessarily true. In your conclusion, you admit there is no evidence for God despite the possibilty that there could be.



I most certainly am not claiming there is no evidence for a "God". Read my original post more carefully.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

RSLancastr
Seriously Ian, large posts like that, even if well-written, discourage many from reading them. I think that most people come here to read (and participate in) discussions, not to read short stories.

Flick
That's mostly the problem with posters in this forum. Not only are the posts too long, but so is most serious scholarship.

Flick

I disagree. Posts which are long are not necessarily bad. I wanted to explain my thoughts on this matter as concisely as possible, but to spell out my position so as to facilitate peoples understanding. This necessitated that my post be of a certain minimal length. Even then it seems that at least one person has failed to understand it, and arguably the vast majority have failed to understand it looking at the way people have voted so far.

If people cannot be ar*ed to set aside 10 minutes or so to read a carefully crafted post covering issues not only about the issue of evidence for a God, but also why materialism isn't inconsistant with the notion of free will etc, then they have demonstrated they have no interest in philosophy, and shouldn't be attempting to pontificate on it.

[stamenflicker]

This necessitated that my post be of a certain minimal length. Even then it seems that at least one person has failed to understand it, and arguably the vast majority have failed to understand it looking at the way people have voted so far.

Ian,

I probably didn't make myself clear. Most people who frequent this forum are not capable or are not willing to invest the time necessary to craft a researched position. That's all I meant.

Flick

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
This necessitated that my post be of a certain minimal length. Even then it seems that at least one person has failed to understand it, and arguably the vast majority have failed to understand it looking at the way people have voted so far.

Ian,

I probably didn't make myself clear. Most people who frequent this forum are not capable or are not willing to invest the time necessary to craft a researched position. That's all I meant.

Flick

Ok, but if people can't be bothered to read my responses they shouldn't ask me questions such as where is there any evidence for a God in the first place. In banter DC specifically requested I wasn't vague in answering this question.

[K-W]

Perhaps if you could put your argument in a simpler structure with your facts and your logic.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

but also why materialism isn't inconsistant with the notion of free will

Hmmm..

I think there are two "free wills". The materialist one, and the dualist one.

I think free will pretty much implies dualism, though, so on this point I may agree with you unless when one says free will they specifically state what they are talking about.

[Mercutio]

Ok, I've only read it through once, and will want to read it again before I vote. But I just had to say, Ian, that my gut reaction is that that was a nice piece of writing. It reminds me, in tone, of the philosophical credo of Mary Calkins ("philosophical credo of an absolutistic personalist" if you want to find it, roughly 100 years ago, back when people wrote beautifully)--not in argument, but in elegance.

Again, still just gut feeling, but I think I understand exactly your argument, and think it is better stated than I may have ever seen, but I still disagree on some fundamental aspects. I'll have to post again after another reading and some reflection, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in that it was worth reading.

[thaiboxerken]

All you've done is evade defining "god" and have have given only appeals to ignorance and irrationality.

There is no evidence of a god.

[triadboy]

If YOU define god and then prove YOUR definition...what good is it to anyone else? God - by definition is non-definable.

Or do you acknowledge him walking in the Garden of Eden and smelling the sweet burnt offerings and worried about human activities on the Tower of Babel? Is your definition still in line with the Old Testament? Or are you defining some other 'god' (i.e. not Yahweh, El Shaddai, Jesus and the Holy Ghost). In THAT case, you can go completely nuts with it and prove anything to your satisfaction.

When it comes to whether or not the universe was fashioned by an intelligent force - I am agnostic...."I don't know". But the neurotic, jealous, human-hating, child-killing god of the bible is definitely not real. If there is a 'god', the bible would be an insult to him/her.

[thaiboxerken]

If YOU define god and then prove YOUR definition...what good is it to anyone else?

It benefits everyone, because then we know what you are really talking about.

God - by definition is non-definable.

This is an evasion and a contradiction at the same time. A double-fallacy, good going.

Or do you acknowledge him walking in the Garden of Eden and smelling the sweet burnt offerings and worried about human activities on the Tower of Babel? Is your definition still in line with the Old Testament? Or are you defining some other 'god' (i.e. not Yahweh, El Shaddai, Jesus and the Holy Ghost). In THAT case, you can go completely nuts with it and prove anything to your satisfaction.

I don't worship or believe in gods, therefore I have no need to define what "god" is. It is the believers that should define what "god" is, especially if they want us to believe that it exists.

When it comes to whether or not the universe was fashioned by an intelligent force - I am agnostic...."I don't know". But the neurotic, jealous, human-hating, child-killing god of the bible is definitely not real. If there is a 'god', the bible would be an insult to him/her.

No person knows if the universe was fashioned by an intelligent force. There is no evidence that it was, and no reason to. Because of this, I will safely say that there are no gods.

[evildave]

If God's not definable, and that's God's definition... isn't that an oxymoron?

Fnarbleblah and Blooglenispickalator are also not defined. Therefore, they too must be real?

Anyone's lack of belief in Fnarbleblah and Blooglenispickalator must be founded in irrationality?

Alas for the religiously afflicted, for any old nonsense is "divinely inspired truth" to them.

[Zombified]

(Skipping argument for existance of other minds by inference from behavior; take this as stipulated.)
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We just simply need to consider logically possible Universes. One might imagine for example that it could have been logically possible for us to have subsisted in a Universe where no physical laws at all pertained, and we found ourselves existing in a bodiless state experiencing a stream of random perceptual experiences through our senses.
This might be the only logically possible universe. I think so, as a matter of conjecture, and I'm not alone. But that may be another subject.
But even if we are to suppose that such a Universe were somehow not logically possible, it certainly seems that we could have subsisted in a differing Universe from the one we find ourselves in, but which didn’t exhibit the regularities exhibited by our Universe. Regularities, don’t forget, which can be captured by our scientific theories written in the language of mathematics, and whose theories, at least in physics, turns out not to depict a literal state of affairs, and are found to be limited in their scope. Notwithstanding this, our theories still work in the sense of accurately predicting the cause of our perceptual experiences! One almost gets the impression that the Universe is contrived in such a manner that intelligent sentient beings are just to say able to do this! After all, we can easily imagine a Universe not exhibiting any patterns, or if it did exhibit patterns those patterns not being amenable to mathematical investigation or being too abstruse for us to discern.
Hmm... I don't believe you can have a logically inconsistent universe. Since mathematics is just a shorthand language for reasoning, there is nothing surprising about being able to describe physical law with mathematics. Indeed, a universe that cannot be described with mathematics is not logically consistent, and therefore in my opinion can't exist. There is a possible debate here about the nature of physical law and mathematics, but I suspect that is not as interesting to you as speculating about your metamind.

One practical objection to your chaotic universe would be: how would a brain survive in it? Assuming that such a universe could exist and be percieved seems equivalent to assuming that a mind can exist and percieve without any biology. But you want to argue from materialism and rely only on the inference of minds, so that seems unfortunate.
It should be noted that I am not arguing that the existence of a “God” is proved, nor that the existence of a “God” is as likely as the existence of other people, nor even that the existence of a God is even likely. What I have just done is to demonstrate that even under a materialist interpretation of the world, it is not only possible to believe in a “God”, but that the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God.
Why would we infer the presence of a mind just because the universe is consistent? It does not appear intentional, nor does it appear to communicate.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So what evidence do we have for the existence of other minds? I would suggest that we do not see other peoples’ minds directly. If we look into a living brain we will only ever see various physical processes operating according to physical laws. You can of course simply declare that minds are identical or are a function of these physical processes, but still that assertion itself is just a stipulation. The pertinent point here is that we could only know that other people are conscious by literally partaking in their conscious experiences. Which we don't.Don't does not imply can't. No, we don't presently have the technology to partake in one anothers consciousnesses. But you have not produced any evidence that this can not be done, and all that we know about physics, chemistry, biology and neurology says that it can.Nor do we have any scientific evidence that other people are conscious.If you deliberately narrow the definition of scientific evidence.Now people might find this a very surprising assertion. After all many scientific entities are invisible, but we do not dispute their existence. This is because we can infer their existence from their effect in the world. So if minds have an effect in the world, then why can't minds play a role in some scientific theory describing the world?Yes, why can't minds play a role in some scientific theory describing the world?The thing about electrons is that we can infer their existence (and other scientific entities) because electrons play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world. Or to put it another way, electrons are physically causally efficacious. They need to be supposed to exist in order to explain some aspect of reality (for the pedants out there I agree this is not strictly true, but I'm trying to make it simple!).

Now being materialists we suppose that the world is physically closed. By this I simply mean that everything that ever happens is wholly explicable in terms of prior physical causes. In particular, there is no non-material mind effecting processes in the brain. Physical processes in the brain, like everything else in the Universe, can be wholly understood as an unbroken chain of physical cause and effect. In other words everything that ever occurs in our brains, and hence by extension all our behaviour, can be completely described with reference to the physical laws of nature.Correct. (In that this accurately represents the materialist position.)This being so, minds are not required for an understanding of our behaviour.Except that in the materialist position, the mind is what is produced by the operation of the brain. What we are observing when we observe the operation of the brain is the mind.To have a scientific understanding of our behaviour it is sufficient that we have knowledge of all facts accessible from the third person perspective. By a third person perspective I mean that anyone with unimpaired sense and instruments could potentially corroborate. This would then include neurons firing in a living brain, but would not include mental states such as emotions.Observe the neurons firing, and you observe the emotions.This is because a person cannot literally partake in another person's conscious experiences.You have not only failed to prove this assertion, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.So the totality of our behaviour can be explained with reference to third person facts.Yes. Including the mind.As an aside this is why minds can never be scientifically explained.As another aside, no it isn't.Minds can neither be perceptually sensedUnfounded assertionnor play a fruitful role in our theories describing the worldWrong.therefore from a scientific perspective they are superfluous.Wrong.Thus within any materialist based understanding of the world, it simply has to be arbitrarily stipulated that they are identical to, or are a function of, or are somehow derived from physical processes within the brain.Not arbitrary at all. Unproven, in the same way that the Theory of Relativity is unproven.Sort of like a faith if you will.Except not at all like faith. Everything we know about the brain indicates that the mind is the result of brain function. Hold still while I hit you with this hammer.A couple of things to point out here. If we can neither perceptually perceive other peoples’ minds, nor scientifically prove the existence of other peoples’ minds, then what justification do we have of supposing other peoples’ minds apart from our own exist whatsoever? I would simply suggest the obvious answer here. Namely we infer other peoples’ minds by noting that other peoples’ behaviour is very similar to my own. I know in my own case that my behaviour is apparently a consequence of my internal mental states; therefore it is reasonable to assume that other people in turn possess internal mental states. Another point is that simply because minds (defined, if you like, as the phenomenal aspect of physical processes in the brain) are not required to scientifically explain our behaviourBehaviour is explained by brain function. The mind is also explained by brain function. You've simply put the mind in the wrong place in the explicatory chain.this doesn't mean that everyday explanations of our behaviour are redundant. Sure, one could explain why I get up to make myself a cup of coffee in terms of purely physical processes occurring in my brain, but we can also provide an explanation in terms of intentions (e.g. I need something to keep me alert). These explanations are not incompatible; rather they apply at different levels.

A related point is that simply because the world is physically closed this does not necessitate we do not have free will. It’s true that our behaviour is wholly determined, or to use a better term, described by physical laws.Described is indeed a much better term, since physical law is non-deterministic.But this need not imply at all that we are hapless puppets dancing to the tune of the physical laws of nature.No, it doesn't.To suppose this you are thinking of physical laws as somehow necessitating change in the world, where as it is more appropriate to think of physical laws as simply describing change in this world. But once we have adopted this latter view then the physical laws of nature do not compel our behaviour, rather they describe our freely chosen actions! Of course this interpretation of free will, referred to as compatibilism represents a somewhat impoverished interpretation of free will compared to the libertarian interpretation. Nevertheless, in an appropriate sense, it would still be true to say that we have free will!Yes! Um, so?Now, having got all the foregoing out of the way, we can at last address the issue of the evidence for the existence of a God.Yay!The essential point is this. Just as a complete physical description of the physical processes occurring in someone’s brain and accounting for their behaviour doesn’t necessitate that that person is not possessed of a mental lifeThe complete physical description etc. tells us that the individual does have a "mental life"so does the fact that just because the Universe and all change within can be accounted for in terms of physical laws, this doesn’t mean to say that consciousness is not associated with the physical Universe as a whole.Yes, it does. It isn't proven that consciousness is not associated with the universe as a whole, the same way that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle isn't proven, but all the evidence and all the well-tested theory says that if such a consicousness exists it is not efficaceous, or to put it another way, is a load of twaddle.Indeed, just as we have differing levels of explanations for peoples’ behaviour in terms of either physical laws, or in terms of the intentions of minds, so it may be possible to have differing levels of explanation for processes in the Universe as a whole, either in terms of physical laws, or in terms of what we might describe as a metamind or “God”.Or not. The different levels of description in physical law are mathematically equivalent. To use this argument you need to show that your metamind is mathematically equivalent to the laws of physics. You also need to show in what sense this doesn't mean that your metamind does not exist.Now of course notice that whether it is in fact legitimate to infer the existence of a metamind will depend upon the character of the Universe as a whole.Correct. If the universe is of such a character that it possesses a metamind, then it will be legitimate to infer the existence of same. If the universe is not of such a character, such an inference will be illegitimate. So, first you need to determine the character of the universe, which is what the study of physics is all about. Nothing we have seen in physics indicates in any way the existence of such a mind.But the assertion of every atheist I have ever met is that there is no evidence whatsoever for any “God”.Correct.They are indeed quite emphatic in this assertion.And rightly so.But this position simply cannot be maintained, as it is clear that the characteristics of the physical Universes as a whole could have been less suggestive of an associated meta-consciousness than what we actually witness.So, you are supposing an alternate universe where there is less than no evidence for God? I'm not sure that gets you anywhere. Is this one of those reductio ad absurdum thingies?We just simply need to consider logically possible Universes.Oookay.One might imagine for example that it could have been logically possible for us to have subsisted in a Universe where no physical laws at all pertained, and we found ourselves existing in a bodiless state experiencing a stream of random perceptual experiences through our senses.No. That doesn't make any sense at all. You are presupposing that mind is independent of of the physical universe and yet interacts with it. And without physical law, you don't get a stream of random perceptual experiences; what you get is nothing and everything happening at the same time, except that there is no time for it to happen in. A universe without physical law is logically contradictory; it cannot exist.But even if we are to suppose that such a Universe were somehow not logically possibleYes.it certainly seems that we could have subsisted in a differing Universe from the one we find ourselves in, but which didn’t exhibit the regularities exhibited by our Universe.Yes. No, hang on, no. You can suppose a universe in which the laws are deeper and more complicated and harder to define, but a universe without regularities is a universe without physical law, and gets flushed down Occam's Toilet.Regularities, don’t forget, which can be captured by our scientific theories written in the language of mathematics, and whose theories, at least in physics, turns out not to depict a literal state of affairs, and are found to be limited in their scope.Yeeees? Except, no, not in your hypothetical logicall contradictory non-universe.Notwithstanding this, our theories still work in the sense of accurately predicting the cause of our perceptual experiences!No. Yes. Hang on, which universe are you talking about now? This one, you your hypothetical contradiction?One almost gets the impression that the Universe is contrived in such a manner that intelligent sentient beings are just to say able to do this!Look everyone! Ian's discovered the Anthropic Principle! After all, we can easily imagine a Universe not exhibiting any patternsNo.or if it did exhibit patterns those patterns not being amenable to mathematical investigation or being too abstruse for us to discern.Yes. But this is not the case for our universe, and is not the case you have used in your argument, so I fail to see how this is relevant.It should be noted that I am not arguing that the existence of a “God” is proved, nor that the existence of a “God” is as likely as the existence of other people, nor even that the existence of a God is even likely.Good.What I have just done is to demonstrate that even under a materialist interpretation of the world, it is not only possible to believe in a “God”, but that the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God.Except that you have utterly failed to do this.If I am able to do this by assuming a materialist frameworkWhich you aren't, or at least have not shown.then a fortiori I will be able to do this under any other metaphysical interpretation of the world such as for example immaterialism.A false premise allows any conclusion, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Good, a response which tries to address my points.

Originally posted by Zombified
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We just simply need to consider logically possible Universes. One might imagine for example that it could have been logically possible for us to have subsisted in a Universe where no physical laws at all pertained, and we found ourselves existing in a bodiless state experiencing a stream of random perceptual experiences through our senses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This might be the only logically possible universe. I think so, as a matter of conjecture, and I'm not alone. But that may be another subject.



Well I think then the onus would be upon you to demonstrate this is so. It is very clear for example how an object cannot be simultaneously both a cube and a sphere. It is less clear to me why the Universe we find ourselves in logically must be exactly as it is. Why is it logically incoherent to suppose the physical constants might been different from what they are? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose that we couldn't have subsisted in a place like Narnia or some other such world? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose the world couldn't have been totally chaotic? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose that the world couldn't have just spontaneously acausally came into being with the order we witness now rather than be born in a "big bang".

You need to demonstrate that this precise Universe is logically necessitated. It's no good just declaring it to be so in the absense of any reasoning.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even if we are to suppose that such a Universe were somehow not logically possible, it certainly seems that we could have subsisted in a differing Universe from the one we find ourselves in, but which didn’t exhibit the regularities exhibited by our Universe. Regularities, don’t forget, which can be captured by our scientific theories written in the language of mathematics, and whose theories, at least in physics, turns out not to depict a literal state of affairs, and are found to be limited in their scope. Notwithstanding this, our theories still work in the sense of accurately predicting the cause of our perceptual experiences! One almost gets the impression that the Universe is contrived in such a manner that intelligent sentient beings are just to say able to do this! After all, we can easily imagine a Universe not exhibiting any patterns, or if it did exhibit patterns those patterns not being amenable to mathematical investigation or being too abstruse for us to discern.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm... I don't believe you can have a logically inconsistent universe. Since mathematics is just a shorthand language for reasoning, there is nothing surprising about being able to describe physical law with mathematics.



Why is the mathematics not extremely complex and not amenable to human intellect?



Indeed, a universe that cannot be described with mathematics is not logically consistent,



How so?? :eek: You're just presupposing what you said before without producing any arguments to back up your position. Why is a Universe which doesn't exhibit regularities logically impossible. (I presume logically inconsistant is the same as logically impossible?)



and therefore in my opinion can't exist. There is a possible debate here about the nature of physical law and mathematics, but I suspect that is not as interesting to you as speculating about your metamind.



Not at all. Indeed I find it more interesting.



One practical objection to your chaotic universe would be: how would a brain survive in it? Assuming that such a universe could exist and be percieved seems equivalent to assuming that a mind can exist and percieve without any biology. But you want to argue from materialism and rely only on the inference of minds, so that seems unfortunate.



Yes, a totally random chaotic Universe seems to me to be incompatible with materialism. My mistake. Forget the totally random Universe then. Just imagine a Universe which has descrete objects existing over time but exhibiting no where near the regularities as a whole that our Universe does.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that I am not arguing that the existence of a “God” is proved, nor that the existence of a “God” is as likely as the existence of other people, nor even that the existence of a God is even likely. What I have just done is to demonstrate that even under a materialist interpretation of the world, it is not only possible to believe in a “God”, but that the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would we infer the presence of a mind just because the universe is consistent? It does not appear intentional, nor does it appear to communicate.



Well that is an interesting question. In hurry so in short I certainly agree we don't have as much evidence for the existence of a metamind than the existence of other people (although some disagree with me here), but that certainly has no implications to supposing we have no evidence for the existence of a metamind at all! Which is my whole point ie we DO have evidence..

Sorry about grammer and spelling etc but haven't got time to check.

[Darwin]

Honestly,I think threads like these are the origin of philosofeces.
They do not "do it" for me,I undestand they may appear very interesting to many.
Just imo.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa

Pixy,

Thank you for your worthless contribution. I have explained my position, and if you do not understand it I can't help that. I see little purpose in repeating myself though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darwin
Honestly,I think threads like these are the origin of philosofeces.
They do not "do it" for me,I undestand they may appear very interesting to many.
Just imo.

I don't know what "philsofeces" is. Care to explain?

Anyway, if you're the sort of sad person who has no interest in philosophy then I suggest you don't bother coming to the philosophy forum.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Pixy,

Thank you for your worthless contribution. I have explained my position, and if you do not understand it I can't help that. I see little purpose in repeating myself though. You're welcome, Ian. However, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that you're wrong.

If you don't understand why you're wrong, you could always ask, and I'm sure that I or another of the knowledgeable posters here would be glad to explain things to you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
You're welcome, Ian. However, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that you're wrong.

If you don't understand why you're wrong, you could always ask, and I'm sure that I or another of the knowledgeable posters here would be glad to explain things to you.

You're an idiot who doesn't understand the most elementary philosophy. Don't waste my time.

[PixyMisa]

Ah, Ian, Ian. Perhaps you could point out where I have made an error? Surely it is the duty of the wise to educate the ignorant?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well I think then the onus would be upon you to demonstrate this is so. It is very clear for example how an object cannot be simultaneously both a cube and a sphere. It is less clear to me why the Universe we find ourselves in logically must be exactly as it is. Why is it logically incoherent to suppose the physical constants might been different from what they are? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose that we couldn't have subsisted in a place like Narnia or some other such world? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose the world couldn't have been totally chaotic? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose that the world couldn't have just spontaneously acausally came into being with the order we witness now rather than be born in a "big bang".
As I said, this is a conjecture. I suspect it is true, but the evidence is insufficient. It is an extrapolation from a trend in physics, however: as our understanding of physics gets more and more sophisticated, there are fewer and fewer initial assumptions about physics, from which are derived more and more conclusions.

A couple of examples: A mathemetician named Emily Noether proved that symmetries imply conservation laws. It turns out that when you can translate a physical system in time without altering its equations (that is, physics works the same at 4:00 PM as they did at noon), then you can derive the law of conservation of energy. So rather than assume both conservation of energy and time translation symmetry, we assume only the latter and get conservation of energy for free. Another example is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It sounds very physical, but in fact, there's no new physics in it: its derivable from Newton's laws (or the laws of quantum mechanics, if you want to be more modern) plus the mathematics of statistics.

Eliminating assumptions in favor of derivations from simpler rules is a hazardous thing: at any point, the universe may decide not to conform to your reasoning. But the universe doesn't do that; it's logically consistent, once we find the right basic rules.

A couple more examples, that you're probably familiar with, are unifying theories. Classically, Maxwell unified the theory of electricity with the theory of magnetism and finally understood electromagnetism. In QM, there has been a successful unification of quanum electrodynamics with the theory of the weak nuclear force. Again, fewer basic assumptions, with more (mathematical) reasoning.

In quantum mechanics, some of the great successes have been calculating physical constants that were formerly empirical, in terms of other constants. For example, the magnetic moment of the electron has been calculated to an amazing degree of precision, and it matches the measurement to an incredible degree.

The whole goal of the grand unified theory is to be able to calculate every constant and derive every physical law from the simplest set of assumptions possible.

My unproven conjecture, and I realize I'm going very much out on a limb here, is that the GUT is this:

1. The universe is logically consistent.
2. Anything that is possible exists.
Why is the mathematics not extremely complex and not amenable to human intellect?
I'm glad that you found quantum field theory so much easier than I did!

Seriously, mathematics is the product of, well, an evolutionary process. Mathemeticians and physicists invent math that makes problems simpler to solve. QM is full of these examples, like Heisenberg reinventing group theory and linear algebra to develop the matrix formulation of quantum mechanics, or Dirac's spinors.

But also seriously, there is a great deal in quantum mechanics (and relativity) that is not easy to visualize, or to reconcile with our classical instincts. Look at the debates over interpreting quantum mechanics.
How so?? :eek: You're just presupposing what you said before without producing any arguments to back up your position. Why is a Universe which doesn't exhibit regularities logically impossible. (I presume logically inconsistant is the same as logically impossible?)I suppose on reflection that is a bit of a leap. Perhaps a better way to put this is that any universe that can be reasoned about can be described mathematically. But you need to understand just how deeply irregular a universe has to be before it can't be reasoned about. You are essentially asserting that there could be a universe in which there is no symmetry, for example (because that would imply a conservation law of some sort and I could start doing physics).

The more progress we make on a "theory of everything" the less likely such an irregular universe gets, because we find more and more properties an irregular universe can't have, because they follow from simple assumptions.
Well that is an interesting question. In hurry so in short I certainly agree we don't have as much evidence for the existence of a metamind than the existence of other people (although some disagree with me here), but that certainly has no implications to supposing we have no evidence for the existence of a metamind at all! Which is my whole point ie we DO have evidence..As near as I can tell, your evidence boils down to "we observe regularity in the universe that is not inherent or inevitable, therefore, something has arranged it so." The evidence is the observation of regularity. I am offering you an alternative explanation: that the regularity observed is in fact inherent and inevitable. Mine is also unproven, but I think it is a plausible inference from the trend in physical theory.

Now, I know this will provoke rolled eyes or worse, but it is traditional in these arguments to invoke Ockham's razor, and far be it from me to go against tradition: my explanation does not involve inventing any additional order-creating entity.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Ah, Ian, Ian. Perhaps you could point out where I have made an error? Surely it is the duty of the wise to educate the ignorant?

Don't expect to be educated.

[PixyMisa]

Besides which, the other classical category of "evidence for god" is purposeful irregulaties a.k.a. miracles. So you claim the observed regularities of our universe as evidence, and others claim anecdotal irregularities as evidence. That's kind of unfair, isn't it? Or do you consider miracles as evidence against god's existence?

[crackmonkey]

Is the meat if the argument, "There's order in the universe, and that is evidence of God"?
Why must order signify intelligent design? Am I missing something here?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well I think then the onus would be upon you to demonstrate this is so. It is very clear for example how an object cannot be simultaneously both a cube and a sphere. It is less clear to me why the Universe we find ourselves in logically must be exactly as it is. Why is it logically incoherent to suppose the physical constants might been different from what they are? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose that we couldn't have subsisted in a place like Narnia or some other such world? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose the world couldn't have been totally chaotic? Why is it logically incoherent to suppose that the world couldn't have just spontaneously acausally came into being with the order we witness now rather than be born in a "big bang".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, this is a conjecture. I suspect it is true, but the evidence is insufficient.



If there is any evidence at all then I would be delighted to hear it! :eek: I submit it is not possible to have any evidence for your preposterous statement which you've justed pulled out of your ar*e.




It is an extrapolation from a trend in physics,



Physics has nothing to say, and couldn't possibly have anything to say about Universes which are logically possible!


however: as our understanding of physics gets more and more sophisticated, there are fewer and fewer initial assumptions about physics, from which are derived more and more conclusions.


As I have said, it has nothing whatsoever to do with physics. You misunderstand the nature of physics.

Look, I've read the rest below and you keep going on about physics all the time. Why are you physicists/materialists/"Skeptics" unable to understand the most basic simple issues??

Allow me to spell it out

Physics cannot in principle assert that all other conceivable Universes are logically impossible. In order to demonstate logical impossibility you would have to at the very minimum demonstrate mathematical incoherence. So, to take an extreme example of what I would consider a logically possible Universe, namely of existing in a bodiless state experiencing a chain of random qualia. Demonstrate to me that such a Universe is logically impossible. Hell I'll make it easier! Demonstrate that such a Universe is unlikely!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Is the meat if the argument, "There's order in the universe, and that is evidence of God"?
Why must order signify intelligent design? Am I missing something here?

If ordered states of affairs do not signify any intelligence whatsoever, then why do you believe that minds are associated with other peoples' bodies?

Also, if for all logically possible physical states of affairs in any logically possible Universe, the atheist stipulates there is zero evidence for a God, then atheism is empirically unfalsifiable, and this being so, there is absolutely no purpose in an atheist asking a theist to supply empirical evidence.

[PixyMisa]

Ian, "existing in a bodiless state experiencing a chain of random qualia" has no meaning in Physics. Perhaps you'd care to choose an example that is actually coherent.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If ordered states of affairs do not signify any intelligence whatsoever, then why do you believe that minds are associated with other peoples' bodies?I presume you mean, "Why do we assume that other people are conscious?" Well, because they act that way. Because they have observably the same composition as ourselves, and the outward signs of consciousness in them are affected by the same things that we observe to affect our own consciousness, viz. being hit on the head with a large hammer or taking illicit drugs.Also, if for all logically possible physical states of affairs in any logically possible Universe, the atheist stipulates there is zero evidence for a GodWho suggested that?then atheism is empirically unfalsifiable, and this being so, there is absolutely no purpose in an atheist asking a theist to supply empirical evidence. There are several problems here.

First, you blithely claim that the observed properties of our Universe are evidence for God. You don't actually care what those observed properties are; the mere fact that there are observed properties suffices.

Second, you don't actually produce any evidence for God (even ignoring the factual and logical flaws in your argument). All you manage to claim is that the existence of God is not falsifiable.

Third, you redefine the term God to suit the purposes of this argument, and define it in such a way that it is unfalsifiable. Showing that a thing defined so as to be unfalsifiable is indeed unfalsifiable is no great achievement.

If you were to define a God that actually interacted with the universe, then Atheists could demand empirical evidence.
Edited because I worked out what Ian was talking about with the minds in other peoples bodies stuff.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
How so?? You're just presupposing what you said before without producing any arguments to back up your position. Why is a Universe which doesn't exhibit regularities logically impossible. (I presume logically inconsistant is the same as logically impossible?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose on reflection that is a bit of a leap. Perhaps a better way to put this is that any universe that can be reasoned about can be described mathematically.



No, the very most you could say is that any Universe which exhibits regularities can be described mathematically.

This is a far cry from your contention that no other logically possible Universe can obtain though. :rolleyes:



But you need to understand just how deeply irregular a universe has to be before it can't be reasoned about. You are essentially asserting that there could be a universe in which there is no symmetry, for example (because that would imply a conservation law of some sort and I could start doing physics).



And what pray would be wrong with such a Universe? :rolleyes:



The more progress we make on a "theory of everything" the less likely such an irregular universe gets, because we find more and more properties an irregular universe can't have, because they follow from simple assumptions.



Well that's fine, because I'm not talking about this Universe. I'm talking about if we had sprung into being into an utterly different Universe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is an interesting question. In hurry so in short I certainly agree we don't have as much evidence for the existence of a metamind than the existence of other people (although some disagree with me here), but that certainly has no implications to supposing we have no evidence for the existence of a metamind at all! Which is my whole point ie we DO have evidence..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As near as I can tell, your evidence boils down to "we observe regularity in the universe that is not inherent or inevitable, therefore, something has arranged it so."



No, I was simply saying therefore there is evidence that something has arranged it so. I personnally believe that materialism doesn't really lend itself very well to any type of "God". Hmmmm . . .but there again it doesn't really lend itself very well to the hypothesis that other people experience mental lives does it? Just the stupidity of materialism.




The evidence is the observation of regularity. I am offering you an alternative explanation: that the regularity observed is in fact inherent and inevitable.


Well it might be.



Mine is also unproven, but I think it is a plausible inference from the trend in physical theory.



You can infer nothing regarding the hypothesis of atheism from physics. I thought I had explained this sufficiently well in my opening post :rolleyes:



Now, I know this will provoke rolled eyes or worse, but it is traditional in these arguments to invoke Ockham's razor, and far be it from me to go against tradition: my explanation does not involve inventing any additional order-creating entity.



That's fine! Now why don't you apply Occams razor to other people and thereby conclude they are devoid of any conscious experiences? Explain your inconsistancy here.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As I have said, it has nothing whatsoever to do with physics. You misunderstand the nature of physics.Hell, Ian, why do you think your threads get the responses you were complaining about? Hint: the problem is not with the other participants.

If you'd like to continue, think a little more deeply about the point I made, and lose the attitude. This will require a little more than sophomoric corner-bookshop pop philosophy. :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
Hell, Ian, why do you think your threads get the responses you were complaining about? Hint: the problem is not with the other participants.

If you'd like to continue, think a little more deeply about the point I made, and lose the attitude. This will require a little more than sophomoric corner-bookshop pop philosophy. :rolleyes:

You're talking out of your f*cking ar*e like the vast majority of people who have contributed to this thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Oh yes, and do please get rid of that awful avatar!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If ordered states of affairs do not signify any intelligence whatsoever, then why do you believe that minds are associated with other peoples' bodies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I presume you mean, "Why do we assume that other people are conscious?" Well, because they act that way. Because they have observably the same composition as ourselves, and the outward signs of consciousness in them are affected by the same things that we observe to affect our own consciousness, viz. being hit on the head with a large hammer or taking illicit drugs.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, if for all logically possible physical states of affairs in any logically possible Universe, the atheist stipulates there is zero evidence for a God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who suggested that?



Over 90% of people who have voted in this thread according to the poll (I'm not counting my own vote which constitutes 1 of the 2 votes saying I succeeded).

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're talking out of your f*cking ar*e like the vast majority of people who have contributed to this thread. Oh, what the hell, let's just call it 100%, maybe you'll get the clue then.

And what's your problem with my avatar? Oh right, you actually believe in that stuff. Here you go: it's pretend, it's just plastic or something. I am not actually a scary monster.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified


If you'd like to continue, think a little more deeply about the point I made, and lose the attitude. This will require a little more than sophomoric corner-bookshop pop philosophy. :rolleyes: [/B]

You haven't made any point. You're just talking like any dumbf*ck scientist would who has zero ability to reason regarding any philosophical issues. If you have anything pertinent to say I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it. The same goes for anyone else.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
Oh, what the hell, let's just call it 100%, maybe you'll get the clue then.



argumentum ad populum

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You haven't made any point. You're just talking like any dumbf*ck scientist would who has zero ability to reason regarding any philosophical issues. If you have anything pertinent to say I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it. The same goes for anyone else. What do you do, reply three or four times to the same post? No wonder these threads get so long.

I just have to laugh, Ian. I don't think you have any way to assess my ability to reason.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
argumentum ad populum You really are a master at missing the point, aren't you. Reread the post you quoted me from.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
What do you do, reply three or four times to the same post? No wonder these threads get so long.

I just have to laugh, Ian. I don't think you have any way to assess my ability to reason.

Well no, not apart from your irrelevant points :rolleyes:

Still waiting for you to logically demonstrate that no other conceivable Universe could have possibly existed.

A hint: Science and specifically physics can't help you here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
argumentum ad populum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really are a master at missing the point, aren't you. Reread the post you quoted me from.


if your point isn't what I thought it was then I have absolutely no idea what it could possibly be. I'm not f*cking psychic.

[asthmatic camel]

Ian old chap, have you ever considered going out to the pub for a pint or two ? I strongly suspect that it might be a beneficial project for you.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well no, not apart from your irrelevant points :rolleyes:
Maybe if you showed some sign of comprehension...Still waiting for you to logically demonstrate that no other conceivable Universe could have possibly existed.

A hint: Science and specifically physics can't help you here. Here's how this is going to go.

First, I'll ignore your hint because its false. Logical consistency imposes constraints on any possible universe, and those constraints have physical consequences.

Then, I'll write some argument based on some physical example about how consistency implies that the universe necessarily has some particular property.

After that I'll remind you that what I posted was as I freely admit only a conjecture, but as good or better as any other conjecture purporting to explain the universe's regularity.

Once you see that I'm once again using physics to make my argument, you'll ignore it, because you've already told me I'm not allowed to do that.

You'll mention your favorite universe of disembodied minds experiencing random sensory input. Everyone else will ignore this, except PixyMisa, who will write a sentence by sentence refutation of your entire post.

Then you'll skip ahead to the conclusion, see that I am still disagreeing with you, andl tell me I'm still talking out my ar*e (or some other twee English metaphor.)

You'll then reply to Pixy's entire post with a single dismissive remark.

30 GOTO 10.

Why put ourselves through that?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
if your point isn't what I thought it was then I have absolutely no idea what it could possibly be. I'm not f*cking psychic. Well, that's progress, at least. The point is this: you are talking out your "ar*e" at least as much as anyone else here.

[asthmatic camel]

Dear Interesting Ian,

I really do think you ought to get out more.

[sorgoth]

Notwithstanding this, our theories still work in the sense of accurately predicting the cause of our perceptual experiences! One almost gets the impression that the Universe is contrived in such a manner that intelligent sentient beings are just to say able to do this! After all, we can easily imagine a Universe not exhibiting any patterns, or if it did exhibit patterns those patterns not being amenable to mathematical investigation or being too abstruse for us to discern.



This is where you're wrong. No, one does NOT get that impression. The very REASON we are intelligent, sentient beings is BECAUSE we can predict what's going to happen. We evolved until we could predict what would happen (advantage), and therefore had babies. And here we are. It is no mystery.


No, we CAN'T imagine a universe having no patterns. No patterns=no sentient life. I believe sentience requires perception, and to get perception, one needs patterns. Everything is amenable to mathematical investigation. That's why we invented it. If it had different rules, we'd have a different math. That simple.

We WOULD be able to discern it, eventually, because that's how we would beat out the other animals.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Dear Interesting Ian,

I really do think you ought to get out more.

Dear asthmatic camal,

P*ss off

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sorgoth
[B]



This is where you're wrong. No, one does NOT get that impression.



Not to a daft f*cking mental retard such as yourself and other materialist perhaps. So f*cking what?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
Well, that's progress, at least. The point is this: you are talking out your "ar*e" at least as much as anyone else here.

Why the F*ck don't you and anyone else at least attempt to understand my arguments instead of spewing forth a load of irrelevant sh*t about physics??? F*cking daft tw*t.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sorgoth
[B]



This is where you're wrong. No, one does NOT get that impression. The very REASON we are intelligent, sentient beings is BECAUSE we can predict what's going to happen.



Yeah those with precognitive powers must be incredibly intelligent then :rolleyes:




We evolved until we could predict what would happen (advantage), and therefore had babies. And here we are. It is no mystery.



yeah, but what the flying f*ck this has to do with anything I have written in this thread is quiite beyond me!

Hey but don't worrry. You're in f&cking good company with the vast majority of the mental retard tw*ts who have contributed to this thread.




No, we CAN'T imagine a universe having no patterns. No patterns=no sentient life.



Oh pis* off. I'm pig sick of mateirliast atheist f*cking a*seholes. I'
ve had enough of them to last me several life times. Be dumf*cks for all your lives as far as I f*cking care. I've had enough. I'm gone.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I've had enough. I'm gone.

Ian, I'd love to hear your beliefs concerning God, Jesus, angels,etc.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why the F*ck don't you and anyone else at least attempt to understand my arguments instead of spewing forth a load of irrelevant sh*t about physics??? F*cking daft tw*t.
Hah. Is that all you got, b*tch?

Your argument consists of "oh, my, the universe is so very complicated, and I don't understand it, God must have made it that way." You can put all the makeup and lipstick on that pig you want, that's all you've got. I suppose you think you're the first to come up with that? Ian, your argument is trite and tired. Like, it's been done.

Apparently, you can't even follow this simple logic: there are two explanations, A and B, and we don't have a way to choose. Therefore, we can't conclude either one.

Apparently you don't even understand what the word "conjecture" means.

And apparently, you don't understand that yes, other fields of knowledge do have an effect on philosophy, whether you understand them or not.

News flash for smacktards: there have been important intellectual developments since the 17th century. Film at 11:00.

Sorry, you don't get to stuff fingers in your ears and pretend they don't matter.

While you're on your break, stop by the bookshop and see if they can recommend you a philosophy book that doesn't rely on colorful pictures so much.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by triadboy


Ian, I'd love to hear your beliefs concerning God, Jesus, angels,etc.

That would belong to a new thread rather than this one. Not that you'll find me very forthcoming. In this thread I'm purely interested in whether it is plausible to suggest thast there is no evidence whatsoever for a metamind of some description.

I'll take up this topic again tomorrow so as to give people time to cool off a bit.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by PixyMisa

Pixy,

Thank you for your worthless contribution. I have explained my position, and if you do not understand it I can't help that. I see little purpose in repeating myself though.

Hey, whoa, chief. Pixy was NOT making a worthless contribution. Her contribution may contradict your views, Ian, but I believe she brought up some valid points, (such as pointing out some of the same fallacies that I've fallen prey to), points which dovetail with what EvilDave has mentioned. (The paradox of the definition of God, for example.)

I don't agree with everyone here, but with a rare exception or two, people have been quite civil on this thread. I've enjoyed reading what others have had to say, particularly those who are, by definition, avowed atheists. (For the record, yes, I am a Christian. Long, long, long story, and no, I won't go into it here. It's not appropriate.) If I can get a grasp of why others choose to not believe, I am forced to review everything I think I believe and try to define why I choose to accept God. It's not always possible for me to adequately define why I believe there's a God, and it's long been obvious that the proofs I accept will not satisfy others. (It's forced me to review why I choose to accept them, by the way, and that's been something of a revelation in and of itself.)

Am I better off having read what others have discussed? Of course. As I have maintained from the beginning, I'm here more as a student than anything else. Pixy has brought up points I have possibly been avoiding. (Okay, probably!) But the one thing I've been coming to realize is that a Christian, by definition(!), is supposed to be a skeptic. I am required by what I state to be so to challenge it, and to challenge myself in what it is I claim to believe. Failing to do so, I, in fact, fail in faith.

Just my two cents worth, and it's probably not even worth that. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
[B]

Hey, whoa, chief. Pixy was NOT making a worthless contribution.



Pixy is a guy. And I disagree.

[Roadtoad]

My apologies, to you and Pixy. And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

[Loki]

Ian,

...but that the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God.
Which characteristics would these be?

If I'm trying to determine if "something" is conscious, I start by looking at my own internal thoughts, and how they project into the "world outside" that I perceive, and then I look for similar "world outside" behaviours, and (tentatively) assignment a presumption of consciousness when I find them.

If I understand your point, you believe you can apply the same principle to the universe, and see 'behaviour/characteristics" that you would associate with consciousness. Well, which ones? Is it "weather patterns"? Is it "movement of spiral galaxies"? Is it "light particle/wave duality"? Just a few examples would help.

You seem to be saying that "order/patterns" is a primary characteristic that indicates "consciousness". "The universe is ordered, therefore this suggests it's conscious (or the creation of a conscious entity)". This seems to suggest a number of propositions :

1. "Consciousness requires 'order' (it cannot exist without it)".
2. "Order leads to consciousness".

Unless you quantify these, how can you seek to equate the "existence of order" with "the existence of god"?

But this need not imply at all that we are hapless puppets dancing to the tune of the physical laws of nature. To suppose this you are thinking of physical laws as somehow necessitating change in the world, where as it is more appropriate to think of physical laws as simply describing change in this world. But once we have adopted this latter view then the physical laws of nature do not compel our behaviour, rather they describe our freely chosen actions! Of course this interpretation of free will, referred to as compatibilism represents a somewhat impoverished interpretation of free will compared to the libertarian interpretation. Nevertheless, in an appropriate sense, it would still be true to say that we have free will!
Nice summary.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified

Hah. Is that all you got, b*tch?

Your argument consists of "oh, my, the universe is so very complicated, and I don't understand it, God must have made it that way." You can put all the makeup and lipstick on that pig you want, that's all you've got. I suppose you think you're the first to come up with that? Ian, your argument is trite and tired. Like, it's been done.

Apparently, you can't even follow this simple logic: there are two explanations, A and B, and we don't have a way to choose. Therefore, we can't conclude either one.

Apparently you don't even understand what the word "conjecture" means.

And apparently, you don't understand that yes, other fields of knowledge do have an effect on philosophy, whether you understand them or not.

News flash for smacktards: there have been important intellectual developments since the 17th century. Film at 11:00.

Sorry, you don't get to stuff fingers in your ears and pretend they don't matter.

While you're on your break, stop by the bookshop and see if they can recommend you a philosophy book that doesn't rely on colorful pictures so much.

Yes yes, ok zombified. I agree I got angry and if I annoyed you or hurt your feelings I regret doing this. But should we forget our quarrel and at least try to be civil to each other?

BTW, I was just wondering what you think of the brain in a vat scenario? Let's suppose that your brain was taken out of your body and it was then installed in a vat of life-supporting liquid. Let's suppose further that your brain was then wired up to an incredibly immensely powerful super-computer. Imagine further that it is able to stimulate your brain in just the same way it would be stimulated if the brain was still inhabiting a body. Thus it might seem that everything is perfectly normal and that you still appear to be in a body experiencing the world. But in fact what you're experiencing is in fact what has been termed a "virtual reality". Would there be anyway to distinguish this virtaul reality from the real world?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Let's suppose further that your brain was then wired up to an incredibly immensely powerful super-computer. Imagine further that it is able to stimulate your brain in just the same way it would be stimulated if the brain was still inhabiting a body. Thus it might seem that everything is perfectly normal and that you still appear to be in a body experiencing the world. But in fact what you're experiencing is in fact what has been termed a "virtual reality".

Isn't that The Matrix?

[asthmatic camel]

"Dear asthmatic camal,

P*ss off"

Ahh, the joy of reasoned debate and intellectual discussion gladdens my tiny mind.

[DrMatt]

I couldn't get very far reading the "evidence" post because my fallacy meter was pinned at the top of the scale after about 4 sentences.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DrMatt
I couldn't get very far reading the "evidence" post because my fallacy meter was pinned at the top of the scale after about 4 sentences.

And yet I have no doubt you're quite unable to name any of these alleged fallacies :rolleyes:

[asthmatic camel]

Dear Mr. Interesting Ian,

Without wishing to appear arrogant, pompous or sycophantic, may I respectfully request your permission to become your personal trainer?

Seldom does one have the privilege to witness such profound philosophical statements packaged in such an attractive parcel of verbosity. The opportunities to instruct one such as yourself in the intricacies of "getting a life" are few and far between; to be the one who pulls it off would be a dream beyond dreams.

Kindly contact my publicist Max Clifford for further details

[Loki]

Ian,

I'll try again...

From your opening post :
...it might be a good idea to provisionally suppose that the nature of any evidence for God's mind may be of a similar nature to the evidence for our minds.
...
I would simply suggest the obvious answer here. Namely we infer other peoples’ minds by noting that other peoples’ behaviour is very similar to my own.
...
What I have just done is to demonstrate that ... the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God

In summary :

1. Evidence for the existence of a 'metamind/god' is assumed to be similar in nature to evidence for the existence of other human consciousnesses.
2. Evidence for the existence of other human consciousnesses is the observation of "very similar behaviour".
3. The universe provides evidence of the existence of the metamind/god'.

Okay, given your premises and conclusion, what are the "characteristics" of the the universe that I can observe that can be described as "very similar behaviour" to conscious humans?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,

I'll try again...

From your opening post :


In summary :

1. Evidence for the existence of a 'metamind/god' is assumed to be similar in nature to evidence for the existence of other human consciousnesses.
2. Evidence for the existence of other human consciousnesses is the observation of "very similar behaviour".
3. The universe provides evidence of the existence of the metamind/god'.

Okay, given your premises and conclusion, what are the "characteristics" of the the universe that I can observe that can be described as "very similar behaviour" to conscious humans?


None. I do not believe that the behaviour of the Universe is at all similar to the behaviour of human beings.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
My apologies, to you and Pixy. And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

Well, it might be useful then for you to specifically point out those contributions by Pixy you think are of particular merit, and I shall address them.

I didn't want to address everything he said because his contributions have absolutely no merit and I was more concerned with addressing thoughtful responses to my opening post. Not that I've received any :(

[PixyMisa]

Ian, you have received thoughtful and well-reasoned responses from any number of posters here on this forum. You have simply chosen to ignore or insult everyone who disagrees with your position.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki

Which characteristics would these be?



The fact that the world can be described using physical laws written in the language of mathematics of a particularly elegant sort.



If I'm trying to determine if "something" is conscious, I start by looking at my own internal thoughts, and how they project into the "world outside" that I perceive, and then I look for similar "world outside" behaviours, and (tentatively) assignment a presumption of consciousness when I find them.



Same here.



If I understand your point, you believe you can apply the same principle to the universe, and see 'behaviour/characteristics" that you would associate with consciousness.



No not really.





You seem to be saying that "order/patterns" is a primary characteristic that indicates "consciousness".



No, order and patterns nevertheless would be a pre-requisite of consciousness. Remember that our behavior exhibits patterns and order. My limbs do not flail around randomly! In as much as the Universe could have exhibited less patterns and order, and less overall cohesiveness as it in fact does, this would give some evidence of a controlling intelligence ie the hypothesis of a metamind or controlling intelligence must be deemed to be more likely than if the Universe exhibted less patterns and regularity. Otherwise, no matter what the characteristics of the Universe might have been, one would still declare there is absolutely zero evidence for a metamind! I submit that that position would be absurd. And certainly it would render meaningless for the atheist to request the theist to point to empirical evidence! (for a non god of the gaps concept of God).



Unless you quantify these, how can you seek to equate the "existence of order" with "the existence of god"?


I don't. If I were a materialist I wouldn't believe in God.

[Interesting Ian]

Come on Zombified. let me know what you think about the brain in a vat scenario. It is relevant to the topic of this thread.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You're an idiot who doesn't understand the most elementary philosophy. Don't waste my time.

Hi, Ian.

I'm one of the philosophy tutors at the University of Queensland, in Australia.

Pixy nailed you. She displayed an understanding of elementary philosophy.

Your initial posting, on the other hand, displayed your incompetence in the very things we try to teach first year students.

Heck, we were discussing the (fatal) problems with Cartesian dualism in class just two weeks ago.

Yes, this is an argument from authority. So it's not logically watertight, just strong evidence.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, order and patterns nevertheless would be a pre-requisite of consciousness.Yes.Remember that our behavior exhibits patterns and order.Yes.My limbs do not flail around randomly!If you say so.In as much as the Universe could have exhibited less patterns and orderWhich you have not shown, or even shown to be self-consistent logically.and less overall cohesiveness as it in fact doesAs above.this would give some evidence of a controlling intelligence ie the hypothesis of a metamind or controlling intelligence must be deemed to be more likely than if the Universe exhibted less patterns and regularity.Why? You have made this assertion, but failed to show any logical connection between your earlier assertions and this one.Otherwise, no matter what the characteristics of the Universe might have been, one would still declare there is absolutely zero evidence for a metamind!No.

Ian, I think you may have your head on backward.

You are claiming that the mechanical regularity of the universe, its mathematical simplicity (though anyone who has studied multivariable calculus would take you to task for that), the total lack of any empirical evidence for any sort of giant invisible brain in the sky is in fact evidence for the exact same thing.

Wug?
I submit that that position would be absurd.Well, yes, but not for the reason you think.And certainly it would render meaningless for the atheist to request the theist to point to empirical evidence!Remember what I told you about those false premises?(for a non god of the gaps concept of God).All Gods are gods of the gaps. Otherwise they wouldn't be Gods.I don't. If I were a materialist I wouldn't believe in God. Does that mean that you reject your own argument that materialism itself provides evidence for the existence of God?

Look, Ian, this is evidence for God:

We wake up one morning, and discover the moon has disappeared, and has been replaced by a huge hand-lettered sign in Aramaic that reads "Sorry, had to borrow the moon for a bit. Back soon, Yrs, God".
And, despite being in Aramaic, everyone on Earth is able to read it.
And the tides continue as scheduled.
But communications satellites are all over the place.
But you can still pick up all 500 channels even though the dish is pointing at nothing closer than the Small Magellanic Cloud.
And the commercials are all in Aramaic. Except the ones for beer, which are in Hebrew.
And all the "reality" programs have been canned and replaced with Rocky and Bullwinkle. New episodes of Rocky and Bullwinkle.

What you are presenting is evidence for not God.

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
Nor do we have any scientific evidence that other people are conscious. Now people might find this a very surprising assertion. Yes, since we can detect consciousness in others.

This would then include neurons firing in a living brain, but would not include mental states such as emotions. Incorrect about emotions. If it were possible to detect and understand everything then emotion would be included.

The rest of you post uses the above assertions as a foundation. Your foundation is incorrect, everything built upon the foundation is also unstable.

The science of consciousness is a fascinating field. I would recommend you start your research there instead of stating some wild hypothesis and running with it.

Ossai

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
[B]

Hi, Ian.

I'm one of the philosophy tutors at the University of Queensland, in Australia.



Well gosh! Hope you're a damn sight better than the philosophy tutors I've ever encountered. From your post here it would appear not :rolleyes:



Pixy nailed you. She displayed an understanding of elementary philosophy.



I think not. But instead of talking through your ar*e provide some details. BTW Pixy is a male.


Your initial posting, on the other hand, displayed your incompetence in the very things we try to teach first year students.



If this is indeed your opinion then I suggest you pass the message on to your students that they would be well advised not to take any notice of a philosophical incompetent such as yourself.



Heck, we were discussing the (fatal) problems with Cartesian dualism in class just two weeks ago.



There are no fatal problems with cartesian dualism. Not that this is at all relevant since no-one has been discussing any form of dualism. It seems that you have not bothered to either read or understand my opening post. So much then for your claim that my philosophical reasoning is incompetent :rolleyes:

You are of course aware that I am not in fact a dualist of any flavour? I thought not. Take a look at my title dipstick.

PS Actually there was one philosophy lecturer I have met whom I was very impressed with and who I regarded as being extremely intelligent. He was a professor of philosophy though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this would give some evidence of a controlling intelligence ie the hypothesis of a metamind or controlling intelligence must be deemed to be more likely than if the Universe exhibted less patterns and regularity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? You have made this assertion, but failed to show any logical connection between your earlier assertions and this one.



Let's suppose we are considering whether a putative existent X is actually instantiated in reality. Now X by definintion could not exist without "a", "b" and "c" being in the world.

Now imagine 2 Universes, both of which we have insufficient data to determine whather "b" and "c" are in the world. However in one Universe we know that "a" is in the world, where as in the other Universe there is insufficient data to determine whether "a" is there or not, exactly the same as for "b" and "c" in other words.

Now would you agree that in the former Universe there is more evidence for X than in the latter?






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Gods are gods of the gaps. Otherwise they wouldn't be Gods.


Nope, not my God I'm afraid. I find the concept of a "God of the gaps" to be ridiculous. Now if you're saying my concept of God is incoherent, then demonstrate this!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't. If I were a materialist I wouldn't believe in God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that mean that you reject your own argument that materialism itself provides evidence for the existence of God?




No, you forget that simply because there is evidence for something, this certainly need not make that something probable. For example, in the absence of any evidence we might judge there is a 1% of a chance that some phenomenon is real. But with certain appropriate evidence we might judge the chance of the phenomenon being real to rise to 2%. Note though that the probability of the phenomenon being real is still very unlikely, even though there is evidence for it.



Look, Ian, this is evidence for God:

We wake up one morning, and discover the moon has disappeared, and has been replaced by a huge hand-lettered sign in Aramaic that reads "Sorry, had to borrow the moon for a bit. Back soon, Yrs, God".



This is the absurd "god of the gaps" concept of God which I emphatically reject. All activity in the world apart from that initiated by sentient beings is a manifestation of God's will. Having a god of the gaps would either be God interfering with himself, or not acting in a uniform consistent way.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's suppose we are considering whether a putative existent X is actually instantiated in reality. Now X by definintion could not exist without "a", "b" and "c" being in the world.

Now imagine 2 Universes, both of which we have insufficient data to determine whather "b" and "c" are in the world. However in one Universe we know that "a" is in the world, where as in the other Universe there is insufficient data to determine whether "a" is there or not, exactly the same as for "b" and "c" in other words.

Now would you agree that in the former Universe there is more evidence for X than in the latter?Yes.

But that's irrelevant.

Your overmind does not exist within the universe, so this argument simply does not apply. You cannot use the existence of the laws of physics to support the existence of something which lies outside the laws of physics. There is no possible connection between the two.Nope, not my God I'm afraid. I find the concept of a "God of the gaps" to be ridiculous. Now if you're saying my concept of God is incoherent, then demonstrate this!See above and below.No, you forget that simply because there is evidence for something, this certainly need not make that something probable.Um, no, I didn't forget that.For example, in the absence of any evidence we might judge there is a 1% of a chance that some phenomenon is real. But with certain appropriate evidence we might judge the chance of the phenomenon being real to rise to 2%. Note though that the probability of the phenomenon being real is still very unlikely, even though there is evidence for it.Can you provide a concrete example of this sort of probabilistic reality outside of parapsychology? (And no, quantum mechanics doesn't work like that.)This is the absurd "god of the gaps" concept of God which I emphatically reject. All activity in the world apart from that initiated by sentient beings is a manifestation of God's will.That's a God of the Gaps. You have specified something which is not God. What is that if not a Gap?Having a god of the gaps would either be God interfering with himself, or not acting in a uniform consistent way. Yep. So?

You're still claiming absence of evidence as evidence for existence, which is just plain weird.

[hgc]

Interesting Ian:

For example, in the absence of any evidence we might judge there is a 1% of a chance that some phenomenon is real.
No, I wouldn't. I would not assign any probability. Why would you assign an arbitrary probability to something for which there is no evidence?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hgc

No, I wouldn't. I would not assign any probability. Why would you assign an arbitrary probability to something for which there is no evidence?

I've already discussed this with you about 2 weeks ago! :mad:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18470&highlight=probability

[hgc]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I've already discussed this with you about 2 weeks ago! :mad:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18470&highlight=probability
Yes, I remember, with much consternation. Will you give a coherent answer this time?

Why would I or anyone sensible person assign ANY probability to something for which there is NO evidence?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ex-latin


Hi Dr.:

So, you think that God crated the universe?

So, why you are an atheist?

For me, the laws of physics (TLOP) could be god. God is what we can't yet explain about the creation of the universe. God could even be chance. God can be defined to exist. However, all such definitions lack utility. I.e. they serve no useful purpose, and don't tell me anything I wouldn't otherwise know.

As to why I am an atheist... I have never believed in the existence of a god (as usually defined by most "believers"), and don't now.

I know these two views seem at odds. I explain this by saying that I am trying to find a common ground - with theists - to explain observed phenomena.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ossai
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor do we have any scientific evidence that other people are conscious. Now people might find this a very surprising assertion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, since we can detect consciousness in others.



Only if you make the arbitrary stipulation that consciousness is identical to, or is a function of brain processes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This would then include neurons firing in a living brain, but would not include mental states such as emotions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect about emotions. If it were possible to detect and understand everything then emotion would be included.



Well yes, but what have I said which is incorrect about emotions?



The rest of you post uses the above assertions as a foundation. Your foundation is incorrect, everything built upon the foundation is also unstable.

The science of consciousness is a fascinating field. I would recommend you start your research there instead of stating some wild hypothesis and running with it.



My post explained why it is in principle impossible to scientifically explain consciousness.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hgc

Yes, I remember, with much consternation. Will you give a coherent answer this time?

Why would I or anyone sensible person assign ANY probability to something for which there is NO evidence?

My previous responses were fine. I do not intend for this debate to go off on a tangent. You atheists/materialists do not escape that easily.

If you wish I will simply reformulate my original assertion. Thus:

If the evidence suggests that there is a 1% of a chance that some phenomenon is real, but then certain further appropriate evidence comes to light, we might judge the chance of the phenomenon being real to rise to say 2%. Note though that the probability of the phenomenon being real is still very unlikely, even though there is evidence for it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Your post comes down to a lot of question begging and non sequiturs.

At least three of your premises are question begging.

You dismiss identity theory/functionalism out of hand. That means youa re positing a premise without proving it, just assuming it.


You state that even though free will may be superfluous we should still accept it. Your evidence? None.

Your proof that the universe is not necessarily the way it is, that it *could* have turned out differently. Again you back that up with mere circular reasoning.

Lastky your model of psychology is that of outdated radical behaviorism. Hardly proof of consciousness being scientific. Look at modern cognitive scientists like Steven Pinker.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


My previous responses were fine. I do not intend for this debate to go off on a tangent. You atheists/materialists do not escape that easily.

If you wish I will simply reformulate my original assertion. Thus:

If the evidence suggests that there is a 1% of a chance that some phenomenon is real, but then certain further appropriate evidence comes to light, we might judge the chance of the phenomenon being real to rise to say 2%. Note though that the probability of the phenomenon being real is still very unlikely, even though there is evidence for it.
If by "fine" you mean NOT addressing the issues of the debate, then I agree.

How is this question a tangent when it addresses part of your very own premise? But that little rhetorical gem is nothing next to your reformulation, which changes from no evidence to evidence. Have you no shame?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hgc

If by "fine" you mean NOT addressing the issues of the debate, then I agree.

How is this question a tangent when it addresses part of your very own premise? But that little rhetorical gem is nothing next to your reformulation, which changes from no evidence to evidence. Have you no shame?

Jesus! Does no-one understand anything here???

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Come on Zombified. let me know what you think about the brain in a vat scenario. It is relevant to the topic of this thread. Sounds delicious.

I'm sorry I could not respond sooner; I do not spend all my time on these forums, and had guests in the afternoon (west coast US time).

If the simulation is sufficiently accurate, which is to say any experiment done in the Matrix gets the same result as it would in the 'real' world, there would be no way to distinguish 'real' from 'simulated,' though you would need an incredibly powerful computer to fool sufficiently clever brains for long. If you want the simulated world to be logically consistent, it will have to conform to the same constraints that logical consistency imposes on the 'real' world.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Jesus! Does no-one understand anything here???
Interesting Ian Translation Service

Todays translation: Jesus! Why does everyone insist on debating within logically consistent constraints???

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
Sounds delicious.

I'm sorry I could not respond sooner; I do not spend all my time on these forums, and had guests in the afternoon (west coast US time).

If the simulation is sufficiently accurate, which is to say any experiment done in the Matrix gets the same result as it would in the 'real' world, there would be no way to distinguish 'real' from 'simulated,' though you would need an incredibly powerful computer to fool sufficiently clever brains for long. If you want the simulated world to be logically consistent, it will have to conform to the same constraints that logical consistency imposes on the 'real' world.

Ah! . . .ok. So this "Matrix" virtually world would need to have exactly the same physical laws as the real world? Indeed it would be logically impossible to have a "matrix" which differed at all from the real world? Thus for example we couldn't have anyone who could have superhuman powers within the "Matrix" etc?

[Zombified]

On the contrary. You can put whatever experience you want to into the computer system. However, some programming would not be logically consistent. Matrix people stopping bullets or flying around would violate conservation of momentum, for example, among other things.

It depends on what your goals are. Are you trying for precise verisimilitude that fools people, or a world with "different rules"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
On the contrary. You can put whatever experience you want to into the computer system. However, some programming would not be logically consistent. Matrix people stopping bullets or flying around would violate conservation of momentum, for example, among other things.

It depends on what your goals are. Are you trying for precise verisimilitude that fools people, or a world with "different rules"?

Hey, I like the bit where Neo stops the bullets! (you've seen my sock puppets avatar!) Surely it would be possible to program the Matrix such that this sort of thing would be possible?

Yeah, let's not make the Matrix exactly the same. Just make it very nearly the same so that in certain exceptional cases, with certain exceptional states of mind, one could stop bullets. On the other hand the vast majority of people "inhabiting" the same virtual reality (Matrix) would never be able to place themselves in such a state of mind, and therefore wouldn't be able to do this and they would think the Matrix reality is in every way identical to the real world.

[Interesting Ian]

Zombified,

I wonder further if it is logically possible that all of us have actually been hooked up to a shared virtual reality for the entirety of our lives? Maybe an advanced alien civilization has placed all our brains into vats with all our brains wired up to incredibly immensely powerful super-computers.

Thus everything we have ever perceptually experienced will have been this virtual reality. Thus we will never have actually experienced a "real" world.

Now do you think this is logically possible?

[Gregor]

The poll responses are not adequate. You need another option:

"Not only has the argument not provided a single evidence for God's [read superconsciousness] existence, it has false premises for applied-physics, theoretical-physics, and psychology, it has far too many red herrings, and many fatal, logical flaws."

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Zombified,

I wonder further if it is logically possible that all of us have actually been hooked up to a shared virtual reality for the entirety of our lives? Maybe an advanced alien civilization has placed all our brains into vats with all our brains wired up to incredibly immensely powerful super-computers.

Thus everything we have ever perceptually experienced will have been this virtual reality. Thus we will never have actually experienced a "real" world.

Now do you think this is logically possible?
Anything is logically possible depending on what you accept as your premises. In your above example, one has to accept the premises that there are aliens and that they have an advanced civilization and that brains can function separate from the rest of the body and that they can interface with computers etc.

Those are a whole lot of premises to accept, but if one does accept them all, then sure, it's logical. Personally, I'd like to see some evidence for some of them before I accept them.

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
Only if you make the arbitrary stipulation that consciousness is identical to, or is a function of brain processes. Argument from Ignorance.
Consciousness is a function of the brain, proven multiple time.

Well yes, but what have I said which is incorrect about emotions? You said that emotions were outside of detection abilities. Another argument from ignorance.

My post explained why it is in principle impossible to scientifically explain consciousness. Your post is noting more than ignorant ramblings of someone who possess some information but does not understand and refuses to actually study the subject in order to gain true understanding.

If the evidence suggests that there is a 1% of a chance that some phenomenon is real, but then certain further appropriate evidence comes to light, we might judge the chance of the phenomenon being real to rise to say 2%. Note though that the probability of the phenomenon being real is still very unlikely, even though there is evidence for it. Your 1% is an arbitrary designation with no validity. How could evidence suggest only 1%? I believe you don't understand the rules of evidence.

Ossai

[Interesting Ian]

Ossai and all other materialists/"Skeptics",

I attempted to read a book on informal logical fallacies a number of years ago. I soon realised that I personnelly never ever commit any of these logical fallacies. It is therefore quite remarkable that materialists/Skeptics should continually accuse me of doing so, especially the strawman accusation.

Funnily enough, the book missed the most obvious and prevalent logical fallacy of all; namely people continually accusing others of committing informal logical fallacies when they in fact do no such thing!

Now could I ask you a favour? Please read my opening post. This time at least try to understand. If you truly cannot understand it, then please do not waste my time with your inane comments. The same goes to the majority of people who have responded to me.

Could I also ask you and other skeptics to try and understand what an informal logical fallacy is. It is not something you simply trot out when you disagree with someone and cannot think of any other suitable rejoinder!

Tricky,

If anything is logically possible then fine. However Zombified does not agree with this, indeed on the contrary, he thinks ours is the only logically possible Universe, therefore I will continue to pursue my particular line of questioning to him.

[Gregor]

"Ignore function" for the hopelessly egocentrical and too obtuse to realize it activated in . . .

three
two
one

-activated

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well gosh! Hope you're a damn sight better than the philosophy tutors I've ever encountered. From your post here it would appear not :rolleyes:

I'll just ignore the ad hominems and the question begging for a second. Okay?

I'll try to keep this simple and polite.

To discredit an argument, you can do one of a number of things. You can try to show that one of the premises is false - if you can do so, the conclusion is no longer supported. Or you can try to show that there is an unstated, implicit premise in play and that it is false, with the same result. Or you can try to show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Same result again. Do we agree on that much?

The first place your argument is open to attack is your early paragraph about "how do we know other people have minds?". The answer is pretty simple. Minds are things that arise from meaty brain-type things. We know this from everyday experience, and there is no instance of a mind which is not a meaty brain-type thing. So any argument that even assumes the mere possibility of non-meaty minds (as you do) is based on wild supposition rather than logic.

You might as well postulate an immaterial Ferrari as an immaterial mind.

This is not unsupported faith, because we have a wealth of experience of meat minds. Unsupported faith is entertaining the idea there might be non-meat minds.

Your talk of a universal metamind is as silly as talk of the universe being a gigantic Ferrari. Or a giant turnip, or a giant any-other-physical-object.

(This is half of why your appeal to naive dualism, when you talk about the "possibility" of minds without bodies, is silly. Such a thing is only "logically possible" in that it isn't immediately self-contradictory. But it falls into incoherence as soon as you try to explain what you mean by a mind without a body, since we have no experience of such things).

Secondly, your discussion of other, "logically possible" universes is simply vacuous. We have no experience of such things, so we can make no claims that have any meaning about them.

Yes, it may seem to you that things could have been different. It doesn't prove anything. All sorts of things are conceivable but not possible. There is simply nothing to say about the likelihood of other universes existing or having any particular characteristics.

So your argument collapses, completely, in two separate places. Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence that minds take any form other than meaty brains. So arguing that it's possible the universe could be a mind is as sensible as arguing that the universe could be a giant kidney. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that other universes exist or that we can make any meaningful claims about the properties other universes might or might not have. So arguing that the universe is more orderly than it could have been is empty, because no one can say what else, if anything else, the universe could have been.

I hope that's clear.

I imagine you'll just swear and complain that the people, like me, who think about these things for a living are all morons who can't appreciate your greatness. But in the end it's up to you.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I attempted to read a book on informal logical fallacies a number of years ago. I soon realised that I personnelly never ever commit any of these logical fallacies. Damn! I wish I had read this before I wasted my time trying to understand that which, in fact, makes no sense. :mad:

It would make a good sig, though.

[Gregor]

Buy that man a Fosters.
Hurrah, Mr. Lowe. Your post is the epitome of a concise, yet complete, evisceration.

[Interesting Ian]

Dear Kevin_Lowe,

Having just read your above post I honestly thought you must be pulling my pis*er with your claim of being a philosophy tutor. But I've just checked your details so maybe you really are telling the truth. :eek:

It is an absolute unmitigated scandal that you are a philosophy tutor. I am utterly appalled. Your mind -numbing stupidity beggars belief!

Just thought I'd say that. I shall address your post later on when I have more time ( I want to address Pixy's first).

PS I make no claims that I am outstandingly good at philosophy. Quite frankly I don't think I am. I do however consider that I am capable of basic elementary philosophical reasoning unlike your good self and the vast majority of the cretinous morons who contribute to this board.

This guy pm'd me yesterday and suggested if I get sick of talking to concrete blocks that I should visit this certain forum dedicated to philosophy where he could guarantee I would get some sensible replies.

I might well just do that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Dear Kevin_Lowe,
It is an absolute unmitigated scandal that you are a philosophy tutor. I am utterly appalled. Your mind -numbing stupidity beggars belief!
Gosh, Ian. When you read that book on logical fallacies (which you never commit), was it missing the chapter on ad hominem (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm)?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Gosh, Ian. When you read that book on logical fallacies (which you never commit), was it missing the chapter on ad hominem (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm)?

Oh yes, I have unjustly been accused of committing an informal logic fallacy yet again, by both you and Kevin Lowe. This all since about 30 mins ago when I stated that Skeptics/materialists continually do this!

{flings arms up in despair}

Try to understand what an ad hominem means. The same goes for you Mr Lowe.

I'll give you a clue.

It doesn't mean a careful measured appraisal of a persons intellect and intelligence.

It doesn't even mean to insult people!

{sighs}

I give up. :(

[Gregor]

bye

[DrMatt]

And yet I have no doubt you're quite unable to name any of these alleged fallacies


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There seems to be this universal misconception amongst atheists that there is no evidence for a God.

First you have to tell us which god you have in mind, then present the evidence. Straw Man Argument.




I intend in this post to refute this notion. To make it real simple, throughout this post I'm going to assume a materialist perspective, or at least a materialist based perspective (i.e. physical reality is primary, and minds or consciousnesses are somehow derived from this primary physical reality).



We'll see whether you do that. Already you've introduced the term "conciousness" without any clarification, so you can equivocate on it endlessly.




We can just use the minimal definition of "God" as a mind or consciousness, albeit a mind very large or unlimited in scope.



Now you've compounded your vagueness about "conciousness" and "mind" by trying to define a god into existence and adding in terms that are inherently self-contradictory ("unlimited in scope").

Equivocation, circular definition, unbounded existential quantifiers aka Russel's Paradox.



Now one might argue that given that God is a mind or consciousness,



Assuming what you're setting out to prove, when you haven't established in any meaningful way the referent for the word "God" as you use it, much less that this God IS anything at all. Circulo in demonstratio.



it might be a good idea to provisionally suppose that the nature of any evidence for God's mind may be of a similar nature to the evidence for our minds.



Before you can even get there, you have to clarify the very contentious term "mind" as well as the very contentious world of "evidence for our minds". Equivocation.

Really, this theoretical preamble has already pegged my fallacy meter. :rolleyes:

Tell us which god you have in mind, tell us what properties this god has that are supposed to be god-like,and show us exactly where we meet this god. Don't innundate us with vague theory and imagery. Show us the evidence. Show us something as clear as the evidence that stars and the sun belong in a category together.

We're already familiar with the notion that the word "god" refers to something anthropomorphic. I forced myself to skim the rest of your "refutation" and it reads like a wide-eyed version of the Gaia Hypothesis ("The whole earth is one organism and we are its organs"), which is an untestable, non-real-world bit of poetics.

[PixyMisa]

No, Ian. Argumentum ad hominem means to attack the arguer rather than the argument. For example, if, rather than pointing out flaws in a post, one were to say something likeHaving just read your above post I honestly thought you must be pulling my pis*er with your claim of being a philosophy tutor. But I've just checked your details so maybe you really are telling the truth.

It is an absolute unmitigated scandal that you are a philosophy tutor. I am utterly appalled. Your mind-numbing stupidity beggars belief!That would be an argumentum ad hominem and so a logical fallacy.

Just wanted to clear that up for you.

[PixyMisa]

And if you claim that the quoted text is not an argumentum ad hominem, the only alternative explanation is that you have decided to give up any semblance of rational debate and simply abuse people instead.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It doesn't mean a careful measured appraisal of a persons intellect and intelligence.

It doesn't even mean to insult people!

So I say that my careful measured appraisal of your intellect and intelligence reveals that you have the most incorrect forum name ever conceived, then that is not an ad hominem?

Or is it only an ad hominem if you disagree with the careful and measured appraisal?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{sighs}

I give up. :(
{sigh} If only that were true.:D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Dear Kevin_Lowe,


PS I make no claims that I am outstandingly good at philosophy. Quite frankly I don't think I am. I do however consider that I am capable of basic elementary philosophical reasoning unlike your good self and the vast majority of the cretinous morons who contribute to this board.

This guy pm'd me yesterday and suggested if I get sick of talking to concrete blocks that I should visit this certain forum dedicated to philosophy where he could guarantee I would get some sensible replies.

I might well just do that.

Your definition of 'cretinous moron' and 'concrete block' seems to be 'Anyone who doesn't agree with what I say'

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Let's suppose we are considering whether a putative existent X is actually instantiated in reality. Now X by definintion could not exist without "a", "b" and "c" being in the world.

Now imagine 2 Universes, both of which we have insufficient data to determine whather "b" and "c" are in the world. However in one Universe we know that "a" is in the world, where as in the other Universe there is insufficient data to determine whether "a" is there or not, exactly the same as for "b" and "c" in other words.

Now would you agree that in the former Universe there is more evidence for X than in the latter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

But that's irrelevant.



{sighs}



Your overmind does not exist within the universe, so this argument simply does not apply. You cannot use the existence of the laws of physics to support the existence of something which lies outside the laws of physics. There is no possible connection between the two.



Hey! I'm inclined to agree with you! :eek: But if you assert that physical laws give no evidence whatsoever for a metamind, you must surely also conclude that physical laws give no evidence for any other minds either!

After all, the materialist holds that the physical world is closed, therefore peoples' behavior is wholly a consequence of the physical laws of nature. Now if peoples behaviour can be wholly accounted for by physical laws, why should we assume there is any minds associated with other peoples bodies?? If a rock falls off a cliff, do we attribute a mind to it? It seems to me that even if anyone were able to render materialism as being intelligible, they would have solipsistic conclusions.

Anyway, you can therefore argue there is no evidence for a God, but only at the expense of concluding that there isn't any evidence for the existence of any other minds either.

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
Now could I ask you a favour? Please read my opening post. This time at least try to understand. I have and I do. It still remains a house of cards built upon a foundation of sand. It looks good from a distance but it ultimately cannot support even itself.

It begs the question, contains false dilemmas and is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Anyway, you can therefore argue there is no evidence for a God, but only at the expense of concluding that there isn't any evidence for the existence of any other minds either.
It has been pointed out to you that there does indeed exist vast amounts of evidence for other minds. Evidence of the meat machine (brain) being the mind and an injury or other purely physical cause can change/interupt/damage the brain and the mind of the person.

Ossai

Edited because post came in as I was posting.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hey! I'm inclined to agree with you! :eek: But if you assert that physical laws give no evidence whatsoever for a metamind, you must surely also conclude that physical laws give no evidence for any other minds either!Not in the slightest. If the overmind exists outside the universe, there is nothing we can deduce from the laws of physics to say anything about it. The laws of physics are, after all, the rules that the Universe observes.

Normal minds that exist within the universe are just as clearly entirely subject to the laws of physics and deductions based on the laws of physics.After all, the materialist holds that the physical world is closed, therefore peoples' behavior is wholly a consequence of the physical laws of nature.Yes.Now if peoples behaviour can be wholly accounted for by physical laws, why should we assume there is any minds associated with other peoples bodies??Because all evidence shows this to be true.If a rock falls off a cliff, do we attribute a mind to it?No, because it possesses none of the attributes we expect of a mind.It seems to me that even if anyone were able to render materialism as being intelligible, they would have solipsistic conclusions.Why? Materialism says that the universe exists. That's all it says. The single principle of materialism is a refutation of solipsism.Anyway, you can therefore argue there is no evidence for a God, but only at the expense of concluding that there isn't any evidence for the existence of any other minds either.Uh huh. Well, thank you for playing anyway.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh yes, I have unjustly been accused of committing an informal logic fallacy yet again, by both you and Kevin Lowe. This all since about 30 mins ago when I stated that Skeptics/materialists continually do this!

{flings arms up in despair}

Try to understand what an ad hominem means. The same goes for you Mr Lowe.

I'll give you a clue.

It doesn't mean a careful measured appraisal of a persons intellect and intelligence.

It doesn't even mean to insult people!

{sighs}

I give up. :(

Instead of addressing the argument, which you have no ability to do, you have attacked the character of Kevin_Lowe. You pointed out that he is a dumbass and that therefore his argument is not valid.

If this is not ad hominem, then you are a complete moron and all of your statements are nonsense, as you have obviously abandoned reasoned debate. This indicates to us that you have actually lost the debate, but are unwilling to concede the point.

Your comments on Mr. Lowe's intellect served no purpose other than to make yourself feel better. Maybe you should look up the definition of ad hominem.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


Instead of addressing the argument, which you have no ability to do, you have attacked the character of Kevin_Lowe. You pointed out that he is a dumbass and that therefore his argument is not valid.

If this is not ad hominem, then you are a complete moron and all of your statements are nonsense, as you have obviously abandoned reasoned debate. This indicates to us that you have actually lost the debate, but are unwilling to concede the point.

Your comments on Mr. Lowe's intellect served no purpose other than to make yourself feel better. Maybe you should look up the definition of ad hominem.

Is there anyone reading this thread who has a f*cking clue about anything apart from myself??? Wile E. Coyete, try to get it through to your mentally subnormal stupid head that insulting people does not constitute an ad hominem. I advise people to look up all these informal logical fallacies and make some attempt to understand their meaning. Clearly at the moment no-one has a clue. Flinging these formal logical fallacies acussations at me because people are flummoxed by my arguments is not going to impress any neutral observer.

Kevin Lowe has demonstrated that he's as thick as f*ck, and so have approximately 90% of the people in this thread including yourself.

I'm seriously impressed with how f*cking stupid people are in this forum.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Is there anyone reading this thread who has a f*cking clue about anything apart from myself??? Wile E. Coyete, try to get it through to your mentally subnormal stupid head that insulting people does not constitute an ad hominem.
Ian's Mom: Ian, I'm calling you on your cell phone because I knew you were driving on the M-20. I heard there is a car going the wrong direction.

Ian: Bloody hell, ALL of them are!

:p

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

argumentum ad hominem
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

From Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies (http://datanation.com/fallacies/)

Since example have already been given I feel there is no need to repeat them.

Ossai

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Blah blah! Blah blah blah blah blah! Blah blah bl*h blah blah!Ian, you have not refuted, or even addressed, any of Kevin_Lowe's points. You have merely insulted him. So, this is either (a) argumentum ad hominem, a well-known logical fallacy-about-town, or (b) baseless personal abuse.

You have stated that it is not (a). Very well, we can accept that. Clearly then, you are either unable to discuss things rationally, or do not care about the subject which you yourself brought up and would prefer instead to fling poo at passers-by.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If anything is logically possible then fine. However Zombified does not agree with this, indeed on the contrary, he thinks ours is the only logically possible Universe, therefore I will continue to pursue my particular line of questioning to him. This is a conjecture, not a belief as such. Unfortunately, I am somewhat up to my eyeballs at work, so I cannot address your brain in a jar scenario at much length today.

Short version: here's a method to detect whether you are a brain in a jar or not: experiment on your own brain. For example, drink a beer, smoke a joint, or drop acid. These can't be simulated purely through sensory input, since they affect the function of the brain itself directly. In order for you hypothetical aliens to provide you with that experience with any verisimilitude, they'd actually have to pour the necessary substance into your jar, and remove it at the rate at which the substance ought to be metabolized.

Consider also the effect of a brain injury or disease, such as a tumor. Again, there needs to be a one-to-one analog between the damage in the Matrix and the damage in the 'real' world.

Finally, consider experimenting on individual neurons. As you affect each individual neuron, your hypothetical alien must perform the same operation on the brain in vat in order for the result to match what the matrix needs to simulate.

As a result, there needs to be a 1:1 analog between everything that happens in the matrix brain and everything that happens to the real brain.

There is a simple solution to make sure this happens: completely scan the brain, and simulate its entire function in the Matrix. Use the same physical modelling you need to fool physicists, and you can fool the doctors as well. But now, the brain is entirely a function of the computer; it can't subvert the programming of the computer, nor is there any mind "outside" the computer any more. It is an AI running in the Matrix now.

You can imagine how this goes. The aliens take one cell at a time, encode it into the computer, and then, using the neural input technology they must have, simulate that neuron firing into all the synapses it used to be connected to. They repeat the process until there's only one neuron, connected to the computer, then they encode that last one, too.

At which point during this process does the combination of Matrix brain and real brain stop functioning as a true consciousness?

Even if the aliens don't do this, they still have to be able to manipulate the physical brain in an equally precise manner in order to fool doctors into thinking that Matrix brains are real brains.

Now, I can see where you are going with your original example: we are all living in a matrix, and paranormal people are just violating the programming that we poor physicists are trying to figure out. Your brains-in-jars are your analogy to the non-material mind, and the matrix itself is your material world. But you can do just as good eliminating the brain outside; there's no requirement for an outside consciousness.

I realize you are going to disagree and probably call me names, but you wanted an answer, so here it is.

Well, it didn't turn out to be so short, so I'd better get back to work. Enjoy your thread.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Gregor
The poll responses are not adequate. You need another option:

"Not only has the argument not provided a single evidence for God's [read superconsciousness] existence, it has false premises for applied-physics, theoretical-physics, and psychology, it has far too many red herrings, and many fatal, logical flaws."

Actually, Gregor, Evil Dave has covered some of this. Truth to tell, if you want an "adequate" poll, you've got to expand the options into at least the millions. (How else can you cover such multitheistic religions as Mormonism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism -- it IS multitheistic, if I recall, but if I'm wrong, please tell me -- Buddhism... The list goes on...)

I find myself wondering at times if Terry Pratchett had the right of it. (My wife's favorite author...) There will be as many perceptions of a god as there are followers of said god. You can't adequately provide "proof" one way of another that will satisfy even a majority of that group, simply because of the diversity within any body of individuals. It's not going to happen.

Consider the small gathering we have here: at no point has ANYONE even come to an agreement as to what constitutes ATHEISM, much less Deism, Theism, Christianity, etc. We can all agree on what the dictionary says, but once you get beyond that, once you try to go further, you run into trouble. Welcome to Humanity.

While Ian makes a point I agree with, Pixymisa has challenged it, as have others, if I am reading this correctly, on the a priori assumption of the existence of god(s) capable of performing the creative act. (I know, I know, I'm grotesquely oversimplifying this. Please forgive me...) On another thread, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=19404, Evil Dave challenged this notion, suggesting that an Omnipotent God wasn't really necessary, just one that was Adequate. One isn't sure beyond this what to think. I'm certainly getting a headache thinking about it.

Unfortunately, consider the consequences if you DON'T think about it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


I'll just ignore the ad hominems and the question begging for a second. Okay?



Nope I've made no ad hominems or question begging gambits :rolleyes:



The first place your argument is open to attack is your early paragraph about "how do we know other people have minds?". The answer is pretty simple. Minds are things that arise from meaty brain-type things.



Unsubstantiated assertion. In fact I believe this is a question begging fallacy.




We know this from everyday experience, and there is no instance of a mind which is not a meaty brain-type thing.



I may as well say there are no instances of a banana which is not an elephant :rolleyes:



So any argument that even assumes the mere possibility of non-meaty minds (as you do) is based on wild supposition rather than logic.



It doesn't as I presuppose the correctnes of the materialist metaphysic.

But besides, one could scarcely label a position as illogical just because it doesn't presuppose that the mind is something utterly different from what it seems to be, i.e a physical thing :eek:




You might as well postulate an immaterial Ferrari as an immaterial mind.



A Ferrari is defined by its "materiality" dipstick. Minds are not.



This is not unsupported faith, because we have a wealth of experience of meat minds.



In fact we have none whatsoever.



Unsupported faith is entertaining the idea there might be non-meat minds.



No, but stupidity is supposing that minds are meat without any supporting reasons or evidence. Neither of which you have.

Not that this is at all relevant to my original argument.




Your talk of a universal metamind is as silly as talk of the universe being a gigantic Ferrari. Or a giant turnip, or a giant any-other-physical-object.



Look, you keep making unsubstantiated assertions. How does one reply to an unsubstantiated assertion?

Trying to compare the belief in the existence of an appropriately defined God to Santa Claus, Goblins, pink fairys, a gigantic turnip or whatever is unfortunately a false analogy. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.

For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with evidence for "X". But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality to be in the normal course of events.

Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3 criteria should be fulfilled. We should either demand that the person who is asserting the existence of "X" to

a) directly point at "X"

b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
generating successful predictions

c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of "X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though there is no evidence for such galaxies).

Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in quite a differing way from any putative physical existent "X". Many people in referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting within the world. Thus "God" is not an additional object existing alongside other objects in the world. "God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God" is not located anywhere then he cannot exist within the world. Rather it would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".

To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.




(This is half of why your appeal to naive dualism,


There's no getting through to your breathtaking stupidity is there?? I am neither presupposing dualism in my argument, (indeed I was presupposing materialism), and I am not a dualist of any description in any case. LOOK AT MY TITLE ABOVE MY AVATAR!!! I am an immaterialist or subjective idealist. Do you know what these terms mean??? Come on, you claim to be a philosophy tutor!!


Sorry, but you're simply not saying anything of any substance and are merely content with making unsubstantiated assertions.

[Kally]

Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? (1998)
Jeffery Jay Lowder

If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.


-- Bertrand Russell, "What Is an Agnostic?" 1953 [1]

A common objection to atheism -- one stated by many scholars and laymen, theists and nontheists -- is that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God. Yet the atheist response to this objection has been virtually non-existent.[2] This response is the purpose of this paper. Whether it is the responsibility of the methodological atheist to prove metaphysical atheism[3], and whether any atheists have actually proven the non-existence of any gods, are issues beyond the scope of this paper.[4] Rather, I want to examine the mere possibility of an atheological proof. I shall argue that there is no a priori reason why the disproof of a specific god is impossible.

Continued here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zombified
This is a conjecture, not a belief as such. Unfortunately, I am somewhat up to my eyeballs at work, so I cannot address your brain in a jar scenario at much length today.



Ah, thank you Zombified for replying. Please don't concern yourself with having to be quick in your responses. I'm perfectly content with you taking a few days before responding. I'm spending too much time on this thread myself! I'll try to respond to what you've said in your post by tomorrow.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kally
Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? (1998)
Jeffery Jay Lowder

If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.


-- Bertrand Russell, "What Is an Agnostic?" 1953 [1]

A common objection to atheism -- one stated by many scholars and laymen, theists and nontheists -- is that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God. Yet the atheist response to this objection has been virtually non-existent.[2] This response is the purpose of this paper. Whether it is the responsibility of the methodological atheist to prove metaphysical atheism[3], and whether any atheists have actually proven the non-existence of any gods, are issues beyond the scope of this paper.[4] Rather, I want to examine the mere possibility of an atheological proof. I shall argue that there is no a priori reason why the disproof of a specific god is impossible.

Continued here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html

Kally,

One is not required to give proof of atheism. Just to give some reasons for supposing it is true is sufficient.

Edited to add: Although even that is irrelevent to this thread! LOL

[Kally]

Thanks Ian, I get carried away sometimes. How's this one?

"God is the only childhood myth carried over into adulthood"

Kally

(I should shut up for awhile) ;)

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Tricky

Ian's Mom: Ian, I'm calling you on your cell phone because I knew you were driving on the M-20. I heard there is a car going the wrong direction.

Ian: Bloody hell, ALL of them are!

:p

That's it exactly!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kally
Thanks Ian, I get carried away sometimes. How's this one?

"God is the only childhood myth carried over into adulthood"

Kally

(I should shut up for awhile) ;)

{shrugs}

Yea, I understand how you feel. Yes honestly. I used to feel the same way about "God" when I was a teenager. I remember one time when a friend said he believed in God. I said "Huh?? You believe in God!". Basically I would say that I had the same attitude and contempt for the notion of God at that age that people in this forum have expressed.

[Kally]

Ian, you're right. I have so much anger after what happened in my life due to those pentecostal/Charismatic Holy Rollers and their performing exorcisms on me all the time that I have lost all respect for anyone who has any type of god belief at all. I also need to learn some patience and tolerance. I look at a person who believes in a god as though they have two heads and neither has a brain..

Kally

edit: Everyone out there is not like my mom and dad. (I hope) shiver

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
Nope I've made no ad hominems or question begging gambits So now you have taken to uttering mistruth as well.

Minds are things that arise from meaty brain-type things.
Unsubstantiated assertion. In fact I believe this is a question begging fallacy. Nope you are again showing your ignorance of logic as well as current medical knowledge.
But besides, one could scarcely label a position as illogical just because it doesn't presuppose that the mind is something utterly different from what it seems to be, i.e a physical thing But all evidence points to that exact conclusion, the mind is nothing more that the meat.

This is not unsupported faith, because we have a wealth of experience of meat minds. In fact we have none whatsoever. Your ignorance is showing again.

No, but stupidity is supposing that minds are meat without any supporting reasons or evidence. Neither of which you have. Study the subject of consciousness. There are currently two doctors working to determine why the male and female brain function differently. The questions isn't that a brain functions but why they function different based on the sex of the person being tested, they are of course testing other factors as well. Women, on average, tend toward recognition of non-aggressive emotions more than men, while males tend to be able to recognize aggression easier than women.

Thus "God" is not an additional object existing alongside other objects in the world. "God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God" is not located anywhere then he cannot exist within the world. Rather it would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".
You have redefined god.
You have said that god is consciousness.
You have said that mind exists without matter.
You have said that mind creates matter.

You have ignored that when matter (the brain) is tampered with then consciousness is affected.

Ossai

[arcticpenguin]

The poll results are conclusive: Ian still has two sock puppets.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
The poll results are conclusive: Ian still has two sock puppets.

Hey, I'm one of Ian's sock puppets and I haven't voted! :mad:

[Dancing David]

Ian: I am trying to follow your original post, I hope you don't treat me like some two year old and start throwing tantrums. It seems from reading it that you belive that materialism is a fallacy, you are right there is no way that we can't prove that the universe was just created ten seconds ago.

I think that you should read more Steven hawkings, he has similar viewpoints about the nature of creation.

I can't speak for zombiefied, but the alternate Universes thing is actually a hot topic in physic(which is more than a laxative), the point is that small alterations in the Universe would lead to it not existing, I do recomend reading Guth before going off into the realm of alternate Universes.

Hawking's argument says something like: if there are all these other Universes where the parameters for life don't exist, then this is a unique existance and therefore there must be a creating force.

I have tried to follow your logic in saying that the eveidence god has been refuted: It seems to go along the lines of,
Materialism is a false philosophy, therefore asking for physical proof of god is false.

Sorry if I oversimplified, was I in the ball park. The original post was well written, your temper tantrums could use better orchestration.

Peace

[Loki]

Ian,

Seeing as this is the thread you seem most active in at the moment, I thought I might bring this (back) to your attention....

Paranormal "NDE (Life Flashing before your eyes)" thread, March 4 2003

(Ian wrote) : You really need to exercise a great deal of caution when reading anything written by so called "skeptics". They will discredit anything, preferably by fair means, but if that is insufficient by foul means. Hell, just read what people like BillHoyt and Loki say in this forum! I find it quite breathtaking!
*****
(Ian wrote) : They are either liars or present information in a seriously misleading way like seemingly most people who label themselves "skeptics".
****
(Loki wrote) : I'm not aware that I have a track record of lying, or making "seriously misleading" statements. Could you supply an example or two of where I have done this, because if I'm guilty of this then it's largely unknown to me.

You can PM me with the info if you don't want to be seen as starting a public "slanging match"
****
(Loki wrote) : ...could you please respond to my request for a few examples of posts in which you feel I have lied or made "seriously misleading" statements. I'd like to think that my posts are a genuine reflection of my opinions and knowledge. You seem to quite strongly feel that I'm happy to include a liberal sprinkling of lies and distortions into my posts - I'd like to understand why you think this.

Again, you can reply via PM if you want to resolve this away from the public eye.
****
Banter, "Who thinks I'm NEO" thread : April 2nd 2003

(Loki wrote) : It's been a month or more since this exchange ... any chance you might eventually get around to replying?
****
(Ian wrote) : Loki, I have noticed your question. I'll need to do a search for the relevant thread. Hopefully will get round to answering today or tomorrow.
I've given it more than a month since you promised a reply "today or tomorrow", and 10 weeks since I first asked you for some details. Any chance you might eventually address this? There's always the PM option, if you'd rather.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,

Seeing as this is the thread you seem most active in at the moment, I thought I might bring this (back) to your attention....


I've given it more than a month since you promised a reply "today or tomorrow", and 10 weeks since I first asked you for some details. Any chance you might eventually address this? There's always the PM option, if you'd rather.

Loki,

It might have been this thread but not sure. I know you were claiming that when controls are tightened the effects gradually diminish.

I remember you supplied a link which I read which didn't support your claims.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13922&highlight=evidence

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Ian: I am trying to follow your original post, I hope you don't treat me like some two year old and start throwing tantrums. It seems from reading it that you belive that materialism is a fallacy, you are right there is no way that we can't prove that the universe was just created ten seconds ago.

I think that you should read more Steven hawkings, he has similar viewpoints about the nature of creation.

I can't speak for zombiefied, but the alternate Universes thing is actually a hot topic in physic(which is more than a laxative), the point is that small alterations in the Universe would lead to it not existing, I do recomend reading Guth before going off into the realm of alternate Universes.

Hawking's argument says something like: if there are all these other Universes where the parameters for life don't exist, then this is a unique existance and therefore there must be a creating force.

I have tried to follow your logic in saying that the eveidence god has been refuted: It seems to go along the lines of,
Materialism is a false philosophy, therefore asking for physical proof of god is false.

Sorry if I oversimplified, was I in the ball park. The original post was well written, your temper tantrums could use better orchestration.

Peace

I just wish I'd never bothered typing out and posting that original message. I might have known that everyone on here is immune to reason.

Regardless of the merits of anything I post people will just automatically disagree with me anyway. That's it, I'm not bothering to take up any of my time in future trying to carefully explain my thoughts.

[Dancing David]

Ian I didn't say I disagree with your post, I was just asking if i understood it. Geessh.

You have your reason I have my reason, forums like this hopefully allow us to work out common reason, I was just trying to understand your post. I think you reall might want to read hawkings, he may support your ideas.

Peace

[Loki]

Ian,

What I think your opening post says...

1. I accept as a given that I am conscious, and therefore "consciousness" exists.

2. I cannot *prove beyond doubt* that human consciousness is purely a result of physical processes (the brain).

3. Therefore, I cannot *prove beyond doubt* that anyone else is conscious (I *can* prove they have physical (brain) processes)

4. I can provisionally conclude that other people are "probably conscious" because they exhibit "consciousness-like" behaviour and/or properties.

So far, so good. You've laid out a foundation for an argument by establishing a definition of "consciousness" as having the following generalised characterictics :

A. "Cannot be prove to be physical";
B. "Can be inferred to exist by observing 'suitable' behaviour/properties"

This leads to the following statement :

5. I can provisionally conclude that *any* consciousness exists by observing 'suitable' behaviour/properties.

Then you add the next step :

6. Define "god" as being "consciousness".

7. Therefore, I can provisionally conclude that god exists by observing 'suitable' behaviour.

I'd suggest this logical sequence is incomplete.

Look at step 4 - the assumption that "observing suitable behaviour/properties" indicates that consciousness exists. While I might agree with the principle, I'd challenge you to show *just one* example of something that meets the following two criteria :

A. Produces 'suitable' behaviour/properties;
B. Does *not* have associated physical processes

Until you've established this, then you really have a 'hidden premise' lurking between step 4 and step 5 :

4a. Physical (brain) processes are *not* a required behaviour/property of consciousness.

And that, in a nutshell, assumes your conclusion ( and makes this a non-materialist argument, by the way).

Still, even if I was to grant you this "hidden" premise, and therefore we were to agree on the final conclusion that "I can provisionally conclude that god exists by observing 'suitable' behaviour/properties", the the real 'meat' of your argument has to be contained in the "behaviour/properties".

What are they? Why should I associate such a behaviour/property with "consciousness"? How do I place each behaviour/property on the scale of "less likely to indicate consciousness" to "more likely..."?

If you want to keep running with this, it seems to me that you need to (a) admit that the principle argument rests on non-materialist assumptions and (b) spend some time trying to demonstrate a suitable set of behaviours/properties, and show the correlation with "consciousness".

[Dancing David]

Now, having got all the foregoing out of the way, we can at last address the issue of the evidence for the existence of a God. The essential point is this. Just as a complete physical description of the physical processes occurring in someone’s brain and accounting for their behaviour doesn’t necessitate that that person is not possessed of a mental life, so does the fact that just because the Universe and all change within can be accounted for in terms of physical laws, this doesn’t mean to say that consciousness is not associated with the physical Universe as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I think that we might find consiousness outside of carbon based vehicles in in a number of places.
I have laways wondered about that , where could life exist other than carbon, could star possess a consiousness, or how about electrical currents that self perpetuate in a very cold environment. I don't think it unlikely.

Proving it, there is the rub.

Sceptics are right to say that this is preculation, akin to asking if animals have souls.

I have to make a joke, I am not mocker you!

If the Universe is a mind why is it so empty?

Peace

[Loki]

Ian,

Thanks for replying regarding my request for my info on your allegations of "lying and/or seriously misleading statements". I hope you'll understand if I disagree with your conclusion, based upon the link provided. Without wanting to get too much into this, I'd just offer the following final quotes from myself and Davidsmith73 in the linked thread :

(loki wrote) : ... certainly possible that the difference is just a statistical effect, so I guess you're right to claim that even these figures are not "proof" that the effect disappears as the controls tighten.

(davidsmith73 wrote) : As a footnote, I am willing to accept that the results ARE declining with increasing controls but I see no evidence for this assertion as yet.

(loki wrote) : I think I agree! There appears to be no conclusive ganzfeld-based evidence that links "tighter controls" and "weaker results". There *is* evidence, but it appears to be too weak to force the conclusion - the results seem to be suggestive of this, but alternative explanations are available.
I offered some initial evidence, Davidsmith73 disputed it on statistical grounds, and I agreed that the numbers probably were insufficient to be called "evidence", and I therefore offered to move the thread onto a different area of research. The conversation died out at that stage.

Is that the extent of basis for your opinion, or is there more?

[Kally]

posted by Ian:
I just wish I'd never bothered typing out and posting that original message. I might have known that everyone on here is immune to reason.

My 7th post and you know me so well. Was it the Jeffery Jay Lowder article or my Santa quote? Perhaps the people with 2 heads and no brain at all? Just like mom and dad, bless their shriveled hearts...

Kally

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kally


My 7th post and you know me so well.
Kally

Not at all. You may or may not be. I was referring to people who addressed my original post. Not anyone in the world who so happens to be reading this thread.

Anyway, I've had enough. I'm not going to bother anymore. People have no interest in philosophy or reality.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
People have no interest in philosophy or reality.On the contrary. Many here are intrigued by the former and live in the latter. If you should wish to join us, you would be entirely welcome.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
People have no interest in philosophy or reality.

Aren't those two separate things?

[K-W]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I just wish I'd never bothered typing out and posting that original message. I might have known that everyone on here is immune to reason.

Regardless of the merits of anything I post people will just automatically disagree with me anyway. That's it, I'm not bothering to take up any of my time in future trying to carefully explain my thoughts.

I would think that it is a tid bit more likely that youve made some kind of error in your logic than it is that 80% of the people on this forum are completely stupid.

Just a thought.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by K-W


I would think that it is a tid bit more likely that youve made some kind of error in your logic than it is that 80% of the people on this forum are completely stupid.

Just a thought.
Well over 90% if you add in those people who voted for "depends on what you call evidence". I think those folks are saying, "although it doesn't look like evidence to me, you may be using a non-standard definition of evidence."

Only 5% agree that Ian has supported his contentions. But of course, this is a skeptics forum. He would probably do much better on some "new age" forum.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Nope I've made no ad hominems or question begging gambits :rolleyes:

As Pixy pointed out, calling me names was either argumentum ad hominem (if you meant to discredit my argument by doing so) or empty abuse (if you were calling me names with no intention of discrediting my argument). I'll accept either point of view, if you prefer it.

As for question begging, insulting me for stupidity without discussing my arguments is begging the question of whether my arguments work or not.



Unsubstantiated assertion. In fact I believe this is a question begging fallacy.

It isn't an unsubstantiated assertion, Ian. There's a wealth of evidence that minds exist in the form of brains, and no evidence that minds exist in any other form.

Neurology, biochemistry, evolutionary biology and the use of psychothereapeutic drugs all indicate pretty damn conclusively that out mental lives are pretty much alike, and that they are dependent on physical brains.


I may as well say there are no instances of a banana which is not an elephant :rolleyes:

Like my claim, this is empirically testable. In fact, I tested in on Friday when I ate four bananas that lacked almost all of the characteristics I associate with elephants.

Did you have a chat with an immaterial mind on Friday? I suspect that you did not.

It doesn't as I presuppose the correctnes of the materialist metaphysic.

You do not do so consistently, because you later raise the idea of disembodied minds (a dualist idea) as being logically possible as part of your argument.

You can have materialism, or spooky disembodied brains, but you can't have both at once.


But besides, one could scarcely label a position as illogical just because it doesn't presuppose that the mind is something utterly different from what it seems to be, i.e a physical thing :eek:

If you've got some evidence that any mind, ever, has existed in any fashion that does not arise from and depend on a physical, meaty, brain-like object then you have a point.

What the mind "seems to be" based on naive introspection is neither here nor there. You might happen to think that minds are immaterial things, Ian (as Descartes did), but all the evidence is that you are simply wrong.


A Ferrari is defined by its "materiality" dipstick. Minds are not.

I'm afraid to say that until I see an immaterial mind or an immaterial Ferrari, I'm going to persist in my belief that both brains and Ferraris are material things.


In fact we have none whatsoever.


This is a pretty bizarre assertion. We have no evidence of meat minds?

Lots of other people have already presented relevant evidence.

No, but stupidity is supposing that minds are meat without any supporting reasons or evidence. Neither of which you have.

I specifically remember Pixy bringing up the usual points about drugs, neurochemistry, the effects of brain damage and so forth.

If you don't think that is evidence, I submit that your definition of evidence is fairly unusual.

It doesn't help your case that the idea of immaterial minds has been fairly thoroughly discredited in the time since Descarte was writing. Even at the time, however, contemporaries were asking the fatal question "How do you suppose these immaterial minds interact with physical reality?".

Not that this is at all relevant to my original argument.

This is vitally relevant, Ian, because you are trying to establish the plausibility of a "mind" which has nothing demonstrably in common with any mind anyone has ever shown evidence for.

If the very idea of a disembodied mind is nonsense, then your conception of God as a disembodied mind falls with it.


Look, you keep making unsubstantiated assertions. How does one reply to an unsubstantiated assertion?

:rolleyes: The quote you are referring to is not an unsubstantiated assertion, Ian. It's the conclusion of the prior remarks.

If there is no more evidence for immaterial minds than there is for immaterial turnips, belief in either is equally silly.


Trying to compare the belief in the existence of an appropriately defined God to Santa Claus, Goblins, pink fairys, a gigantic turnip or whatever is unfortunately a false analogy. Allow me to illustrate what I mean.

For someone who proposes the existence of "X", where "X" is some particular existent within the world, be it unicorns, fairies or whatever, the burden of proof should fall upon them to furnish us with evidence for "X". But this is simply a consequence of our experience of physical reality. Experiences furnishes us with knowledge of the physical laws of nature, and what we might expect the particular nature of reality to be in the normal course of events.

Now, if a particular proposed existent "X" is incongruent with what we would expect the physical laws of nature to "generate" in the normal course of events, then in order for us to believe in "X", one of 3 criteria should be fulfilled. We should either demand that the person who is asserting the existence of "X" to

a) directly point at "X"

b) to propose a hypothesis incorporating "X" which is fruitful in
generating successful predictions

c) or finally to assert it's reasonable to suppose the existence of "X" using inductive logic (it may be reasonable to suppose that galaxies exist beyond the cosmic horizon for example, even though there is no evidence for such galaxies).


I'll grant all that, except for the bit about it being a false an analogy. You'll have to earn that. I'm not giving it away for free.


Now, it seems to me that many people people employ the word "God" in quite a differing way from any putative physical existent "X". Many people in referring to a "God" do not understand this as an existent subsisting within the world. Thus "God" is not an additional object existing alongside other objects in the world. "God" is Mind/consciousness, and, this being so, it is incoherent to suppose that "God" could have a location. But if "God" is not located anywhere then he cannot exist within the world. Rather it would be more appropriate to say that the world exists "within" "God".

To suggest the possibility of the existence of an appropriately defined "God" is to subscribe to a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality, just as materialism, and by implication atheism is a particular metaphysical interpretation of reality.

You can define your God as being absolutely anything you want. Call it a non-located immaterial mind within which the universe exists if you wish.

But that doesn't even get you out of the starting blocks until you establish that your definition is coherent, and that is not established until you establish that the idea of a non-located immaterial mind is coherent.

Since there is no more evidence of non-located immaterial minds than there is of non-located immaterial turnips, this is where you hit an impasse.

Remember you are trying to dig up evidence for the existence of God, which is a different and much more difficult thing to establish than the mere metaphysical possibility of an appropriately defined God.


There's no getting through to your breathtaking stupidity is there?? I am neither presupposing dualism in my argument, (indeed I was presupposing materialism), and I am not a dualist of any description in any case. LOOK AT MY TITLE ABOVE MY AVATAR!!! I am an immaterialist or subjective idealist. Do you know what these terms mean??? Come on, you claim to be a philosophy tutor!!

Again, you can title yourself anything you want.

The idea that minds can exist with or without bodies, which your entire argument hinges on, is dualist.

It's not my fault you can't keep your own metaphysical story straight.


Sorry, but you're simply not saying anything of any substance and are merely content with making unsubstantiated assertions.

On the contrary, my arguments hang on two premises that are very well supported by the evidence.

1. The things we call "minds" arise from and are dependent on meaty brain things.

2. No one has any evidence about states of affairs in other universes.

I'd like the readers to imagine a huge neon hand pointing to the second of those premises. That's the premise Ian somehow forgot to address.

Remember, I showed earlier that if either of my two premises is borne out then Ian's argument collapses. I don't need both. It's just a belt-and-braces situation.

So even if one chose to uncritically suck down Ian's attempts at denying the first premise, his conclusion is still dead in the water until he finds good reason to deny the second.

Stay tuned for more empty abuse, folks.

[PixyMisa]

You've called Ian a dualist :) He's going to be really mad now :mad:

[Gregor]

Game, set, and match to Kevin.

And have I missed it, or is there a third fatal error? There seems a huge gulf between establishing the existence of a small-scale, immaterial mind, and then establishing that there is an omnipresent, god-scale, immaterial mind.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by K-W


I would think that it is a tid bit more likely that youve made some kind of error in your logic than it is that 80% of the people on this forum are completely stupid.

Just a thought.

This is just absurd! This is a skeptics forum. Also I find that Skeptics have an incredibly naive understanding of what constitutes "God". They invariably hold a "God of the gaps" conceptualisation of God. Also a lot of them seem to conceive him (were he to exist) as being anthropomorphic!

If you went to a believers forum of some kind then I imagine that 80% or more would vote for something that you would find preposterous. Hell, that even I might find preposterous!

Besides it's just a fallacy to suppose that just because most people believe something to be true that therefore it must be, or is extremely likely to be true.

Your fallacy is known as Ad Populum
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdPopulum.html

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is just absurd! This is a skeptics forum. Also I find that Skeptics have an incredibly naive understanding of what constitutes "God". They invariably hold a "God of the gaps" conceptualisation of God. Also a lot of them seem to conceive him (were he to exist) as being anthropomorphic!

If you went to a believers forum of some kind then I imagine that 80% or more would vote for something that you would find preposterous. Hell, that even I might find preposterous!

Besides it's just a fallacy to suppose that just because most people believe something to be true that therefore it must be, or is extremely likely to be true.

Your fallacy is known as Ad Populum
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdPopulum.html
Dang, Ian, you were the one who started the poll, and now you are complaining because the results are going (strongly) against you? Did you really expect anything different? If you had supposed that miraculously a large number of people had supported you, would you have used that as evidence that your position was supported? Was that not, in fact, your intention when starting the poll, or were you simply trying to find out how many "stupid" skeptics there were on these boards?

Yes, pointing to the poll numbers is an argument ad populum, but Kevin_Lowe did not use this as an argument in refuting your contentions, nor did he resort to insult. I think he pointed out, quite succinctly, that your entire argument hinges on the assumption that the mind is somehow different from the material world. I realize you feel strongly that this must be true, but it is simply not borne out by evidence, however badly you wish it to be. Becoming angry about it does not help either, and in fact tends to be counterproductive as to convincing anyone here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DrMatt


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There seems to be this universal misconception amongst atheists that there is no evidence for a God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First you have to tell us which god you have in mind, then present the evidence. Straw Man Argument.



The generic God I'm considering.

You think there is evidence for God, and you think other atheists think this as well?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I intend in this post to refute this notion. To make it real simple, throughout this post I'm going to assume a materialist perspective, or at least a materialist based perspective (i.e. physical reality is primary, and minds or consciousnesses are somehow derived from this primary physical reality).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We'll see whether you do that. Already you've introduced the term "conciousness" without any clarification, so you can equivocate on it endlessly.



One would imagine that one would understand what it means given that we are all implicitly immediately aware of our own consciousnesses :rolleyes:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We can just use the minimal definition of "God" as a mind or consciousness, albeit a mind very large or unlimited in scope.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now you've compounded your vagueness about "conciousness" and "mind" by trying to define a god into existence and adding in terms that are inherently self-contradictory ("unlimited in scope").



Idiot! Defining something does not mean presuppose it's existence. And if an infinite mind is inherently self-contradictory then tell us why? You will have logically disproved the most popular conception of God! You'll be famous! You'll have acheived what no other human being has ever managed to acheive! :rolleyes:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now one might argue that given that God is a mind or consciousness,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Assuming what you're setting out to prove,



NO NO NO! Dear me! Defining something does notimply existence. Just as we might be able to describe a Unicorn, this does not entail its existence.

Besides, in order to come to some provisional conclusion in whether some existent is instantiated in reality, clearly we must have some idea of what that existent's characteristics might be! :eek:



when you haven't established in any meaningful way the referent for the word "God" as you use it, much less that this God IS anything at all. Circulo in demonstratio.



I have said that God is mind or consciousness. What is your objection to this?

Again like Skeptics always do, you continually erroneously attribute informal logical fallacies to me, when your own position is chocablock with them! :rolleyes:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


it might be a good idea to provisionally suppose that the nature of any evidence for God's mind may be of a similar nature to the evidence for our minds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Before you can even get there, you have to clarify the very contentious term "mind" as well as the very contentious world of "evidence for our minds". Equivocation.



Well if you don't like the term mind just substitute consciousness! :mad: Jesus Christ!



Really, this theoretical preamble has already pegged my fallacy meter.



{SHRUGS}

In that case you really must be stupid as f*ck.



Tell us which god you have in mind,



The generic God.




tell us what properties this god has that are supposed to be god-like,and show us exactly where we meet this god.



God is consciouisness. If we are materialists then God is everywhere. If we're immaterialists then consciousness is nowhere whether we are talking about our own consciousnesses or of God's.

You really are stupid. As stupid as Kevin Lowe and so many others.

[PixyMisa]

And your defintion of God is somehow less absurd?We can just use the minimal definition of "God" as a mind or consciousness, albeit a mind very large or unlimited in scope.A "very large" mind is a perfectly normal entity and however remarkable is not in any way Godlike.

Now, an infinitely large mind is a physical impossibility, so it's a reasonable candidate for Godlikeness. But this definition doesn't say anything about how this God relates to us. If it doesn't interact with the universe, it doesn't exist for any useful meaning of the term "exist". If it does interact with the universe, but it is not itself everything in the universe, it is a God of the Gaps. You've said elsewhere that God is everything except consciousness. This, as has been pointed out, is a dualistic position. You have presupposed the infinite mind of God and independent consciousness.

If you were really an idealist, your God would subsume individual consciousness; you would be part of and arising from the overmind itself. And given the nature of the Universe as we observe it, this is entirely unsupported. What we observe is a material universe with none of the properties we associate with minds, and independent minds arising from the dumb matter of the universe. That's observation, not philosophy. You may not like it, but it is what we observe.

The observed nature of the universe is materialistic; it's as simple as that. You can bend logic into a pretzel to make idealism come out indistinguishable from materialism, but since we have no evidence whatsoever for the infinite mind it is clear that the only reasonable explanation for the universe is the simpler hypothesis of materialism.

You reject the God of the Gaps as simplistic. Well, having done so, the only two alternatives are God is the Universe, and the Universe is God. For the first, all you have done is redefined the word "God" so that it now lacks any of its original meaning. For the second, you have a position which (so far as we can tell) is isomorphic in every observable way with materialism. The only way to show it is true is to provide empirical evidence, which you have utterly failed to do.

So what's the big deal?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
God is consciouisness. If we are materialists then God is everywhere. If we're immaterialists then consciousness is nowhere whether we are talking about our own consciousnesses or of God's.What? Does this mean that all immaterialists (idealists, dualists and such) are unconscious? Are they just taking a nap or are they mindless zombies?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well over 90% if you add in those people who voted for "depends on what you call evidence". I think those folks are saying, "although it doesn't look like evidence to me, you may be using a non-standard definition of evidence."

Only 5% agree that Ian has supported his contentions. But of course, this is a skeptics forum. He would probably do much better on some "new age" forum.

Only 5% are sure that I have. I deliberately included the depends on what you mean by "evidence" because in questions of metaphysics it is arguably very unclear on what is evidential.

One might be able to argue for example that in order to say that the characteristics of the Universe give more evidence for the existence of a God than if the characteristics of the Universe had have been different, then one would have had to have been equated with a multiplicity of Universes, some with God existing, some not.

Now I suspect and hope that the people who voted that it depends on what you mean by "evidence" had the above in mind.

What people cannot do, at least without either revealing that they are completely stupid, or have not bothered to read my argument, is to vote that I definetely haven't shown there is any evidence. Indeed the "depends on what you mean by "evidence"" works equally as much against their position as mine.

We cannot say there definetely isn't evidence as I have tire;lessly explained and which the vast majority of people on hereare simply too stupid to understand.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Only 5% are sure that I have. I deliberately included the depends on what you mean by "evidence" because in questions of metaphysics it is arguably very unclear on what is evidential.Not so. Evidence can be empirical, or it can be a logical argument based on empirical evidence. That's all.One might be able to argue for example that in order to say that the characteristics of the Universe give more evidence for the existence of a God than if the characteristics of the Universe had have been different, then one would have had to have been equated with a multiplicity of Universes, some with God existing, some not.One might be able to argue that, but one might end up making no sense.Now I suspect and hope that the people who voted that it depends on what you mean by "evidence" had the above in mind.If what you mean by "evidence" is a collection of unconnected and unsupported statements, then you have provided "evidence", but this "evidence" is in no way evidence.What people cannot do, at least without either revealing that they are completely stupid, or have not bothered to read my argumentOr, alternately, without noticing that your argument is deeply flawed on every level.is to vote that I definetely haven't shown there is any evidence. Indeed the "depends on what you mean by "evidence"" works equally as much against their position as mine.Right. If you define evidence to mean "no evidence", then you're home and dry.We cannot say there definetely isn't evidence as I have tire;lessly explained and which the vast majority of people on hereare simply too stupid to understand. We can, however, say that you have shown no evidence.

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
We cannot say there definetely isn't evidence as I have tire;lessly explained and which the vast majority of people on hereare simply too stupid to understand. You have provided no evidence. You have engaged in numerous attacks. You have lied about the attacks. You have repeatedly illustrated that you do not understand the basic rules of logic. You may have tireless explained but at the point not only the message but the messenger is suspect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Nope I've made no ad hominems or question begging gambits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As Pixy pointed out, calling me names was either argumentum ad hominem (if you meant to discredit my argument by doing so) or empty abuse (if you were calling me names with no intention of discrediting my argument). I'll accept either point of view, if you prefer it.



You are not saying what all the others are saying. They were all maintaining that insults alone constitute an ad hominem. Your understanding of ad hominem is the same as mine.

WHOOOOO HOOOOOO!!! At last a materialist knows at least what one informal logical fallacy means!! :eek: :eek:

However, neither of the 2 scenarios you have outlined is applicable to me. I certainly did not mean to discredit your argument by giving my opinion of your intellectual and philosophical abilities. You convey your idiocy in your writings far more effectively than I ever could. Secondly, as I mentioned in that post, I had every intention of addressing your "arguments" later on in the day. Not that they could be described as arguments. They were simply moronic unsubstantiated assertions. It is with regret that I conclude you have so comprehensively been "brainwashed" by the prevailing common western metaphysic, and I find it lamentable that you are in a position to be able to influence others in their turn.

Poor f*cking s*ds.





As for question begging, insulting me for stupidity without discussing my arguments is begging the question of whether my arguments work or not.



You haven't given any arguments. They were unsubstantiated assertions. Later on I'll see what you say below and decide whether to respond or not. If you again do not come out with any arguments, then I do not intend to do so. I have more sensible posts to address such as Loki's.

HUH???? WTF??? . . .I've just had a PM from Sadluxation (sp?) that I am spamming???!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[hgc]

Interesting Ian:

I certainly did not mean to discredit your argument by giving my opinion of your intellectual and philosophical abilities. You convey your idiocy in your writings far more effectively than I ever could.
Interesting Ian Translation Service

Todays translation:

I don't need to address your argument; your argument is self-defeating -- so I'll just jump to the insult stage.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You are not saying what all the others are saying. They were all maintaining that insults alone constitute an ad hominem. Your understanding of ad hominem is the same as mine.No, they weren't. They were giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were at least trying to say something useful rather than simply abusing people at random.However, neither of the 2 scenarios you have outlined is applicable to me. I certainly did not mean to discredit your argument by giving my opinion of your intellectual and philosophical abilities.Why did you do it, then?You convey your idiocy in your writings far more effectively than I ever could.Bleept! If you actually mean this, then you have committed argumentum ad hominem. You claim that Kevin_Lowe's arguments are false, but you have presented no evidence or logical reasoning to support this. You have instead insulted him. You're running out ouf wriggle room, Ian.Secondly, as I mentioned in that post, I had every intention of addressing your "arguments" later on in the day.Not an excuse.Not that they could be described as arguments. They were simply moronic unsubstantiated assertions.And are you going to show why this is so, or are you going to let it stand as a, what's the term, moronic unsubstantiated assertion?It is with regret that I conclude you have so comprehensively been "brainwashed" by the prevailing common western metaphysic, and I find it lamentable that you are in a position to be able to influence others in their turn.He did it again!Poor f*cking s*ds.

You haven't given any arguments.Yes he has.They were unsubstantiated assertions.He assumed that you knew something about the subject matter. Evidently, a mistake.Later on I'll see what you say below and decide whether to respond or not.And resort to you-know-whats in the mean time?If you again do not come out with any arguments, then I do not intend to do so. I have more sensible posts to address such as Loki's.You still have not shown any one of Kevin_Lowe's points to be invalid.HUH???? WTF??? . . .I've just had a PM from Sadluxation (sp?) that I am spamming???!!!Spamming? Not that I can see. Failure to engage in rational debate does not constitute spamming.

[hgc]

PixyMisa:

Right. If you define evidence to mean "no evidence", then you're home and dry.
How else would you assign probability to a phenomenon for which there is no evidence? Up is down, down is up.

[PixyMisa]

Is Ian a Weird Al (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weirdalyankovic/everythingyouknowiswrong.html) fan?Everything you know is wrong
Black is white, up is down and short is long
And everything you thought was just so
Important doesn't matter

Everything you know is wrong
Just forget the words and sing along
All you need to understand is
Everything you know is wrong

[asthmatic camel]

Dear Ian

Your original post was simply an exercise in philosophical mind-game playing and is essentially pointless. There is simply no hard evidence that any "God" or other supernatural entities exist. I strongly suspect that nor shall there ever be as the very concept is most likely a delusion.

There is a strong case for believing that, were the observable laws of physics not as they are, then the universe would disappear in a puff of impossible smoke. Not only does this standpoint preclude the existence of your proposed alternative universes (for which no evidence exists) but leads me to believe in a wholly mechanical universe which requires no "intelligent design" or other such nonsense in order to be able to exist.

It is hardly surprising that the poll has gone overwhelmingly against you; you have provided no testable evidence to support any case whatsoever, merely a poppycock-ridden heap of verbosity.

As I said, I really do think you should get out more often.

Regards,

Asthmatic camel.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Dear Ian

Your original post was simply an exercise in philosophical mind-game playing and is essentially pointless. There is simply no hard evidence that any "God" or other supernatural entities exist. I strongly suspect that nor shall there ever be as the very concept is most likely a delusion.

There is a strong case for believing that, were the observable laws of physics not as they are, then the universe would disappear in a puff of impossible smoke. Not only does this standpoint preclude the existence of your proposed alternative universes (for which no evidence exists) but leads me to believe in a wholly mechanical universe which requires no "intelligent design" or other such nonsense in order to be able to exist.

It is hardly surprising that the poll has gone overwhelmingly against you; you have provided no testable evidence to support any case whatsoever, merely a poppycock-ridden heap of verbosity.

As I said, I really do think you should get out more often.

Regards,

Asthmatic camel.

Thank you so much for your input. It was complete with a deep thinking philosophy predicated on an in-depth analysis. I bow to your superior knowledge and absolutely deft ability to make an informed statement. I await your sure-to-follow missive which I know will completely obviate the necessity for any further debate on this topic. I intuit that your philosophy has transformed into a complete and absolutely accurate knowledge of our universe. I now still my small voice and await the moment when I can sit at your feet and absorb the magnificence of your wisdom. Please do not make me wait too long, sir.

[Dancing David]

So what the deal Ian, I respond to your posts and you ignore me. So maybe you are as worthless as other believe.

It is not logical to belive God may exist, it is not logical to believe that god does not exist. Logic and belief only drink in the bar with each other, then they fight. they never live with each other or have kids.

Ian: I thought that you had something to say, but I now am not so sure. Apparently you have some needs that you are meeting here other than that of proving the existance of god.

I think that idealism is stupid, if you think that there is more to life than materialism why don't you kill yourself and then come haunt me.

You are a jerk! If you had bothered to control your little temper tantrums we could have had a discussion of how to test for consiousness, however you are Franko in an IAN suit. You would rather fight than discuss.

Too bad you pathetic little dweeb.

Peace

Idealism is just religion in a prom dress, it's still a pig!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So what the deal Ian, I respond to your posts and you ignore me. So maybe you are as worthless as other believe.

It is not logical to belive God may exist, it is not logical to believe that god does not exist. Logic and belief only drink in the bar with each other, then they fight. they never live with each other or have kids.

Ian: I thought that you had something to say, but I now am not so sure. Apparently you have some needs that you are meeting here other than that of proving the existance of god.

I think that idealism is stupid, if you think that there is more to life than materialism why don't you kill yourself and then come haunt me.

You are a jerk! If you had bothered to control your little temper tantrums we could have had a discussion of how to test for consiousness, however you are Franko in an IAN suit. You would rather fight than discuss.

Too bad you pathetic little dweeb.

Peace

Idealism is just religion in a prom dress, it's still a pig!

Thank you David for your kind words. Your true colours are showing through now.

I have many people to respond to in this thread. I haven't given up responding to people, but neither do I want to devote excessive amounts of time responding to each and every post.

I may or may not respond to your post, but it is certainly unwarranted for you to get pissed off if I don't, and to start insulting me. I have never insulted you. I have about 10-15 people arguing against me and I'm simply not prepared to spend all day responding to everyone.

And let's face it, no matter how many posts I write, hoever much detail I go into, it is very doubtful I am going to persaude anyone! I haven't even read most of the posts responding to me in the past 18 hours or so.

Peace.

[Dancing David]

Colors huh. You are a Monet mural to my small watercolor.

I even found the part of your post where you gave your argument to support the idea of god and tried to elaborate.

Maybe you were too busy calling people names and discusiing what an ad homieum was.

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Wraith.

How do you define consiousness?

Peace

[asthmatic camel]

Dear Ian,

"Have I successively refuted that there is no evidence for the existence of a God?"

No, you have signally failed to do so.

No doubt you would prefer a reply running into several thousand words, forgive me if I disappoint.

Your original post contained nothing other than unsubstantiated conjecture as the results of the poll and subsequent posts tend to show.

I am not able to prove the existence of "Gods", "metaminds", "other universes" etc. , nor do I have any evidence that such chimerae exist. It would appear that you also have no verifiable proof.

I have not claimed to be a genius or source of ineffable wisdom, I merely require that you provide evidence to support your position.

I suspect that I shall have a very long wait before such is forthcoming.

Regards,

Asthmatic Camel

[K-W]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is just absurd! This is a skeptics forum. Also I find that Skeptics have an incredibly naive understanding of what constitutes "God". They invariably hold a "God of the gaps" conceptualisation of God. Also a lot of them seem to conceive him (were he to exist) as being anthropomorphic!

If you went to a believers forum of some kind then I imagine that 80% or more would vote for something that you would find preposterous. Hell, that even I might find preposterous!

Besides it's just a fallacy to suppose that just because most people believe something to be true that therefore it must be, or is extremely likely to be true.

Your fallacy is known as Ad Populum
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdPopulum.html

You are right, it isnt proof of anything. I wasnt trying to logically prove you wrong.

Last time I checked god was anthropomorphic. A more general spirituality shouldnt really be labled god, but regardless, your proof didnt convince me and ive seen some pretty solid refutations of your argument. And your conterargument that you are alot smarter than everyone else doesnt hold up with me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by K-W


You are right, it isnt proof of anything. I wasnt trying to logically prove you wrong.



It doesn't prove anything, nor does it suggest anything whatsoever!



Last time I checked god was anthropomorphic.



God is anthropomorphic???? Are you real?? What sort of crazy concept of God is that?? Do you thing God is a little old man in the sky with a white beard?? Hey let's get our telescopes out and falsify this hypothsis! LMAO!!



A more general spirituality shouldnt really be labled god,



{shrugs}

Well if you prefer I'll use the term metamind.


but regardless, your proof didnt convince me and ive seen some pretty solid refutations of your argument.


Certainly no refutations. As far as I can recollect the only worthwhile attempt to argue against me was Loki's, and to a more limited extent Zombified's.

[Gregor]

Why don't they have three little smiley faces with hands over the eyes, ears, and mouths (ala the three chimps)? It would be so appropriate here. Or maybe a smiley face throwing a tantrum in a supermarket?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
God is anthropomorphic???? Are you real?? What sort of crazy concept of God is that?? Do you thing God is a little old man in the sky with a white beard?? Hey let's get our telescopes out and falsify this hypothsis! LMAO!!Yes, it's absurd. But don't look at us, we don't believe in any sort of god. Talk to the millions of people who do believe in exactly this sort of god.

Then tell us just how your god is somehow less absurd.Well if you prefer I'll use the term metamind.Ah, a giant brain in the sky. No beard, I presume.Certainly no refutations. As far as I can recollect the only worthwhile attempt to argue against me was Loki's, and to a more limited extent Zombified's. Your entire argument has been refuted, both point by point and as a whole. Your reasoning, where there is actually some connection between your assertions, has been shown to be circular.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

It isn't an unsubstantiated assertion, Ian. There's a wealth of evidence that minds exist in the form of brains, and no evidence that minds exist in any other form.

Neurology, biochemistry, evolutionary biology and the use of psychothereapeutic drugs all indicate pretty damn conclusively that out mental lives are pretty much alike, and that they are dependent on physical brains.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may as well say there are no instances of a banana which is not an elephant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Like my claim, this is empirically testable. In fact, I tested in on Friday when I ate four bananas that lacked almost all of the characteristics I associate with elephants.

Did you have a chat with an immaterial mind on Friday? I suspect that you did not.



I don't want to address the rest of your post at this juncture because I'm wasting too much time in this forum. I'll just address the above and get round to answering the rest of your post tomorrow, or friday or whenever.

I take it that you are saying minds simply are brains? I think first of all you should try to understand that simply because there is a constant correlation between 2 events, this doesn't at all imply they are one and the same thing. The fact that Y is correlated with X, or indeed the fact that Y is caused by X does not mean to say they constitute the very same thing! This is especially so when we consider they are so qualitatively different. Take a look here for an elucidation of this:

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/mind.htm

Take a look here for an appraisal of the identity theory

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/phinow2.htm


Now when you say minds are dependent on brains, are you saying that minds have their source in the brain? Even if this is correct this certainly doesn't vindicate materialism. Indeed the idea that the mind has its source in the brain is perfectly compatible with a form of dualism referred to as epiphenomenalism!

Now I agree with you that the evidence from science supports the hypothesis that the mind and indeed self (if they should be so distinguished) have their source in the brain. However the evidence also supports an alternative hypothesis. I have written about this before so I shall just paste it in here.

The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

Now even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.

But if the brain only modifies consciousness or minds, rather than being the progenitor of the mind, the question then arises as to why we need brains at all.

The first thing to recognise here is that processes within the brain are akin to any information processing system. As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds. This would be broadly consistent with the anecdotal experiences of some out-of-body experiences, especially near-death experiences - and indeed with reportedly channelled descriptions from the dead, as well as with traditional accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead.

[Kally]

I can't believe you said this:

Last time I checked god was anthropomorphic.

There went all credibility, in my opinion of course.

Kally

[jj]

Dear Ian,

Please show me real, testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence for a god.

I don't mean nonsensical anecdotes like your evidence for PSI, I mean real, readable, touchable, feelable, falsifiable evidence for the existance of a deity.

Please, when you do this, also explain which deity this is that we're seeing evidence of. Is it Crow? Is it YHWH? Is it Mithras? The Lady? Titania and Oberon?

I realize you may have covered some of this, but I'd rather try to focus this all in one place.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kally

K-W
Last time I checked god was anthropomorphic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kally
There went all credibility, in my opinion of course.



Kally,

You are of course aware that K-W said this? But K-W is an atheist, so he doesn't really believe that God is anthropomorphic since God doesn't exist! Actually it's not surprising that he's an atheist if he thinks God must be anthropomorphic. Hell, I would be! LOL

[Kally]

posted by Ian:
But K-W is an atheist, so he doesn't really believe that God is anthropomorphic since God doesn't exist!

Exactly.

Sorry for quoting the wrong person.

[K-W]

Utterly silly really.

If you want to argue for your particular deity, than argue for it. If you want to provided evdince for god, provide evidence for god. Thats all I ask. Your topic suggests something different than you deliver.

Im probably being silly myself and arguing simantics, but when an atheist says he sees no evidence for god, im guessing he means god, not a meta conciousness. Thus your premise is misleading.



The big problems with your argument are first you treatment of conciousness. I must have missed something, but since when is conciousness that well defined. You talk of mental states and processes as if those things definately exist. Im not sure they do, and im not sure you can prove they do. What exactly are intentions.

As far as I can tell all you prove is that there could be a meta mind, not that a meta mind is supported by some evidence.

Now i might be missing something, ive not replied to the argument itself till now for fear ive misunderstood it. I wish youd written it in a simpler form. With your premises layed out and your logic clear.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
And your defintion of God is somehow less absurd?A "very large" mind is a perfectly normal entity and however remarkable is not in any way Godlike.

Now, an infinitely large mind is a physical impossibility, so it's a reasonable candidate for Godlikeness. But this definition doesn't say anything about how this God relates to us. If it doesn't interact with the universe, it doesn't exist for any useful meaning of the term "exist". If it does interact with the universe, but it is not itself everything in the universe, it is a God of the Gaps. You've said elsewhere that God is everything except consciousness. This, as has been pointed out, is a dualistic position. You have presupposed the infinite mind of God and independent consciousness.

If you were really an idealist, your God would subsume individual consciousness; you would be part of and arising from the overmind itself. And given the nature of the Universe as we observe it, this is entirely unsupported. What we observe is a material universe with none of the properties we associate with minds, and independent minds arising from the dumb matter of the universe. That's observation, not philosophy. You may not like it, but it is what we observe.

The observed nature of the universe is materialistic; it's as simple as that. You can bend logic into a pretzel to make idealism come out indistinguishable from materialism, but since we have no evidence whatsoever for the infinite mind it is clear that the only reasonable explanation for the universe is the simpler hypothesis of materialism.

You reject the God of the Gaps as simplistic. Well, having done so, the only two alternatives are God is the Universe, and the Universe is God. For the first, all you have done is redefined the word "God" so that it now lacks any of its original meaning. For the second, you have a position which (so far as we can tell) is isomorphic in every observable way with materialism. The only way to show it is true is to provide empirical evidence, which you have utterly failed to do.

So what's the big deal?

The big deal, if you will permit me my errors, is that the standard monotheistic view, (that God, however you perceive him/her/it, is so immense, is beyond the scope of the universe, and dwells beyond it) is so inculcated into the Western mindset. The notion that "God is the Universe/The Universe is God" goes back to Zen Buddhism, (Mahayana, if I recall correctly, which I may not), in which the student gains awareness through the idea that "All is Zen, Zen is All."

That could be considered even more simplistic than Ian's God of the Gaps, though when you look at Zen, NOTHING is simple.

Most belief in God is based upon presupposition. There is an assumption that a greater, unified mind was at the heart of creation; no matter what I read, I've yet to see clear evidence that someone came to know there was a "God" through standard scientific means. How this would or could be accomplished is unclear, since you have to presume (1.) There is a God, and (2.) He/She/It wishes to make known His/Her/Its presence. (It also assumes that said deity wishes an involvement in its creation.)

Just a few thoughts.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I don't want to address the rest of your post at this juncture because I'm wasting too much time in this forum. I'll just address the above and get round to answering the rest of your post tomorrow, or friday or whenever.

Your track record is not so great. I suppose we shall see if you are as good as your word.

Don't forget to reply to my second point, about your lack of knowledge regarding states of affairs in other universes. That one keeps getting missed. Somehow. :rolleyes:


I take it that you are saying minds simply are brains? I think first of all you should try to understand that simply because there is a constant correlation between 2 events, this doesn't at all imply they are one and the same thing. The fact that Y is correlated with X, or indeed the fact that Y is caused by X does not mean to say they constitute the very same thing! This is especially so when we consider they are so qualitatively different.

This is true so far as it goes. It is certainly not an ironclad, 100% certainty that the brain is all there is. Until we have a complete understanding of the human mind, there will still be a degree of uncertainty.

However the problem is that there is no evidence that spooky immaterial stuff is involved in any way. None.

There is also no evidence that aliens are involved, nor Q-rays from Planet X, nor magic.

Lacking such evidence, postulating spooky immaterial stuff in the brain is just pulling craziness out of thin air.

I might as well say "You cannot prove that our minds do not arise from a combination of meaty brains and magic. Therefore there is evidence that a metamind of incomprehensible magnitude exists, made of pure magic".

Do you see the problem? There is no evidence of spooky stuff in our brains. But even if there was such evidence, there is still no evidence that this spooky stuff can make a mind out of non-brain objects.

After all, we have never seen such things. Even if I believed in spooky stuff, why should I believe that in addition to being vital to making our brains go, that it has the additional property of being able to make the whole universe a mind?

Remember, your self-proclaimed goal was to produce evidence, not to cobble together an unfalsifiable story. An unfalsifiable story is not evidence.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Gregor
Game, set, and match to Kevin.

And have I missed it, or is there a third fatal error? There seems a huge gulf between establishing the existence of a small-scale, immaterial mind, and then establishing that there is an omnipresent, god-scale, immaterial mind.

You are absolutely right, in fact. Credit where it's due.

I hope you don't mind me beating Ian over the head with that one as well. :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Don't forget to reply to my second point, about your lack of knowledge regarding states of affairs in other universes. That one keeps getting missed. Somehow. :rolleyes:



Other Universes???? Where the f*ck have I advocated the existence of other Universes? I don't believe in the existence of any other Universes. Metaphysical claptrap.

Sorry, but I haven't read the entirety of your previous post yet. I shall do so when I decide to do so, and not before.





This is true so far as it goes. It is certainly not an ironclad, 100% certainty that the brain is all there is. Until we have a complete understanding of the human mind, there will still be a degree of uncertainty.



We know there is more than the brain; namely the existence of the mind. Now you can say the mind is the brain, but that's kinda like saying a banana is really one and the same thing as an elephant. Have you actually read my last post to you. Did you not take in my arguments? Have you not read those 2 links I gave you. Please do some reading and try to understand.

Could you please answer me a simple question??? How the f*ck did you get to become to work at a University as a philosophy tutor when you don't seem to understand anything???



However the problem is that there is no evidence that spooky immaterial stuff is involved in any way. None.



If the immaterial is all there is then it is hardly "spooky" now is it? You forget I am an immaterilist. Two types of existent, selves or perceivers which are ontologically self-subsistent, and the empirical realm or the perceived which are ontologically dependent on the former.

Go get a f*cking clue.



There is also no evidence that aliens are involved, nor Q-rays from Planet X, nor magic.



Jesus Christ! :rolleyes:



Lacking such evidence, postulating spooky immaterial stuff in the brain is just pulling craziness out of thin air.



There is no spooky stuff in the brain. You just don't get it do you? You never will.


SNIP All irrelevant meaningless drivel.

Well Kevin. Seems you have just completely ignored my previous post to which you were supposed to be responding. Tell you what, I'll give you another go. This time try to address my points.

If your other post doesn't have anything of any substance then I will not be responding to it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Well, I didn't actually figure it out. It was an incredibly bizarre game as I mentioned earlier, and after the queen sacrifice and then rook sacrifice!


Whether it seems there is a huge gulf is irrelevant. It's establishing that there is a huge gulf which is the crucial thing you need to do.

And of course this again is wholly irrelevant to my original point, namely that there is evidence for the existence of a metamind :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

We know there is more than the brain; namely the existence of the mind.
You believe that the mind is different from the brain. If you know it, then you have done a very poor job of showing any evidence for it.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now you can say the mind is the brain, but that's kinda like saying a banana is really one and the same thing as an elephant.
That is unquestionably one of the worst analogies I have ever heard. Bananas demonstrably exist separately from elephants. (and a good thing too, or my fruit basket would be trampled by now :D) No mind has ever been demonstrated to exist separate from a brain.

[Gregor]

Here, I shall list all the evidence that Ian has shown us that there is some immaterial force that works with out meaty brains to create the mind.





Next, I will list the evidence of alternative Universes that don't conform to the physical laws of our Universe.





Finally, in conclusions, I will list the evidence (or logical connection from the prior two lists) of the metamind's existence that Ian has shown us.



Now, what don't you people understand?


(Ian, I'm sure you're very embarrased to have spent so much time on your post, just to have been shown that the emperor has no clothes. Obviously, this little philosophy you've devoted your life to is a joke. But please be big about it, admit the errors, and stop re-arranging the deck chairs on your own, personal Titanic.)

[Gregor]

Check out my new sig

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Gregor
Check out my new sig

Perhaps you'd like to nominate it for BillHoyt's illogic prize :rolleyes:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18761&highlight=nominations

[asthmatic camel]

ROFL Gregor, excellent

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
Your first link is dualism no matter the verbal gymnastics. The second link is much supposition where the author didn't like the answers generated so he chooses to ignore them.

Klüver-Bucy Syndrome as a Result of Minor Head Trauma - 929
Ali Salim, K. Anthony Kim, Brian J. Kimbrell, Patrizio Petrone, Gustavo Roldán, and Juan A. Asensio
http://www.sma.org/smj2002/augsmj02/

Try here. I didn't link directly to the article since it comes up as a pdf.

The rest of your post is noting more than wishful thinking. You are ultimately trying to postulate the existence of an 'afterlife' in order to avoid the permanent effect of death.

And of course this again is wholly irrelevant to my original point, namely that there is evidence for the existence of a metamind You keep claiming this but have yet to show any.

Ossai

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Whether it seems there is a huge gulf is irrelevant. It's establishing that there is a huge gulf which is the crucial thing you need to do.

And of course this again is wholly irrelevant to my original point, namely that there is evidence for the existence of a metamind :rolleyes:

Are you aware you somehow attributed something about chess to me? Not that I really mind. I found it amusingly surreal.

Anyway, let me try to explain why I think the "huge gulf" is a problem that you have to deal with to get your "metamind".

Saying that the proposed metamind is just like on of our minds, except vastly bigger, might seem like an adequate description to you. But to me it isn't, because it's just not clear to me in any way what this is supposed to mean.

Can this mind think about two things at once? Or one hundred? Is that the point? Can it multiply two digit numbers easily "in its head" like I can, or can it multiply thousand-digit numbers together? Does it know everything? If not, does is just know a lot and how does it learn it without physical senses as we know them?

If it can do anything remotely like the things we tend to want to ascribe to a God (nigh-omniscience, nigh-infinite processing and multitasking power), then it's really not much like my mind or your mind at all.

So the pressing question arises, "Even if we grant that immaterial mind-stuff is part of our own mental equipment, what evidence is there that more of the same stuff can constitute a nigh-infinite metamind?".

After all, you can't just keep piling processors on a motherboard or stories on a skyscraper. Where's the evidence that you can make a metamind out of your proposed spooky mindstuff?

Okay, now to restate the second problem for you again.

Your "evidence" relies on the claim that the universe is more ordered than it could have been.

You cannot know this unless you either know whether and how our universe could have been different than it is (you don't), or unless you have access to other universes for comparison (you don't).

To summarise yet again for the peanut gallery:

1. You have no evidence of immaterial mind stuff.
2. Even if you did, you would have no evidence that our particular mind stuff can be used to construct a deity.
3. Even if you overcame those hurdles, you would still have no evidence for your deity unless you can prove that the universe could have been different than it is.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Other Universes???? Where the f*ck have I advocated the existence of other Universes? I don't believe in the existence of any other Universes. Metaphysical claptrap.

If you don't believe in other universes, how do you plan to support your assumption that the universe could have been less organised than it is? How could you possibly know this?


We know there is more than the brain; namely the existence of the mind. Now you can say the mind is the brain, but that's kinda like saying a banana is really one and the same thing as an elephant. Have you actually read my last post to you. Did you not take in my arguments? Have you not read those 2 links I gave you. Please do some reading and try to understand.

The thing is, the distinction between "mind" and "functioning human brain" may well be a distinction without a difference.

Since there seems to be a one-to-one relationship going on (all normally functioning developed human brains display the presence of minds, nothing else ever has) where's the evidence that they are not the same thing?

Remember, Ian, you are trying to develop evidence. Not just an unfalsifiable fairy tale. Unfalsifiable fairy tales are not evidence.


Could you please answer me a simple question??? How the f*ck did you get to become to work at a University as a philosophy tutor when you don't seem to understand anything???

By dumb luck, I guess, since according to you I don't understand anything.


If the immaterial is all there is then it is hardly "spooky" now is it? You forget I am an immaterilist. Two types of existent, selves or perceivers which are ontologically self-subsistent, and the empirical realm or the perceived which are ontologically dependent on the former.

Go get a f*cking clue.

How about I go get a "f*cking" quote instead? I'll just go and grab the very first paragraph from your very first post. The one that started this thread, if you recall.

There seems to be this universal misconception amongst atheists that there is no evidence for a God. I intend in this post to refute this notion. To make it real simple, throughout this post I'm going to assume a materialist perspective, or at least a materialist based perspective (i.e. physical reality is primary, and minds or consciousnesses are somehow derived from this primary physical reality).

Ian, is it too much trouble to keep your own story straight?

[thaiboxerken]

Ian is just another theist that tries to mimic intellectual superiority by using psuedo-scientific jargon to express his fallacious arguements.

Ian, you have not made a good arguement yet. All of your arguements are dependant on assumptions that cannot be validated, on ideals that are unfalsifiable and very much on the unknown. You have no evidence for a god, you have given none and you will not give any.

Heck, have you even defined what "god" is?

[triadboy]

Ian,

I asked once before, and you may have forgotten - but I would love to know your definitions of some of the unknowable things we all love to talk about:

1) God
2) Jesus
3) angels
4) Trinity
5) Eskimos

thanks

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ian, logically possible does not mean physically possible. There can be a great number of logically possible universes but only one physically possible one via law of identity.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Ian, logically possible does not mean physically possible. There can be a great number of logically possible universes but only one physically possible one via law of identity.

I agree. I was only ever arguing for logically possible Universes. Your dispute is with zombified not with me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Are you aware you somehow attributed something about chess to me? Not that I really mind. I found it amusingly surreal.



No. Chess hasn't been mentioned in this thread has it? I've been talking about chess in banter of course, but I cannot recall mentioning your name. Unless I did so when I was really pissed and can't remember! Don't think so though. Why on earth should I mention you??

Anyway, I've got one or two people to respond to before I address your post.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hey, Ian, where are you?

<crickets chirping>

Ian?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Other Universes???? Where the f*ck have I advocated the existence of other Universes? I don't believe in the existence of any other Universes. Metaphysical claptrap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you don't believe in other universes, how do you plan to support your assumption that the universe could have been less organised than it is? How could you possibly know this?



I don't. But unless you are able to argue that it is logically impossible for the Universe we happen to inhabit to be less organised, then my argument stands.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know there is more than the brain; namely the existence of the mind. Now you can say the mind is the brain, but that's kinda like saying a banana is really one and the same thing as an elephant. Have you actually read my last post to you. Did you not take in my arguments? Have you not read those 2 links I gave you. Please do some reading and try to understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The thing is, the distinction between "mind" and "functioning human brain" may well be a distinction without a difference.



If you're maintaining that mind and brain refer to the very same thing you need to present arguments to this effect.



Since there seems to be a one-to-one relationship going on (all normally functioning developed human brains display the presence of minds, nothing else ever has) where's the evidence that they are not the same thing?



No. It is not up to me to provide evidence that they are not the same thing. You need to present evidence that they are the same thing. I might as well say what is the evidence that the picture and storyline of a programme displayed on the TV set is not the very same thing as the television set itself. It's at least that daft and I think worse.



Remember, Ian, you are trying to develop evidence. Not just an unfalsifiable fairy tale. Unfalsifiable fairy tales are not evidence.


As I say, it is you that needs to provide the evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the immaterial is all there is then it is hardly "spooky" now is it? You forget I am an immaterilist. Two types of existent, selves or perceivers which are ontologically self-subsistent, and the empirical realm or the perceived which are ontologically dependent on the former.

Go get a f*cking clue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How about I go get a "f*cking" quote instead? I'll just go and grab the very first paragraph from your very first post. The one that started this thread, if you recall.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be this universal misconception amongst atheists that there is no evidence for a God. I intend in this post to refute this notion. To make it real simple, throughout this post I'm going to assume a materialist perspective, or at least a materialist based perspective (i.e. physical reality is primary, and minds or consciousnesses are somehow derived from this primary physical reality).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ian, is it too much trouble to keep your own story straight?



But the conversation is no longer about God! We're talking about your preposterous hypothesis that brain and mind are numerically identical!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by triadboy
Ian,

I asked once before, and you may have forgotten - but I would love to know your definitions of some of the unknowable things we all love to talk about:

1) God
2) Jesus
3) angels
4) Trinity
5) Eskimos

thanks

I have no idea for 2, 3 and 4. 5 is not important and I have already provided a minimal definition of God.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Ian is just another theist that tries to mimic intellectual superiority by using psuedo-scientific jargon to express his fallacious arguements.



Thank you for your intelligent informed observation.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't. But unless you are able to argue that it is logically impossible for the Universe we happen to inhabit to be less organised, then my argument stands.
It has been shown (time and time again) that nothing is "logically impossible" depending on what assumptions you make. If you assume other universes exist, then it is logical that they have different degrees of of organization. But there is no basis for your assumption.

If you're maintaining that mind and brain refer to the very same thing you need to present arguments to this effect.
These arguments have been presented ad nauseum, Ian. You simply refuse to accept correlations as an argument. Do you really want to go over the evidence that the mind is an emergent property of the brain again? Okay then. No minds can be shown to exist independant of brains. Lots of brains exist independant of minds. I fully expect you to ignore this as you have so many times before.

No. It is not up to me to provide evidence that they are not the same thing. You need to present evidence that they are the same thing. I might as well say what is the evidence that the picture and storyline of a programme displayed on the TV set is not the very same thing as the television set itself. It's at least that daft and I think worse.
{sigh} The TV thing again Ian? Here we go again. We have evidence that the electromagnetic waves carry the story and program. This is easily provable by intercepting these waves with a different TV or other EM translating device. There is no device for intercepting, measuring or reproducing the carrier waves between the mind and the brain. Neither can you pick up someone elses "mind waves" even if you had near identical receiving devices (like having identical twins that could read each other's thoughts). Your analogy is totally false. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "transmission" between mind and brain.

As I say, it is you that needs to provide the evidence.
It has been done by many. You have ignored them all or claimed "correlations are not evidence". What, then, is evidence? Is it arguments based on unverifiable assumptions?

But the conversation is no longer about God! We're talking about your preposterous hypothesis that brain and mind are numerically identical!
"Numerically identical?" Who said that? Most materialists have said that the mind is one (of many) emergent properties of the brain. Not all of the brain is concerned with generating the mind, but enough is that we can (and do) study the effect of manipulation of certain parts of the brain on the mind. Where are the studies that show the effect of manipulation of certain parts of the mind on the brain?

Your monomaniacal insistance on the individuality of the mind is yet another emergent property of your very complex brain. A lobotomy might alter that.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky


These arguments have been presented ad nauseum, Ian. You simply refuse to accept correlations as an argument. Do you really want to go over the evidence that the mind is an emergent property of the brain again?



The idea that the mind is an emergent phenomenon is not reductionist materialism! :mad:



{sigh} The TV thing again Ian? Here we go again.



Well people didn't like my banana/elephant thing. Take the more abstract case then. A and B are characteristically utterly unlike each other although states of A are correlated with states of B. Now what is your argument that A and B in fact refer to the very same thing?



We have evidence that the electromagnetic waves carry the story and program. This is easily provable by intercepting these waves with a different TV or other EM translating device.



And suppose there were no such evidence. Would you conclude that the picture and the storyline of the TV programme is the very same thing as the TV sets internal components?

[Loki]

Ian,

Take the more abstract case then. A and B are characteristically utterly unlike each other although states of A are correlated with states of B. Now what is your argument that A and B in fact refer to the very same thing?
No one says this! What is being said is :

When A occurs, B follows.
Therefore, B is a consequence of A.

Who is arguing that B is the same as A?

[Loki]

Ian,

And suppose there were no such evidence. Would you conclude that the picture and the storyline of the TV programme is the very same thing as the TV sets internal components?
An excellent question, Ian! Let's follow it through.

You have just been presented with a small black box containing a screen. You press the "on" button, and the screen starts to show you what appears to be an animated sequence. You set an extensive array of monitoring equipment around this box. You measure every type of "energy" and "force" you can think of. You find that nothing from the "outside" is "transmitting" to the inside. What conclusion do you draw from this evidence?

A. The box is somehow recieving the animated sequence via an undetectable form of transmission.

B. The box contains internal components that are capable of generating the display you are seeing.

(One more piece of information - the box has "GameBoy Advance" written on it.)

Now, why should I assume (A) as the more likely? Why do you?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The idea that the mind is an emergent phenomenon is not reductionist materialism! :mad:
I have no idea what things are or are not reductionist materialism! I only know that you claim the mind is separate from the brain. I want to see your evidence.

Well people didn't like my banana/elephant thing. Take the more abstract case then. A and B are characteristically utterly unlike each other although states of A are correlated with states of B. Now what is your argument that A and B in fact refer to the very same thing?
Here is the argument: Alter A and B is altered. Every time. Other factors do not change this. Therefore, B is an emergent property of A. Alter B and A is in no way altered.

Since you like the "TV" analogy so much, look at it this way. Alter the transmission signal (the brain) and the image is altered on every single television. Alter your TV (the mind) by changing the color settings or putting your fist through the screen and you do absolutely nothing to alter the transmission signal.

Now you may ask, can you actually alter your mind? Well, I say you can. Make a conscious decision to change your mind about something. Change channels on the telly. Reply to a different thread. Order a Theakston instead of a Guinness. Can you observe that your brain has been noticably changed? Can you devise an experiment that would show how your brain is changed by changing your mind? Certainly it is easy to do the opposite. Have about 6 of those Theakstons and your alchohol-altered brain will generate a slightly (or very) different version of your mind. This is a favorite experiment among neurology students.

And suppose there were no such evidence. Would you conclude that the picture and the storyline of the TV programme is the very same thing as the TV sets internal components?
You mean ignore the evidence? Yeah, I might conclude that, but it would be a conclusion based on no evidence and therefore likely to be a wrong conclusion. That's why I prefer conclusions based on evidence. That's why I have little use for the conclusion that the mind is separate from the brain.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The idea that the mind is an emergent phenomenon is not reductionist materialism! :mad:Yes it is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Yes it is.

Are you saying that the mind is logically necessitated or merely naturally necessitated?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are you saying that the mind is logically necessitated or merely naturally necessitated?
I don't think the mind is necessitated at all. The vast majority of "things" have no mind. The mind appears to be a fortuitous circumstance of the evolving brain.

And I'm dismayed that you ignored my earlier post to respond to Pixy. Is my cartoon avatar not as good as his?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are you saying that the mind is logically necessitated or merely naturally necessitated?Neither. The existence of the mind is observation. Its status as an emergent property of the brain is based on two things: first, overwhelming empirical evidence; and second, the materialist principle of what you see is what you get.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Tricky
Is my cartoon avatar not as good as his? Not even close!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are you saying that the mind is logically necessitated or merely naturally necessitated?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither.




Sorry, but it must be either one or the other.



The existence of the mind is observation.



Only if you presuppose it's identical to the brain. But can you justify this?



Its status as an emergent property of the brain is based on two things: first, overwhelming empirical evidence;



I explained in my opening post that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the mind, nor in principle could they ever be.



and second, the materialist principle of what you see is what you get.



Which would mean that other people are not phenomenally conscious.

[Gregor]

Tricky

Ian is not responding to your posts, or Loki's posts, or Kevin Lowe's posts because you've demonstrated that the emperor is naked. (I personnally like the gameboy analogy.)

Each of you has done a superb job of gutting and fileting his wacky theory.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Gregor
Tricky

Ian is not responding to your posts, or Loki's posts, or Kevin Lowe's posts because you've demonstrated that the emperor is naked. (I personnally like the gameboy analogy.)

Each of you has done a superb job of gutting and fileting his wacky theory.
It would be nice to think so, but I actually know the real reason Double-I doesn't reply to me: I don't speak philosophy lingo. I can't tell a post-humanistic actualist from a phenomenal Hamiltonian dualist. I've never been able to get a handle on why qualia should be considered as real things rather than just a concept. Ian has no use for those who cannot speak his language, and I am, philosophically, a troglodyte. He won't even take time to look at my beautiful cave drawings!:p

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't. But unless you are able to argue that it is logically impossible for the Universe we happen to inhabit to be less organised, then my argument stands.

I'm sorry, but even if I were happy to agree that it's "logically possible" for the universe to be less organised, "logical possibility" is not evidence.

It's logically possible that there is in fact a Santa Claus, despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is in no way evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.

The deeper problem is that logic is empty without reference to facts, and you have no facts about what the universe could or could not have been to make reference to. So talk of "logical possibility" is just a pretentious way of saying "I reckon it could have been like this...". What you reckon is not evidence either.


If you're maintaining that mind and brain refer to the very same thing you need to present arguments to this effect.

In this instance you set out to provide us with evidence for the existence of God. If that doesn't put the burden of proof on you, I don't know what does.

If you want to provide evidence of an immaterial super-mind, you have to first establish evidence of an immaterial mind. If you cannot do this, you have nothing.


No. It is not up to me to provide evidence that they are not the same thing. You need to present evidence that they are the same thing. I might as well say what is the evidence that the picture and storyline of a programme displayed on the TV set is not the very same thing as the television set itself. It's at least that daft and I think worse.

You are the one claiming you have evidence, Ian. I'm just asking you to show your work. If you want us to accept the proposition that there is spooky non-material mind stuff, show us evidence.

If you have no evidence for the stuff you plan to build your God out of, how can you possibly have evidence of God? Remember you committed yourself to the materialist perspective in that awkward quote of yours.


But the conversation is no longer about God! We're talking about your preposterous hypothesis that brain and mind are numerically identical!

No. We're not. Nice try. We are discussing the merits or otherwise of your claim to have presented evidence for the existence of God.

Your claim rests on the belief that there is spooky mind-stuff, from which you can make Gods and human minds. If you cannot show evidence that this stuff exists, you have no evidence for God.

You are the one who claimed to have evidence to back up your beliefs. The burden of presenting evidence lies on you.

[asthmatic camel]

Enough of this,

Interesting Ian ? Surely a misnomer.

Goodnight ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
If you're maintaining that mind and brain refer to the very same thing you need to present arguments to this effect. Evidence has already been presented. Evidence you have continued to ignore.

As I say, it is you that needs to provide the evidence. You are the one with the extraordinary claim, therefore you must present the extraordinary evidence.

I explained in my opening post that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the mind, nor in principle could they ever be. You stated that there was not scientific evidence. Your statement does not make it so. There is evidence of the mind. Links have been made available to you and have been ignored by you.

Ossai

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Originally posted by Yahzi
I have proven. beyond all doubt, the existance of god... Simply walk into any Italian resteraunt and ask for grated cheese on your pasta...
Oh, btw, I define "god" as "cheese grater."

It's funny because it's true! You took a long winded post and found the logical flaw in it. Bravo!:D

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Tricky
It would be nice to think so, but I actually know the real reason Double-I doesn't reply to me: I don't speak philosophy lingo. I can't tell a post-humanistic actualist from a phenomenal Hamiltonian dualist. I've never been able to get a handle on why qualia should be considered as real things rather than just a concept. Ian has no use for those who cannot speak his language, and I am, philosophically, a troglodyte. He won't even take time to look at my beautiful cave drawings!:pAnd yet when you point out to these philosphoids that the reason they need all this arcane jargon is that none of what they are saying actually means anything, they get all huffy and won't talk to you.

You can't win.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by PixyMisa

Observe the neurons firing, and you observe the emotions.



Jumping back a bit here but I think this statement sums up what is fundamentally wrong with Pixa'a viewpoint. If you observe neurons firings (even your own during brain surgery!) you do not observe emotions, you observe neurons, end of story. The word emotions refers to a conscious feeling. This feeling is not equivalent to physical descriptions.

[PixyMisa]

It's equivalent, but it is not the same thing. There is a one-to-one mapping between a precisely defined emotion and a set of neurons firing.

The browser you are running is a just electrical signals in a bunch of chips. The fact that it doesn't look like a bunch of electrical signals just means that you don't really see what's going on.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


Jumping back a bit here but I think this statement sums up what is fundamentally wrong with Pixa'a viewpoint. If you observe neurons firings (even your own during brain surgery!) you do not observe emotions, you observe neurons, end of story. The word emotions refers to a conscious feeling. This feeling is not equivalent to physical descriptions.

Feelings are the response of interpretation to the neurons firing. Unless you think that without neurons you won't have feelings?

There is a certain amount of contextual interpretation placed by the mind on the physical sensations that are attributed to emotion. Anger and sexual arousal are very similar on the physical level, the mind interprets which one it is.

Funk On

[wert]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Enough of this,

Interesting Ian ? Surely a misnomer.

"Oxymoron" would be how I'd put it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
And yet when you point out to these philosphoids that the reason they need all this arcane jargon is that none of what they are saying actually means anything, they get all huffy and won't talk to you.

You can't win.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't explain it in comprehensible terms you don't understand it.

It bears pointing out that Ian throws around philosophical jargon gaily, and is quick to attack other people's philosophical credentials, but doesn't actually make any cogent arguments.

He likes to use "philosophical" pretentiousness as an argumentative stick to intimidate people with. But when a mere postgrad like myself shows up, he vanishes.

Hey, Ian, I'm talking to you! What happened? You made such a big show of whining when people didn't read your lengthy posts. But then you said you didn't have time to read any of mine, and disappeared... what are we to think?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
It's equivalent, but it is not the same thing.



If they are not the same thing then observing the neurons cannot be the same as observing an emotion, as you first suggested.
Also, if they are not the same thing then you surely must be supposing that the feeling of fear and the neural correlate are separate entities ?


There is a one-to-one mapping between a precisely defined emotion and a set of neurons firing.


In other words, the two "things" correlate. However, we are addressing the level of distinction between these separately identifiable components of our conscious experience. How is an emotion "equivalent" yet not the "same thing" as the neural correlate ?



The browser you are running is a just electrical signals in a bunch of chips. The fact that it doesn't look like a bunch of electrical signals just means that you don't really see what's going on.

I don't quite understand your meaning here. Where does subjectivity fit into this ? The final output on the monitor can be perfectly described by physical principles as can any internal process you wish to focus on.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Feelings are the response of interpretation to the neurons firing. Unless you think that without neurons you won't have feelings?


The response of interpretation to the neurons firing, as you put it, must also comprise neuronal firing ! So we are still left with the question as to how the feeling and physical process converge/become equivalent.


There is a certain amount of contextual interpretation placed by the mind on the physical sensations that are attributed to emotion. Anger and sexual arousal are very similar on the physical level, the mind interprets which one it is.


But this doesn't address what they are and how they are different from physical descriptions. You are just saying that feelings compete for conscious attention.

I'm going to start a new thread on this because I think I'm drifting a little from this thread.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If they are not the same thing then observing the neurons cannot be the same as observing an emotion, as you first suggested. I would say that the emotion is the result of the neurons firing. That's the full extent of the distinction. The mind is the result of the operation of the brain.Also, if they are not the same thing then you surely must be supposing that the feeling of fear and the neural correlate are separate entities?The feeling of fear is the result of a certain sequence of neurons firing. But fear can only be experienced by firing more neurons. Fear is not a separate entity; it is a brain process.In other words, the two "things" correlate. However, we are addressing the level of distinction between these separately identifiable components of our conscious experience. How is an emotion "equivalent" yet not the "same thing" as the neural correlate?That depends on exactly what you mean by "neural correlate". Fear is not a bunch of neurons in a particular state. It's not a bunch of neurons firing in a particular pattern. It's the process of a bunch of neurons firing in a particular pattern.

That's all that I'm saying. It's a fine distinction, but a significant one. When someone says "Mind is Brain", it's usually just shorthand for "Mind is a Brain process".


mozilla.exe is not a web browser. It's the executable code for a web browser. When you run it on an appropriate computer, the result is a web browser.I don't quite understand your meaning here. Where does subjectivity fit into this?Doesn't. Subjectivity is an illusion, though a convincing one.The final output on the monitor can be perfectly described by physical principles as can any internal process you wish to focus on.Yes. That's my point. Exactly the same goes for any "subjective" experience. If you fully describe the physical process, you have fully described the emotion. Which doesn't mean that such a description is directly useful, the same way that a hex dump of Mozilla won't tell you how it interprets stylesheets, unless you have an "operational theory of Mozilla".

[CapelDodger]

What I have just done is to demonstrate that even under a materialist interpretation of the world, it is not only possible to believe in a “God”, but that the characteristics of the world go someway towards lending some evidence for a God.
Jeez, I ploughed through this vapid twaddle (OK, skimmed through), and you get here? How can characteristics "go some way" towards providing (not "lending", please, let's have hope of closure here) evidence? Something either provides evidence or it doesn't. There isn't a spectrum. Nothing's out there teetering on the verge of an implication or slipping back towards an unsubstantianted speculation.
And solipsism, like chicken-pox and mumps, should be got over with during schooldays. No-one can prove there's no god - well, no s**t, Sherlock. We all know; people just keep building a bigger, more vapid one.

[justsaygnosis]

Hubbell has bought us sights never before seen and has assisted in looking back upon what was.
Closer to home we have archeology.
As the layers of time are seperated we gleen what life was like for our predecessors.
In theory we may only be seeing a recent layer of the universe that appears to our senses.
What we view as a result of the big bang may be similar in the cosmos to the civilization that was built upon the ashes of Pompei after Vesuvius erupted.
That will not negate an ongoing argument as to a primal cause.
There may be no resolution to that argument.
What we can comprehend is varietal in scope and manifestation and lends itself to the possibility that we are alone as a species of our kind in the universe.
Our only escape from that solitude is the notion that we are deliberate manifestations of design and intent.
The problem remains that there is no material proof for abstract, immaterial conjectures.