Is it?

[jond]

I don't want to put words in JetLeg's mouth, but it sounds as though he was trying to logically justify forcing one's beliefs on others if you believe that God wants you to do so. He was first forced to consider an inconsequential being whereas the Christian God is generally regarded to be consequential. Then it was pointed out that even in the case of an inconsequential being, the premise that one could force one's beliefs on others is false.

Hopefully he has realized the error of his logic. Now it sounds like he just wants others to consider his point of view without considering other points of view himself. Not exactly the most persuasive approach.

-Bri

Did I miss something? When did he acknowledge that his logic was off? Where did he acknowledge that he doesn't have the right to force his beliefs on others?

[Bri]

I don't know for sure that he has. I said hopefully he has!

However, JetLeg did state (emphasis mine):

Why do you stress the keep-it-to-yourself point? I agree that these beliefs should not be forced upon others.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Yes indeed. But once you do that, you are no longer making a logical argument. You are simply expressing an emotional standpoint that you have. At most you are exploring the ramifications of your emotional standpoint.

Now that's all well and good if you want to do that. But if you are admitting emotional standpoints as a way to decide on evidence, then other people can just as easily do the same - meaning I can equally declare that I have faith in Manson's innocence and work back from there.

I rarely argue with people who make a claim based purely on their faith, precisely because faith is simply not compatible with rational argument. But consider that under your system of argument you cannot be proved wrong, even if you are wrong. Your entire method of argument simply does not admit any possibility of error.

And it ultimately boils down to "I believe in god because I want to." If you choose to believe in god on that basis, then more power to you. But I can't see how you can expect anybody else to take it seriously.


I think that the whole idea of faith in religion is that you can decide issues about god & metaphysics based upon your emotions. The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true. Do you agree?

[Bri]

Sure, you can base all sorts of beliefs entirely on faith and no actual evidence. But then why would you expect anyone else to take your beliefs seriously?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

I think that you mean "no actual reason" and not "no actual evidence", since the imm-beings should be decided by giving reasons, and not evidence - evidence is not possible.

As to no actual reason - on one hand, you sound right. On the other, it works for all the religions, doesn't it? They assert their beliefs on faith, and are being taken seriously.

[Bri]

JetLeg,

No, I mean evidence. The fact that no evidence is even possible is reason not to believe in an inconsequential being, not reason to believe in one. The fact that they are inconsequential beings means that they are -- well -- inconsequential!

But let's talk about God instead, since that's what this conversation is really about. God isn't typically defined to be inconsequential. However, there is no evidence of God. So you may have other reasons to believe in God, which is just fine as long as you admit that your belief is only opinion. Being opinion, others are justified in holding opposing opinions. My question was why would you expect those with opposing opinions to take your beliefs seriously unless you have some evidence to support your opinion?

Your statement "The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true" is ludicrous. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with how the idea of God makes you feel.

-Bri

[slingblade]

Additionaly, believing in a loving god is fun and can be comforting.


Unless you are convinced you are the only one he doesn't love.

[Seismosaurus]

I think that the whole idea of faith in religion is that you can decide issues about god & metaphysics based upon your emotions. The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true. Do you agree?

I agree that that is what you are doing, but I don't agree with it. God's existence is not subjective; it is an objective fact that god either exists or he does not exist. However you feel about him, whatever meaning it gives to your life, if god truly isn't out there then you are flat wrong. And deliberately operating under a belief system that won't even allow for this possibility makes you deluded and foolish.

[JetLeg]

JetLeg,

No, I mean evidence. The fact that no evidence is even possible is reason not to believe in an inconsequential being, not reason to believe in one. The fact that they are inconsequential beings means that they are -- well -- inconsequential!

But let's talk about God instead, since that's what this conversation is really about. God isn't typically defined to be inconsequential. However, there is no evidence of God. So you may have other reasons to believe in God, which is just fine as long as you admit that your belief is only opinion. Being opinion, others are justified in holding opposing opinions. My question was why would you expect those with opposing opinions to take your beliefs seriously unless you have some evidence to support your opinion?

Your statement "The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true" is ludicrous. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with how the idea of God makes you feel.

-Bri


Some philosophic ideas can be given for nc-immaterial beings. For example, the onthological argument can be phrased as an argument for an nc-immaterial-perfect being. Whether it is a good argument or not, is another question, the point is that it is based upon philosophic considerations, without evidence.

[JetLeg]

I agree that that is what you are doing, but I don't agree with it. God's existence is not subjective; it is an objective fact that god either exists or he does not exist. However you feel about him, whatever meaning it gives to your life, if god truly isn't out there then you are flat wrong. And deliberately operating under a belief system that won't even allow for this possibility makes you deluded and foolish.

Do you agree that this is a large part of what the theistic religions are about? Do you think that such a large percentage of humanity is simply delluded?

[jond]

I think that the whole idea of faith in religion is that you can decide issues about god & metaphysics based upon your emotions. The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true. Do you agree?

Not even remotely. Whatever you think or feel about god has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's true.

[Mashuna]

Some philosophic ideas can be given for nc-immaterial beings. For example, the onthological argument can be phrased as an argument for an nc-immaterial-perfect being. Whether it is a good argument or not, is another question, the point is that it is based upon philosophic considerations, without evidence.

The ornithological argument states that the whole idea of an nc-immaterial-perfect being is for the birds.

[Bri]

I think he means ontological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument).

However, Christians would be quite dismayed if there was a solid ontological argument for an inconsequential immaterial perfect being as it would preclude the existence of their God. Given that there is no possible way that an inconsequential being can interact with the universe, I don't think there are any ontological arguments that one must exist.

So JetLeg, do you believe that you have an ontological argument that an inconsequential perfect being exists? As it would likely disprove the Christian God, I'd sure love to hear it!

-Bri

[Seismosaurus]

Do you agree that this is a large part of what the theistic religions are about?

Operating a mental system which rejects the possibility of error? Yes, I think a large section of theistic religion is about that. Or the attempt to do that, anyway. Thankfully it doesn't always take.

Do you think that such a large percentage of humanity is simply delluded?

Yes I do.

[Bri]

Operating a mental system which rejects the possibility of error? Yes, I think a large section of theistic religion is about that. Or the attempt to do that, anyway. Thankfully it doesn't always take.

I have to disagree that a large section of theistic religion is about rejecting the possibility of error. I think that the vast majority of theists admit that their beliefs are faith-based rather than fact.

Although I agree that if there are theists who claim their beliefs to be fact using faulty logic such as "if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true," they are indeed deluded.

Do you agree that this is a large part of what the theistic religions are about? Do you think that such a large percentage of humanity is simply delluded?

No, most theistic religions don't hold that "if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true." The belief in God is usually based on faith, not based on faulty logic.

Most theists admit that their belief in God is based on faith, not fact.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

So JetLeg, do you believe that you have an ontological argument that an inconsequential perfect being exists? As it would likely disprove the Christian God, I'd sure love to hear it!

-Bri

My point was that you can give some arguments for inc-imm-beings that would not be based on evidence.

For example,

Imagine the most perfect im-inc-being
Existance is included within perfection
Therefore he exists.

But I feel that if we go into it, we will diverge from the topic. All I wanted to say is that you can try to prove im-inc-beings with reason, without evidence, as in the argument above. I do not think that the argument above is a good one, but it does show that such type of discussion is possible.

There is a category of proofs which try to proove that something exists, merely by analyzing the ideas we have about reality, without evidence. Descartes' proof of god was another example of such an attempt.

[JetLeg]

Quote:
Do you think that such a large percentage of humanity is simply delluded?


Yes I do.

Don't you think that it is arrogant of you to say so?

[JetLeg]

Not even remotely. Whatever you think or feel about god has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's true.

Does that not leave you cold-hearted, without emotion?

[slingblade]

Don't you think that it is arrogant of you to say so?

Don't you think it is arrogant of you to accuse someone of being arrogant simply for answering your question?

[jond]

Does that not leave you cold-hearted, without emotion?

Are suggesting that without god there is no emotion?

[slingblade]

Does that not leave you cold-hearted, without emotion?

I feel that reading Harry Potter books makes me happy.
Therefore, Harry Potter is real.

[JetLeg]

Don't you think it is arrogant of you to accuse someone of being arrogant simply for answering your question?

That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.

[JetLeg]

I feel that reading Harry Potter books makes me happy.
Therefore, Harry Potter is real.

It is a deeper issue, it is about bringing meaning to someone's life.

And I never said anything about reading a book.

[JetLeg]

Are suggesting that without god there is no emotion?

No.

Reason is cold - emotion is warm. If you reject emotion, and act on reason, then you are a cold person.

[drkitten]

That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.

You know, at some point in the past hundred years, the majority of the human race thought that disease was caused by evil spirits and bad air. That may even still be true, depending upon how far modern medicine has made it into the bush. The word "malaria" shows its heritage.

I don't think I'm arrogant for holding to the germ theory of disease in the teeth of massive ignorance and superstition.

In 2002, most of the United States believed that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons. I looked at the evidence then and found it unconvincing. I don't consider it arrogant of me to have held to the evidence-based conclusion -- and further events more or less proved me right.

[JetLeg]

You know, at some point in the past hundred years, the majority of the human race thought that disease was caused by evil spirits and bad air. That may even still be true, depending upon how far modern medicine has made it into the bush. The word "malaria" shows its heritage.

I don't think I'm arrogant for holding to the germ theory of disease in the teeth of massive ignorance and superstition.

In 2002, most of the United States believed that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons. I looked at the evidence then and found it unconvincing. I don't consider it arrogant of me to have held to the evidence-based conclusion -- and further events more or less proved me right.

Off-topic : What was your reasoning with the nuclear weapons? I did believe it.

But religion is not something as simple as lack, or existance of nuclear weapons, it is a more complex issue. So in such a case holding opinions contrary to most humanity is arrogance.

[drkitten]

Off-topic : What was your reasoning with the nuclear weapons? I did believe it.

No credible sources were betting the over; the neutral sources (such as the UN observation team and the Iraqi-watching think-tanks) were flatly denying it. There was also no credible case about how Iraq would have produced the stuff, and the Dr. Strangelove scenarios that the Bush administration was presenting would have embarrassed Rube Goldberg. (You're going to put an isotope separator onto trucks?)


But religion is not something as simple as lack, or existance of nuclear weapons, it is a more complex issue. So in such a case holding opinions contrary to most humanity is arrogance.

Er, no, it isn't. It works out, actually, to pretty much the same situation. No credible sources exist for the existence of God, the neutral sources (e.g., the "I had no need of that hypothesis" natural scientists) seem to be pretty firmly against it, and there's no credible case about how He interacts with the world.

On the other hand, there are lots of incredible cases -- let me see, an omnibenevolent God doesn't care enough about people to stop small children from starving to death or from being put to death by the thousands by genocidal dictators, but will nevertheless tie his His panties in a knot if I sleep with a person of the wrong gender? He promised that "ask and it shall be given," but won't cure my grandmother's stroke?

[drkitten]

Reason is cold - emotion is warm.

Glad to see you express yourself so consisely. If I may be equally consise....

:notm

[JetLeg]

Er, no, it isn't. It works out, actually, to pretty much the same situation. No credible sources exist for the existence of God, the neutral sources (e.g., the "I had no need of that hypothesis" natural scientists) seem to be pretty firmly against it, and there's no credible case about how He interacts with the world.


I still think that natural scientists are biased. If there were a god, there would be consequences for them. One of them is that they should obey his will, which they do not want to. Another, is having to say that there is something bigger than you, which one might not want out of arrogance. Another is changing your way of life. They are biased with relationship to god.

[jond]

No.

Reason is cold - emotion is warm. If you reject emotion, and act on reason, then you are a cold person.

Nonsense. If you act on reason it is not necessarily a rejection of emotion.

[slingblade]

That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.

Not I.

This is twice today that someone thought posting a public message on a public forum means only the person addressed has the right of response.

If one wants to address a specific person, and only that person, one ought to PM that person. Otherwise, if it's posted here, it's fair game for response from anyone reading.

You've also made a sweeping statement there. I do not think there is any topic or subject about which I personally hold the only correct view. However, there are some topics and subjects about which I do think my view is correct. I never think that I am the only human being alive on the planet who thinks so, though. That's all okay with you, isn't it?

Trying again:

I think that the whole idea of faith in religion is that you can decide issues about god & metaphysics based upon your emotions.

I disagree with that.

The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true. Do you agree?

No.

[drkitten]

I still think that natural scientists are biased.

That, of course, is your opinion.

It just happens to be more or less groundless.

If there were a god, there would be consequences for them. One of them is that they should obey his will, which they do not want to.

Balderdash. A substantial fraction of natural scientists are in fact theists (case in point, Dr. Miller, the expert witness for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover[, is a practicing Catholic and a published author on the subject of god and science. (See Finding Darwin's God, available at Amazon.com.) He has no problem obeying what he sees as God's will.

Another, is having to say that there is something bigger than you, which one might not want out of arrogance.

Again, balderdash. Most theistic natural scientists have no problem saying that God is bigger than they are.

Another is changing your way of life. They are biased with relationship to god.

Again, balderdash.

You seem to think of "natural scientists" as some sort of uniform atheist bloc. This is utterly wrong. But even the theistic scientists "have no need of that hypothesis" when they are doing their bench science -- Miller has never found any direct evidence of God's work in any of his researches, and the best evidence he can offer for God in Finding Darwin's God is a rather weak philosophical argument based on the anthropic principle. Martin Gardner is another well known theistic scientist, but he's never found evidence of God in any of his mathematical formulae. They have no problem (emotionally or otherwise) acknowleging the existence of God in their personal lives -- but that acknowledgement still has no effect on their professional lives. In some cases it goes further : they will willingly undertake tremendous professional hardships for pesonal moral (religious-based) reasons, but they still have no direct evidence of God in their professional areas of expertise.

In fact, the only people (I hesitate to use the word "scientists") who do make a point of invoking God in their professional lives are the charlatans like Behe, who ended up admitting in testimony at Kitzmiller that what he was proposing was closer to astrology than to science.

There's no problem for natural scientists to believe in God. But there's also no demonstrated need.

[JetLeg]

deleted by user

[jond]

Why what?

[Bri]

My point was that you can give some arguments for inc-imm-beings that would not be based on evidence.

A valid ontological argument (if you had one) would be considered evidence.

However, all ontological arguments are based on the assumption that its premises are true and that its conclusions follow logically from its premises, neither of which is necessarily the case.

So you are free to present such arguments for the existence of God (or of inconsequential beings) but that doesn't mean that anyone else has to accept your argument as valid evidence.


But I feel that if we go into it, we will diverge from the topic. All I wanted to say is that you can try to prove im-inc-beings with reason, without evidence, as in the argument above. I do not think that the argument above is a good one, but it does show that such type of discussion is possible.

I understand what you're trying to say, but your distinction between an "argument" and "evidence" is unfounded. If an argument is valid, it counts as evidence. Unfortunately, I've never seen an irrefutably valid ontological argument for God (much less for an inconsequential being).

There is a category of proofs which try to proove that something exists, merely by analyzing the ideas we have about reality, without evidence. Descartes' proof of god was another example of such an attempt.

(emphasis mine) I think you mean without physical evidence.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Not I.

This is twice today that someone thought posting a public message on a public forum means only the person addressed has the right of response.

If one wants to address a specific person, and only that person, one ought to PM that person. Otherwise, if it's posted here, it's fair game for response from anyone reading.

You've also made a sweeping statement there. I do not think there is any topic or subject about which I personally hold the only correct view. However, there are some topics and subjects about which I do think my view is correct. I never think that I am the only human being alive on the planet who thinks so, though. That's all okay with you, isn't it?

Trying again:



I disagree with that.



No.


That is better, but still, thinking that the majority of people that held a view about a complex issue are simply delluded is arrogant, no?

As to the meaning - don't you think that life should have meaning then?

[Bri]

Does that not leave you cold-hearted, without emotion?

The idea of pixies makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, pixies must exist? If you don't believe in pixies, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

(emphasis mine) I think you mean without physical evidence.

-Bri

I think that evidence is synonimous with physical evidence.

What other type of evidence can you have?

[Bri]

That was not the reason for the accusation. The reason was that you think that the majority of the human race is delluded, and only you are right.

No, the majority of the human race isn't deluded. The majority of the human race admits that their belief in gods is based on faith rather than fact.

Unless I have entirely misunderstood you, you do seem to be deluded. But you're in the minority in that regard.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

The idea of pixies makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, pixies must exist? If you don't believe in pixies, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

* scratching head *
* scratching head *

Can you give me one example more?

[drkitten]

I think that evidence is synonimous with physical evidence.

What other type of evidence can you have?

Logical evidence.

As a simple example -- if someone is on the witness stand and swears that on Monday night they were in Houston, and then five minutes later swears that they were in Calcutta, and ten minutes later swears that they were in Istanbul,.... they can't be in all three places on the same evening. I don't need to look at any physical objects except perhaps a world-map to know that the witness is lying, and therefore I should disregard his testimony.

There's also experiential evidence, which may or may not be physical depending on how you feel about Descartes' ghost in the machine. The taste of chocolate is experiential, but not necessarily physical -- no physical chemist in the world can analyze the molecules and tell me how it tastes. The only way for me to know the taste of chocolate is to put some in my mouth.

[slingblade]

That is better, but still, thinking that the majority of people that held a view about a complex issue are simply delluded is arrogant, no?

I see you weighing my answers and finding them wanting. G'head. Won't hurt me.

Oh...I never called anyone "deluded." That was someone else who said that.

As to the meaning - don't you think that life should have meaning then?

You use a lot of subjective terms. "Should," and "meaning," for example. I'm willing to bet we'll never agree on definitions of those terms that suit us both equally well, so what's the point of asking?

My life has no meaning. I have no purpose. Yet, I'm still here. Sucks, don't it?

[jond]

Again, balderdash. Most theistic natural scientists have no problem saying that God is bigger than they are.



To say nothing of athiests who are well aware that human beings are merely one species of millions here on earth, which is but one tiny planet in an enormous universe. How is that an arrogant position? Isn't it more arrogant to imagine that there's a supreme being who created man in his image?

[Bri]

I think that evidence is synonimous with physical evidence.

What other type of evidence can you have?

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Types_of_evidence):



Intuition
Personal experience
Testimonial
Anecdotal evidence
Scientific evidence



-Bri

[Bri]

It is a deeper issue, it is about bringing meaning to someone's life.

And if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, that means Harry Potter exists?

And I never said anything about reading a book.

Slingblade's example is actually better than mine. How does slingblade know about Harry Potter? How do you know about God?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

And if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, that means Harry Potter exists?



Slingblade's example is actually better than mine. How does slingblade know about Harry Potter? How do you know about God?

-Bri


No, if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, it does not mean that Harry Potter exists. It just means that slingblade delluded if he thinks he does.

But it is not so with God.

[Bri]

The idea of pixies makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, pixies must exist? If you don't believe in pixies, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

* scratching head *
* scratching head *

Can you give me one example more?

The idea of gnomes makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, gnomes must exist? If you don't believe in gnomes , does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

-Bri

[jond]

No, if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, it does not mean that Harry Potter exists. It just means that slingblade delluded if he thinks he does.

But it is not so with God.

What's the difference? Fiction is fiction.

[Bri]

No, if Harry Potter brings meaning to slingblade's life, it does not mean that Harry Potter exists. It just means that slingblade delluded if he thinks he does.

But it is not so with God.

You are half right. Please give me the key differences between God and Harry Potter that would make the statement correct about one but not the other? How about pixies and gnomes? Want another example?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

They just are different.

[jond]

They just are different.

Jetleg, you have learned nothing. I am sad for you. See, I'm not a cold emotionless person, though I am a rational thinker. You've been shown repeatedly through these eight pages the flaws in your arguments, and now you come up with this doozy. Sorry, and good luck with HH the DL.

[Seismosaurus]

Don't you think that it is arrogant of you to say so?

No, I honestly don't think it is.

Was the boy who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes arrogant to disagree with everybody else?

If I just dismissed religion as delusion out of hand, then that would be very arrogant. But I've been talking to religious people about religion for twenty years now. I've talked to literally thousands of them. And I've asked most of them for reasons to believe.

I've never yet had a rational, sensible answer to that question. Not ever. In every single case the believer has responded either with evidence that doesn't prove at ALL what he or she thinks it does... or with logical proofs that are full of holes you could fly an A-380 through... or, by far the most common, with some variant of "it feels nice to believe, so it must be true" - essentially your own argument.

None of them hold water. The emperor has no clothes.

[Bri]

They just are different.

No they're not.

-Bri

[drkitten]

The idea of gnomes makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, gnomes must exist? If you don't believe in gnomes, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

The idea of unicorns makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Are you saying that because of this, unicorns must exist? If you don't believe in unicorns, does that not leave you cold-hearted without emotion?

The idea of elves makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of Klingons makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of Kzinti makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of hobbits makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

The idea of the Loch Ness Monster makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

Need I go through the entire bestiary?

[JetLeg]

They are different because most of humanity believes in one and not the other.

[Seismosaurus]

The idea of Klingons makes me feel warm and fuzzy....

Oh man, you have issues!

[Bri]

Need I go through the entire bestiary?

No, if any of those brings meaning to your life, it does not mean that they exist. It just means that you are deluded if you think it does.

But it is not so with faeries!

[Bri]

They are different because most of humanity believes in one and not the other.

We've already discussed that this statement is a fallacy. Not only would it be a fallacy if it were true, but it's not true!

While it's true that the majority of the human population believes in gods, the majority of humanity does not believe in any particular god.

I assume you're Christian, so to be specific, the majority of human beings do not believe in the Christian God.

-Bri

[drkitten]

They are different because most of humanity believes in one and not the other.

And if most of the world believes that "malaria" is caused by bad air or that there are nuclear weapons in Iraq, those beliefs magically become true?

That's a fallacy. It's formally called "argumentum ad populam," but you don't need to know the Latin to know that it's wrong. Your mother knew it. ("And if all the other kids wanted to jump off a cliff, would you do that?")

(And, for that matter, until less than three hundred years ago, most of the population of the world believed in faeries and witches. Perhaps they still do. Does this mean that faeries ceased to exist around 1700?)

[JetLeg]

the majority of human beings do not believe in the Christian God.

-Bri



I don't understand what you mean by that. The majority of human beings believe in an ombipotent immaterial being. So they believe in the same god.

[JetLeg]

Besides, if fairies and harry potter exist, they are material, so one should give physical evidence for them.

If immaterial beings exist, they are not material.

I agree that it doesn't solve the problem, but still, thinking of immaterial beings that give meaning to one's life is better than thinking of material ones that you need physical evidence for them.

[slingblade]

I don't understand what you mean by that.

She means exactly what she said.


The majority of human beings believe in an ombipotent immaterial being.

Who told you that?


(the word is "omnipotent." The word you used isn't a word, and gives me a disturbing image of a bifurcated penis. And before lunch, too. Dang.)



So they believe in the same god.

No.

[Bri]

I don't understand what you mean by that. The majority of human beings believe in an ombipotent immaterial being. So they believe in the same god.

The Christian God is different in many significant ways from other gods that other religions believe in, wouldn't you agree?

For example, a deist believes that God never intervenes with the world (similar to your inconsequential being). Pantheism holds that the Universe itself is god. Panentheism, or Monistic Monotheism, is a form of theism that holds that god contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. Substance monotheism, found in some indigenous African religions, holds that the many gods are different forms of a single underlying substance. Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie nature.

Monotheism in Hinduism is known as "Ekanyana" and God Almighty is Ekam (One.) Many Hindus, including Smartas, believe in God having three aspects as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, the Trimurti (also called the Hindu trinity.) and these different aspects are part of the one and the same God.

Most of those gods are entirely incompatible with the Christian concept of God, and if they existed would likely preclude the Christian God from existing.

-Bri

[Bri]

Besides, if fairies and harry potter exist, they are material, so one should give physical evidence for them.

Why? They're magic and can make themselves invisible! Why would there be any evidence?

If immaterial beings exist, they are not material.

Say, didn't God once come to earth in the form of his own son? How can you say God is immaterial?

I agree that it doesn't solve the problem, but still, thinking of immaterial beings that give meaning to one's life is better than thinking of material ones that you need physical evidence for them.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Can you elaborate?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Bri,

Harry Potter and faeries have mass - unlike god.

[Bri]

JetLeg,

Are you saying that Jesus didn't have mass?

Do you know what the difference between a material magical unicorn and an immaterial magical unicorn is? One is material by default and must make himself invisible. The other is invisible by default and must make himself visible. Luckily, invisibility for the material magical unicorn is effortless, as is visibility for the immaterial magical unicorn. While invisible, neither have mass.

In other words, they are exactly the same.

-Bri

[drkitten]

Harry Potter and faeries have mass - unlike god.

Two problems.

First, Jesus Christ, who was God, also had mass.

And second, Harry Potter and faeries are magical and can make themselves massless. (We've even see HP do that to his Aunt in, I think, book three....)

[JetLeg]

What do you mean by an immaterial harry potter? What makes him Harry Potter at all, if he is immaterial? And what makes a fairy a fairy, if she is immaterial - and therefore is not a small human with wings?

[drkitten]

What do you mean by an immaterial harry potter?

Harry Potter after he casts the little-known Ecco Immaterialis spell. Not to be confused with Eco Immaterialis, which causes the temporary disappearance of a well-known Italian author. Or Ecko Immaterialis, which causes trendy clothing to vanish. Useful at parties, that last variant is....

[Bri]

A small human with wings is just a faerie's chosen non-immaterial form. Just like God appeared in the form of a white dude with long hair and blue eyes.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

I still think that there is a contradiction in the idea of imm-Harry Potter. It sounds just like a square circle.

The spell you described sounds like saying O-circloida spell.

"O-circloida is the spell that causes the square to become a circle, though remaining his square identity ".

You can also say

The B-circloida is the spell that causes the square to manifest as a circle. So what? I don't understand what it means for a square to manifest as a circle.

[drkitten]

I still think that there is a contradiction in the idea of imm-Harry Potter. It sounds just like a square circle.

No, there isn't, any more than there's a contradiction in the idea of an invisible one or a massless one (which are both canonical). It's simply magic.

[JetLeg]

If so, you have to agree that can be such a thing as square circles as long as they are "magical ones".

[drkitten]

If so, you have to agree that can be such a thing as square circles as long as they are "magical ones".

Actually, I don't. I can simply use the L1-metric and create geometric figures that are both squares and circles.

Which is to say, I can use mathematics to make the two words potentially synonymous. If you consider the use of technology to obtain a desired end "magic," then I'm cool with that.

But beyond that, I can also enumerate the properties that define (conventionally defined) squares and circles and prove a contradiction.

What is the property of Harry Potter that prevents him from being immaterial? Bear in mind that ghosts exist in the Harry Potter world, that ghosts are immaterial, and that ghosts retain personal identity. The ghost of Nearly Headless Nick is still Sir Nicholas despite being immaterial....

[JetLeg]

I am not sure that Rowling has it right with ghosts.
If something is visual, but immaterial, that is strange. If you say "magic" - well, I can say that weapons of mass destructions dissapeared from Iraq "magically". But what would that explain?


But more to the point - you can say that 'an immaterial being' is a contradiction.

But I don't think so.

That is a bit sophisticated - but I am a dualist, I don't think that matter is all, I do think that our emotions are immaterial, even though they might be completely caused by the brain. If emotions are just an "epiphenomena" of the brain, that cannot have a causal efficacy in the material world, nevertheless they can exist, and be immaterial.

So, an imm-being is not a contradiction.

So the idea that such a being exists, if he gives meaning to my life is not exactly in the same category as material phenomena, or immaterial people.

[drkitten]

I am not sure that Rowling has it right with ghosts.

She's the author. She's writing fiction. How can you get fiction wrong?

[drkitten]

If something is visual, but immaterial, that is strange.

Not that strange. Holograms are visual, but immaterial. So are reflections in mirrors (which is one reason that they are used world-wide in various magical traditions).


If you say "magic" - well, I can say that weapons of mass destructions dissapeared from Iraq "magically". But what would that explain?

Quite a bit -- if you accept the existence of "magic," then it's a legitimate explanation. Or if you have some more sophisticated view of magic (for example, magic in Terry Pratchett's Discworld follows various rules of nature), then it might not be a legitimate explanation for some magic-logical reason.

Alternatively, you could simply reject "magic" out of hand as an explanation for world-events. But in this case, there's no difference between rejecting one magical being (Harry Potter) and another (God).

What property can you demonstrate for God that I can't equally demonstrate for imm-Harry Potter?

[JetLeg]

Internal logic. For example, in Lord of the Rings the story is quite consistent.

[JetLeg]

I don't call god an imm-human. That IS a contradiction. Humans have bodies of human shape. god is an imm-being/

[drkitten]

I don't call god an imm-human. That IS a contradiction. Humans have bodies of human shape.

Unless they're Nearly Headless Nick, or have assumed imm-form via a spell.

god is an imm-being/

As is Harry Potter with a suitable spell.

[JetLeg]

Actually, when I come to think of it, an imm-being is a contradiction. Beings are bodies as well as emotions. Humans are beings, cats are beings. Both have emotions and bodies. So, an imm-being is a contradiction because a bodyless-being is a contradictoin.

So, I change it to an imm-disembodied-stream-of-consciousness.

[drkitten]

Actually, when I come to think of it, an imm-being is a contradiction.

Nonsense. Nearly Headless Nick is an imm-being. Reading about him makes me feel warm and fuzzy -- therefore he (and other imm-beings) exist, by your own argument.

[JetLeg]

Please define what it means for you that something is a "being".

What are the qualities of something that is a "being" versus something that is not a "being".

I think that if you define it, and then define what are the qualities of what is "immaterial", you will see that they contradict.

[Bri]

According to Webster, a being is just something that exists.

But you never answered any of my questions. Didn't God appear as a human being in the form of Jesus Christ? Didn't Jesus have mass? How is that different from an immaterial magical faerie exist who can appear as a tiny person with wings?

What would allow you to use the logic that God must exist simply because God makes you feel warm and fuzzy? And by the same logic, why mustn't the faerie also exist because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy?

-Bri

[slingblade]

You can always borrow my razor. For that fuzzy feeling.

[JetLeg]

According to Webster, a being is just something that exists.

But you never answered any of my questions. Didn't God appear as a human being in the form of Jesus Christ? Didn't Jesus have mass? How is that different from an immaterial magical faerie exist who can appear as a tiny person with wings?

What would allow you to use the logic that God must exist simply because God makes you feel warm and fuzzy? And by the same logic, why mustn't the faerie also exist because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy?

-Bri


As to Jesus, I don't believe in him. I am for a loving god, but a one that did not incarnate into a human being.

Though I would not rely too much on dictionary definitions. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Some dictionaries define atheists in such a way that you would not agree with.

But, I think that faerie must include "with wings". Wings are material -> contradiction.

Warm and fuzzy is your way of putting it. I would put it in far more loftier words.

[Bri]

You can always borrow my razor. For that fuzzy feeling.

But will it make me feel warm too?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

As to "warm and fuzzy" - you can describe it as an immaterial-teddy-bear, or as an immaterial hug.

But I think the choice of words is important. Whether you describe something in a more or less beautiful way makes a difference. I would describe it as something that is important to one's life, that makes a difference, that is sublime, is about transcendent and infinite love.

Your choice of words makes it sound trivial.

[Bri]

As to Jesus, I don't believe in him. I am for a loving god, but a one that did not incarnate into a human being.

So are you saying that your God is less powerful than the Christian God since it cannot appear as a person? That would certainly refute your earlier statement that your god must exist because most of humanity believes in it. I guarantee that most of humanity does not believe in the god you're describing.


Though I would not rely too much on dictionary definitions. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Some dictionaries define atheists in such a way that you would not agree with.

Sure, but you asked for a definition, so I gave you one. If you don't like it, then you give us one that you prefer. However, I see no reason that God wouldn't fit any definition you could come up with, assuming that a magical faerie would. Or, if you were to choose a definition that God wouldn't fit, I'm pretty sure the faerie I described also wouldn't fit.

But, I think that faerie must include "with wings". Wings are material -> contradiction.

Perhaps you misread. I said that the faerie can appear as a tiny person with wings if it chooses, just as God can appear as a person. Or it can choose to be immaterial, just like God. Unless you are claiming that your god is powerless to appear as a person, in which case my faerie is more powerful than your god is.

Warm and fuzzy is your way of putting it. I would put it in far more loftier words.

Oh, you mean like it "brings meaning to your life?" Your exact quote was "The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true." So if a view about the faerie brings meaning to my life, it must be true. Right?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

I don't understand the whole issue with god appearing as a person. If god is an imm-being, what does it mean that he appears as a person?

It seems like talking about a circle "manifesting" or "incarnating" as a square.

So the whole issue with Jesus doesn't impress me too much. And neither does your faeri which can choose to be material, or immaterial if it wants to. What about the problem of identity? In what sense can you say than an imm-faeri is the same as an m-one?


I feel that there is some misunderstanding for some reason, not sure why.

Again, faeries not the same as god, because they are physical. Don't understand the whole manefestation bussiness. Show me how it works. What does it mean on a practical level for an imm-being to manifest as m-being. What is the speed of transformation of god\faeri to a living being?

[Bri]

I don't understand the whole issue with god appearing as a person. If god is an imm-being, what does it mean that he appears as a person?

It seems like talking about a circle "manifesting" or "incarnating" as a square.

That's only because you're hooked on the word "immaterial" for some reason. If your god is truly immaterial by your definition (he cannot manifest or appear material) then your god is more limited than the Christian God or my faerie. So your god isn't perfect.

So the whole issue with Jesus doesn't impress me too much. And neither does your faeri which can choose to be material, or immaterial if it wants to. What about the problem of identity? In what sense can you say than an imm-faeri is the same as an m-one?

Call it whatever you want, it kicks your god's ass.

I feel that there is some misunderstanding for some reason, not sure why.

I'm pretty sure I know why. Because your definitions keep shifting as you need them to in order to attempt to make a point. The problem is that your point is simply wrong.

Again, faeries not the same as god, because they are physical. Don't understand the whole manefestation bussiness. Show me how it works. What does it mean on a practical level for an imm-being to manifest as m-being. What is the speed of transformation of god\faeri to a living being?

What does the speed of transformation have to do with anything? It's as fast as the faerie wants it to be.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

The speed of transformation is important because it is a way to show that the whole bussiness of an imm-being manifesting as an m-being is senseless from a practical point of view. You need to define what physical forces are in process. "Magic" is not really an answer.

As to perfection - honestly, I never thought if my god is perfect or not.


An m-bed is waiting for an m-jetleg.

[Bri]

The speed of transformation is important because it is a way to show that the whole bussiness of an imm-being manifesting as an m-being is senseless from a practical point of view. You need to define what physical forces are in process. "Magic" is not really an answer.

Oh, so your god is also limited by physical forces? Really sad. Pitiful. So what can your god actually do?

As to perfection - honestly, I never thought if my god is perfect or not.

Your description of your god seems limited. Whether you describe something in a more or less beautiful way makes a difference. I would describe my faerie as something that is important to one's life, that makes a difference, that is sublime, is about transcendent and infinite love.

Your god seems rather ... limited in comparison. Your choice of words makes it sound trivial.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Bri, are you christian? The importance of my god is not the physical acts he performs, or doesn't. The importance is the emotional impact.


And you don't address the distinction I make. Imm-beings are in a totally different category than m-beings. You cannot have physical evidence for them. You could have physical evidence for your examples. And for faeries. Like someone said - just give me a single fairy fossil. Or a harry potter fossil.

[JetLeg]

Not that strange. Holograms are visual, but immaterial. So are reflections in mirrors (which is one reason that they are used world-wide in various magical traditions).



Off - topic (tell me if that is not customary at those forums) :

So you are not a materealist (a person that thinks that all is composed from matter)? You do think that immaterial things exist? (holograms)

How would you classify them? Holograms exist, right? But they are immaterial. In what category would you put them.

[drkitten]

So you are not a materealist (a person that thinks that all is composed from matter)? You do think that immaterial things exist? (holograms)

How would you classify them? Holograms exist, right? But they are immaterial. In what category would you put them.

In the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the same category into which I put sensations like hunger, ideas like honor, or abstractions like the three-ness that three apples and three monkeys share, or patterns like the face-ness people see in badly fried tortillas.

What an odd question. Did you expect me to deny the existence of holograms, or did you expect me to reverse myself and say, "oh, no, holograms are material after all"?

[drkitten]

You could have physical evidence for your examples. And for faeries. Like someone said - just give me a single fairy fossil. Or a harry potter fossil.

Fairies don't fossilize. They're immortal (check the specs), so they don't die -- and only dead things fossilize.

Just like God, for that matter. Show me a God fossil? Oh, God is immortal, too? How conVENient....

Besides that, you could have physical evidence for God, too. A burning bush that talks, or a rain of manna would be a good start. But the fact that God chooses not to talk through bushes isn't generally held by theists to be evidence against Him -- why the double standard?

[JetLeg]

I thought that most people at this forum don't accept the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the only category that is usually accepted is material-things-that-exist.

And if you accept the category - why not add god to it?

[Bri]

Bri, are you christian? The importance of my god is not the physical acts he performs, or doesn't. The importance is the emotional impact.

Given your past argument that the majority of people in the world believe in your god, I assumed you were Christian. If not, why did you use that argument since it is clear that very few people in the world believe in your god.

And you don't address the distinction I make. Imm-beings are in a totally different category than m-beings. You cannot have physical evidence for them. You could have physical evidence for your examples. And for faeries. Like someone said - just give me a single fairy fossil. Or a harry potter fossil.

Why would you expect to find evidence of the magic faerie? Aside from the fact that it's immortal, it doesn't want anyone to know of its existence, and given that it's magic, it is extremely good at hiding.

Again, can you tell me what your god can do, or is your god incapable of interacting with the world (i.e. inconsequential)? Does your god do anything aside from wanting us all to wear green socks but being entirely unable to communicate that to anyone and just sitting around hoping that it pops into someone's mind by coincidence?

-Bri

[Mashuna]

As to perfection - honestly, I never thought if my god is perfect or not.



Wait, weren't you trying the ontological argument a few posts ago. You remember, the whole 'imagine a perfect being. . .' post you typed. You're abandoning this line now?

[Roboramma]

I thought that most people at this forum don't accept the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the only category that is usually accepted is material-things-that-exist.

And if you accept the category - why not add god to it?
For the same reason that we don't add Fire Breathing Dragons to the category of material things that exist - there's no evidence.

I mean, really... your question doesn't make any sense.

[Roboramma]

But, I think that faerie must include "with wings". Wings are material -> contradiction.

Okay, so what if I find meaning in the idea of immaterial fairies? Does that mean that they exist?

[Bri]

Wait, weren't you trying the ontological argument a few posts ago. You remember, the whole 'imagine a perfect being. . .' post you typed. You're abandoning this line now?

JetLeg also tried the argument that the majority of humanity believed in his god and therefore it must exist. Of course, with these most recent changes in the attributes of his god, he has precluded that argument as well (not that it was any less fallacious than his ontological argument to begin with).

-Bri

[drkitten]

I thought that most people at this forum don't accept the category of immaterial-things-that-exist, the only category that is usually accepted is material-things-that-exist.

Then you thought wrong, didn't you?


And if you accept the category - why not add god to it?

For the same reason I didn't add Iraqi nuclear weapons (or flying unicorns) to the category of material-things-that-exist. No credible evidence to support it.

Just because a category exists doen't mean that every conceivable string of words must exist to fill it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

But holograms are material.

[drkitten]

But holograms are material.

Really? They do not occupy space, they have no mass, they can be interpenetrated easily by physical objects..... I'm not sure what definition of "material" you're using, but I doubt anyone but perhaps a physicist would find it intuitive or convincing.

[slingblade]

I guess I just don't get the point of such a discussion, after a certain point.

I mean, I know to beware of the false dichotomy, the either/or, yes/no limitation, when there are, in actuality, more choices. But sometimes, things do fall into a yes/no, either/or category.

IMO, this sub-forum is often such a place. One is usually here either to get confirmation of his or her ideas, or one is here to find out if his/her ideas can be refuted, and if so, to learn from it. JREF forum is not your typical discussion forum; many of the members are here to learn, and are willing to change their minds. Many people are here because they question the world around them (and within them), and want to learn a better way to deal with life, a more logical, sensible, "oh, no, you can't fool me anymore, I know better now" way.

It's often called a skeptic's forum, and while it's also much more than that, I think skepticism, the "I doubt that" factor as it's often put, is the core of this particular group. As the scorpion said, "It's what I (we) do."

I can't figure out, though, why people who aren't willing to learn, who really and only want confirmation of their particular ideas, come here to get it. This is the last place, I would think, one is going to find blind acceptance of anything. And some of them are so persistent! "Here's my idea. What, it's crap? Okay, let me rephrase it, restructure it, but keep it essentially the same. Is it still crap? It is? Well, how about now? Still? What about when I hold my mouth like this--now do you accept my idea? No? Really? How about now?" and on and on, ad infinitum.

These people aren't learning anything. They don't want to learn anything. They want agreement, right or wrong.

So, JetLeg, my question to you is: are you here to learn something, or to get confirmation of what you think you already know? If the former, you need to try harder. If the latter, you need to know you won't find it here; not for the specific ideas you've expressed so far.

What if there is a god, and he's an immaterial entity? He isn't having any discernable impact on my life, so why should I give it even a moment's thought? Why have you given it so very, very much thought? It seems as if you really need for there to be a god of some kind. Okay. No, really, that's fine. You can have what you want, believe what you want. We aren't trying to take it away from you.

But you came here, and you offered it to us for dissection, whether you knew that or not when you arrived. We've dissected the idea, and largely found it wanting. and yet you keep offering it to us, seemingly without a clue that, until you change the situation, the situation isn't going to change.

I'm a writer. I think part of the reason is that I like sequence and structure. I am comfortable when things in general have a beginning, a middle, and eventually, an end. I get frustrated when the end has arrived (or at least I think it's here) and it goes by unrecognized.

So, I guess I'm asking, "Will that be all, sir?" I mean, what else can we do for you? You asked your question, got answers you didn't care for, and are now stuck on asking the same thing over and over in as many ways as you can think of to ask. That you are getting the same answers isn't helping you, as far as I can see.

So, now what? What do you, in the end, want?

[Bri]

slingblade,

Good post. JetLeg is correct on one point: his beliefs may in fact be true. But he's wrong about the most important point: that just because something may be true doesn't mean it is true. Without actual evidence, you simply cannot get around that pesky, ever-present doubt -- if your belief may be true, it also may be false. And to JetLeg, doubt is the enemy. JetLeg doesn't understand is that doubt is a good and healthy thing.

In that vein, JetLeg will probably say that he is neither here to learn nor to confirm his belief. After all, if you're wanting to confirm your belief, that implies that you have some doubt about your belief. JetLeg has yet to admit any doubt, and will probably say that he's here because he thinks other people ought to believe as he does. Of course, we all know that when people want others to believe as they do, it's usually the result of doubt. But JetLeg will likely never admit that.

Instead, JetLeg uses blatantly fallacious logic to proclaim that his belief is irrefutable fact. He thinks his belief can be absolute fact without having any reason for thinking so, and is sincerely surprised when it's pointed out that such thinking is indeed irrational and in his case possibly delusional. As you point out, he throws out all sorts of weird arguments, not to have them validated (again that would imply doubt on his part), but to convince others that he is right. When the blatant flaws in his arguments are pointed out, he has and will throw out a new ones, all a careful and delicate dance to allow him to continue to think that his belief is fact.

The good news is that JetLeg very likely does have doubt, otherwise he wouldn't be here trying to convince us to believe as he does. And I suspect that the discussion has more affect on his beliefs than he will admit.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really? They do not occupy space, they have no mass, they can be interpenetrated easily by physical objects..... I'm not sure what definition of "material" you're using, but I doubt anyone but perhaps a physicist would find it intuitive or convincing.

I didn't say anything about them being solid. They are most definitely material. And it matters not that only a physicist would find the argument convicing if it is correct.

Holograms are "composed" of laser light. Light has a material basis. For the same reason a reflection in a mirror is also material. Energy and matter are interchangeable -- one can be converted into the other. So the "stuff" we call energy is material.

[JetLeg]

....



Hi,

I have certain beliefs. I understand that most people here not only hold these beliefs, but simply think they are wrong. So, I do want my beliefs to be dissected by them. But, I will try and hold by them, until the last defense line falls. The idea of a consequent-being is a hard one to defend, since consequence implies evidence. I think that this line can fall pretty quickly. So, I am trying to hold the line of defense of immaterealism.

[JetLeg]

Then you thought wrong, didn't you?



For the same reason I didn't add Iraqi nuclear weapons (or flying unicorns) to the category of material-things-that-exist. No credible evidence to support it.

Just because a category exists doen't mean that every conceivable string of words must exist to fill it.

By what criteria do you select which things to add to your category of immaterial-things-that-exist?

[JetLeg]

Given your past argument that the majority of people in the world believe in your god, I assumed you were Christian. If not, why did you use that argument since it is clear that very few people in the world believe in your god.



The majority of people in the world does believe in an immaterial god.


I would not use this argument to prove falsifiable things. The majority of humanity can believe that the earth is flat, but it is falsifiable.


I do think that if the majority of humanity believes in something which is unfalsifiable, it must be true.

[JetLeg]

slingblade,

Good post. JetLeg is correct on one point: his beliefs may in fact be true. But he's wrong about the most important point: that just because something may be true doesn't mean it is true.


Yes, I disagree about this one. But, if there is an internal inconsistency in my concept of god, that will be a problem for me, though I will try to hold to the last defense line.

[Bri]

Hi,

I have certain beliefs. I understand that most people here not only hold these beliefs, but simply think they are wrong. So, I do want my beliefs to be dissected by them. But, I will try and hold by them, until the last defense line falls. The idea of a consequent-being is a hard one to defend, since consequence implies evidence. I think that this line can fall pretty quickly. So, I am trying to hold the line of defense of immaterealism.

Let's cut to the chase, JetLeg. It sounds as though you don't really believe anything, but are simply changing your beliefs until you hit upon one that you think can be "defended." So let me help you out.

A inconsequential god cannot necessarily be disproved. A consequential god cannot necessarily be disproved. The belief that there are no gods cannot necessarily be disproved. So take your pick.

That said, just because something cannot be disproved doesn't mean that it can be proved either. And just because something might exist doesn't mean it does exist.

So believe what you want. Nobody here is going to tell you what you can or cannot believe. However, if you want to convince anyone else that your belief is fact, you'll have to present evidence. Otherwise, just know that your belief is not fact, but opinion.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

That said, just because something cannot be disproved doesn't mean that it can be proved either. And just because something might exist doesn't mean it does exist.

-Bri

Even if there is no way to prove my god, there is no way to disprove him.

We both agree upon this.

Why does this not make the two points of view equally valid?

[Bri]

JetLeg,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you need to brush up on your logic skills.

The majority of people in the world does believe in an immaterial god.

Define "immaterial." You seem to be confusing "immaterial" and "inconsequential." An immaterial god who is consequential can still affect and communicate with the world, and therefore there may be evidence of such a god. So I'm not sure what being immaterial has to do with anything at all.

Of course, the fact that there may be evidence of a god doesn't necessarily mean that there is evidence. For example, the god might be all-powerful and choose not to leave any evidence.

The majority of the people in the world believe in a consequential god that is capable of being immaterial or of appearing materially at will. Therefore, if your god is inconsequential as you previously stated, or if it cannot appear materially as you previously stated, then the majority of people in the world believe in gods that are quite different from yours.

I would not use this argument to prove falsifiable things. The majority of humanity can believe that the earth is flat, but it is falsifiable.

At one time, the belief that the earth is flat was unfalsifiable, because it was (at the time) impossible to prove false (that's what unfalsifiable means). Whether a god exists or not is also currently unfalsifiable, but might be falsifiable at some point in the future, or might even be verified as true or false.

Falsifiable or not, the number of people that believe a particular proposition has no bearing whatsoever on whether that proposition is true. This fallacy has been pointed out to you several times. Even if it was true, the argument wouldn't hold for the god you described since it is quite different from any god that a majority of people believe in.

I do think that if the majority of humanity believes in something which is unfalsifiable, it must be true.

If something is unfalsifiable, then by definition it may be true, but may not be true. The number of people who believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. In addition, things that are unfalsifiable today may be falsifiable tomorrow.

-Bri

[Bri]

Yes, I disagree about this one. But, if there is an internal inconsistency in my concept of god, that will be a problem for me, though I will try to hold to the last defense line.

There are many concepts of gods for which there is no internal inconsistency. You win! So what?

If you want to convince anyone else of the existence of your god, you'll need to provide evidence.

-Bri

[Bri]

Why does this not make the two points of view equally valid?

1. Which two points of view are you talking about?

2. Define "valid."

-Bri

[JetLeg]

1. Which two points of view are you talking about?

2. Define "valid."

-Bri

(1) The point of view that an im-inc being does not exist
(2) The point of view that it does


Eh...

Valid...


Equally strong from an intellectual point of view.

[JetLeg]

JetLeg,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you need to brush up on your logic skills.

=====================================
okay
=====================================

Define "immaterial." You seem to be confusing "immaterial" and "inconsequential." An immaterial god who is consequential can still affect and communicate with the world, and therefore there may be evidence of such a god. So I'm not sure what being immaterial has to do with anything at all.

=====================================
I meant an immaterial inconsequential
=====================================



Of course, the fact that there may be evidence of a god doesn't necessarily mean that there is evidence. For example, the god might be all-powerful and choose not to leave any evidence.


The majority of the people in the world believe in a consequential god that is capable of being immaterial or of appearing materially at will. Therefore, if your god is inconsequential as you previously stated, or if it cannot appear materially as you previously stated, then the majority of people in the world believe in gods that are quite different from yours.

=====================================
Eh...
This is a bit fuzzy.

Person A believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT.
Person B believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT, NT, and the Quran

Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?

Person A believes in an immaterial inconsequential god.
Person B believes in an immaterial consequential god.

Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?

=====================================



Falsifiable or not, the number of people that believe a particular proposition has no bearing whatsoever on whether that proposition is true.


=====================================
How do you demonstrate the truth of the above statement? With regards to unfalsifiable claims, not falsifiable ones.
=====================================



If something is unfalsifiable, then by definition it may be true, but may not be true. The number of people who believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. In addition, things that are unfalsifiable today may be falsifiable tomorrow.

=====================================

some ideas can be inherently unfalsifiable. For example the idea that my dog created the world and implanted false memories to everyone. How can you falsify it in the future?

If there is an imm-inc-being, how can you falsify it in the future?
=====================================

-Bri

__

[Bri]

(1) The point of view that an im-inc being does not exist
(2) The point of view that it does


Eh...

Valid...


Equally strong from an intellectual point of view.

Then the two are equally valid in the same sense that the point of view that faeries exist and the point of view that they don't exist are equally valid.

For most things, you choose to not hold a belief one way or the other about things that are unfalsifiable, or even believe that they don't exist. Why would you expect others to believe any differently about your god?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Then the two are equally valid in the same sense that the point of view that faeries exist and the point of view that they don't exist are equally valid.

For most things, you choose to not hold a belief one way or the other about things that are unfalsifiable, or even believe that they don't exist. Why would you expect others to believe any differently about your god?

-Bri

Eh...

I think that truth is relative, and not objective. It is defined by the personal views. So an argument is really the only way to settle what is true. And if you can't win someone in an argument , you can't know that you are right and he is wrong. And if you can't disprove someone's views, you can't win an argument. So unless I abandon the above ideas, you have the chance of forcing me into admiting that faeries exist because they can't be disproven.

[Bri]

Eh...

I think that truth is relative, and not objective. It is defined by the personal views. So an argument is really the only way to settle what is true. And if you can't win someone in an argument , you can't know that you are right and he is wrong. And if you can't disprove someone's views, you can't win an argument. So unless I abandon the above ideas, you have the chance of forcing me into admiting that faeries exist because they can't be disproven.

I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. Care to clarify?

BTW, you have created a false dichotomy. There is at least one additional point of view concerning the existence of your god: not having a belief one way or the other.

-Bri

[Bri]

I meant an immaterial inconsequential

The "immaterial" part seems to have nothing to do with your argument.

Eh...
This is a bit fuzzy.

Person A believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT.
Person B believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT, NT, and the Quran

Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?

Person A believes in an immaterial inconsequential god.
Person B believes in an immaterial consequential god.

Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?

Not so fuzzy. What a god has done is not the same as the god's attributes. In the first case, person A and B might believe in the same god, but believe that it has done different things. In the second case, the gods are clearly different: one of the gods is powerless to affect our world, which implies that the consequential god might be all-powerful, but the inconsequential god clearly isn't.

How do you demonstrate the truth of the above statement? With regards to unfalsifiable claims, not falsifiable ones.

Regardless of the nature of the claim, the number of people who believe it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. A proposition is either true or false, regardless of who believes or doesn't believe it.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. Care to clarify?

BTW, you have created a false dichotomy. There is at least one additional point of view concerning the existence of your god: not having a belief one way or the other.

-Bri

What exactly is unclear?

[JetLeg]

Not so fuzzy. What a god has done is not the same as the god's attributes. In the first case, person A and B might believe in the same god, but believe that it has done different things. In the second case, the gods are clearly different: one of the gods is powerless to affect our world, which implies that the consequential god might be all-powerful, but the inconsequential god clearly isn't.



First, he might be able to affect our world, but not do so.

As to "the same god or not" - I know that atheists compare god sometimes to an imaginary friend. So, lets take the example -

Polly and Sally believe they have an imaginary friend named Bob.
Both believe he is tall, handsome, blue eyes, dark hair.
But Polly believes that his height is 1.87, and Sally that his height is 1.85
Do they believe in the same imaginary friend?

compare with

Franny and Zooey believe they have an imaginary friend named Bob.
Both believe he has blue eyes, dark hair.
But Franny believes that he has no legs, and no arms. And Zooey believes thats nonsense - Bob was born of course quite well, he has his arms and legs.
Do they believe in the same imaginary friend?



Regardless of the nature of the claim, the number of people who believe it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. A proposition is either true or false, regardless of who believes or doesn't believe it.

-Bri

Can you prove the above assertion. With regards to falsifiable claims, you roved it by posing a case where most of the people believe the earth is flat. Can you prove it in a similar for unfalsifiable claims? I think that an appeal to popularity is not a fallacy when it comes to undisprovable beliefs. If it is - show me how.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The "immaterial" part seems to have nothing to do with your argument.



-Bri

I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me that the immateriality of a "God" is, in fact, the real issue. How does the immaterial interact with the material world?

This is the old problem that dualists cannot answer. If "mind" is truly immaterial, how does it interact with the material brain and cause action? There is simply no mechanism that we can identify. If we could identify a mechanism we would call it material -- a physical mechanism. The only other possibility is 'magic'.

Yes, many people believe in an immaterial god that interacts with the material world. The issue is whether or not that idea is coherent. I don't think it is.

We use analogies to our minds and to energy to try and explain these phenomena. But "energy" is interchangeable with matter and what we call matter is just the effect of "particles" interacting with a Higgs field (if the standard model is correct). What we call "energy" is just other "particles" interacting differently. It is not the case that one is material and the other not, depending on how one defines "material". The same issues surround 'mental action', which depends critically on the function of brains. Stop a brain and mind does not exist.

I think a central issue is "how can the immaterial interact with the material?". Immaterial is defined only in relation to the material. It needn't have any existence whatsoever, but may simply be a product of our ability to create ideas in relation to other ideas. It looks to me like a projection.

Isn't the immaterial necessarily inconsequential?

[JetLeg]

Isn't the immaterial necessarily inconsequential?



I'm not so sure. You can claim that it is, but it can be disputed. Some dualists after all claim that immaterial interacts with material - you disagree, but they still have some arguments. Additionaly, justice is something immaterial, which has effect on the physical world in some weird way - the court of justice is a physical building which would not be built without the immaterial idea of justice... At least that can be claimed. I don't think you can dismiss the idea of god so easily, on that.




Actually, I was talking all the time about an immaterial inconsequential god, not the classical type.


My beginning qualm with regards to immaterial is that it is only a negative definiton. Immaterial = not material. It just says what it is not, it does not say what something is. I am not sure that you can define something, only by saying what it is not.

So if we say that god is immaterial, it only means that he is not composed from matter. We need to add other characeristics to say something meaningful about him.


I am currently with the idea of "Disembodied stream of consciousness". I can see two problems with it - (1) As someone pointed out, consciousness as we know it needs concepts. And concepts need to be formed from sensory input. A consciousness stream without sensory input could hardly function. (2) Consciousness is not something supernatural. (By consciousness I mean our emotions, dreams, memories - all of our subjective experience). Nevermind if caused by the brain or not - it is something we are familiar with. By saying that god is a stream of consiousness, we are taking all of his magnificent characteristics from him.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not so sure. You can claim that it is, but it can be disputed. Some dualists after all claim that immaterial interacts with material - you disagree, but they still have some arguments. Additionaly, justice is something immaterial, which has effect on the physical world in some weird way - the court of justice is a physical building which would not be built without the immaterial idea of justice... At least that can be claimed. I don't think you can dismiss the idea of god so easily, on that.

I'm not dismissing the idea of god on those grounds, merely pointing out the problems inherent in a full exposure of the idea of the immaterial. Justice is not a "thing" that has independent being. It is instantiated in us when we think about justice. There are no justice particles that interact with the world. There is no form -- Justice -- that exists in some ethereal realm and that can "participate" in earthly justice. God may exist, but, if god is immaterial, it seems to follow that he is inconsequential.

Dualists founder in a terminal paradox. There is no way for the truly immaterial to interact with the material unless you can propose a mechanism. If you can propose some means for two entirely different things to interact then we may discuss it. I am unaware of anyone who has proposed such a means.




Actually, I was talking all the time about an immaterial inconsequential god, not the classical type.

Yes, I know. Your view of it is the only one that I think is coherent. The 'classical type' seems to lack coherence, at least to me.


My beginning qualm with regards to immaterial is that it is only a negative definiton. Immaterial = not material. It just says what it is not, it does not say what something is. I am not sure that you can define something, only by saying what it is not.

So if we say that god is immaterial, it only means that he is not composed from matter. We need to add other characeristics to say something meaningful about him.

Yes. Concept words all derive their meaning from other words. But, I think you are quite correct about immaterial meaning simply "not material". It has no other meaning as far as I can tell. We can think the idea, but it leads nowhere. It is simply a negation. It doesn't necessarily correspond to anything.


I am currently with the idea of "Disembodied stream of consciousness". I can see two problems with it - (1) As someone pointed out, consciousness as we know it needs concepts. And concepts need to be formed from sensory input. A consciousness stream without sensory input could hardly function. (2) Consciousness is not something supernatural. (By consciousness I mean our emotions, dreams, memories - all of our subjective experience). Nevermind if caused by the brain or not - it is something we are familiar with. By saying that god is a stream of consiousness, we are taking all of his magnificent characteristics from him.

I'm not entirely sure that the idea of 'disembodied consciousness' is coherent as we discussed earlier. Consciousness is a process, an action. As such, it requires a place, a locality, in which to 'flow' (for want of a better verb). A disembodied consciousness not only lacks sensory input, it lacks any boundaries. How do you define something without boundaries? I think this is another concept that lacks coherence.

[Bri]

What exactly is unclear?

This part:

Then the two are equally valid in the same sense that the point of view that faeries exist and the point of view that they don't exist are equally valid.

For most things, you choose to not hold a belief one way or the other about things that are unfalsifiable, or even believe that they don't exist. Why would you expect others to believe any differently about your god?

-Bri

Eh...

I think that truth is relative, and not objective. It is defined by the personal views. So an argument is really the only way to settle what is true. And if you can't win someone in an argument , you can't know that you are right and he is wrong. And if you can't disprove someone's views, you can't win an argument. So unless I abandon the above ideas, you have the chance of forcing me into admiting that faeries exist because they can't be disproven.

[Bri]

I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me that the immateriality of a "God" is, in fact, the real issue. How does the immaterial interact with the material world?

How doesn't really matter. It's possible that it can. Otherwise, anything immaterial would also be inconsequential, so really the only attribute we need to be concerned with is whether it is inconsequential or not.

In reality, whether or not a god is inconsequential is also irrelevant. Neither a consequential nor an inconsequential god can be disproved as both may be unfalsifiable. JetLeg not only thinks that being immaterial or inconsequential is necessary for it to be unfalsifiable (possibly a misunderstanding of what unfalsifiability means), but he also thinks that if it is unfalsifiable that means it is true.

This is the old problem that dualists cannot answer. If "mind" is truly immaterial, how does it interact with the material brain and cause action? There is simply no mechanism that we can identify. If we could identify a mechanism we would call it material -- a physical mechanism. The only other possibility is 'magic'.

That we don't know the mechanism doesn't mean it is necessarily false.

Yes, many people believe in an immaterial god that interacts with the material world. The issue is whether or not that idea is coherent. I don't think it is.

It is coherent in that it is not impossible.

Isn't the immaterial necessarily inconsequential?

Not necessarily. But even if it is, that would make the central issue inconsequentiality, not immateriality.

-Bri

[Ichneumonwasp]

How doesn't really matter. It's possible that it can. Otherwise, anything immaterial would also be inconsequential, so really the only attribute we need to be concerned with is whether it is inconsequential or not.

I'm not sure that it is even logically possible (with the possible exception of magic and that simply defies logic making everything possible). How can two entirely incommensurate things interact? They don't intersect in any way. Immaterial, inconsequantial::tomato, tomato. I think inconsequentiality follows from the immateriality, so I do think both are an issue, but, yes, as far as our lives are concerned the only thing that really matters is the inconsequentiality of such a "being" (and I use that term very loosely).

In reality, whether or not a god is inconsequential is also irrelevant.

Only as far as existence is concerned. An inconsequential god would have a big impact on our lives. As in no afterlife, no being held under judgment, etc.

That we don't know the mechanism doesn't mean it is necessarily false.

No, but that there cannot be a mechanism would mean that.


It is coherent in that it is not impossible.

The only possibility I can see is "magic" and that is merely a fantasy position.

[Bri]

I'm not sure that it is even logically possible (with the possible exception of magic and that simply defies logic making everything possible). How can two entirely incommensurate things interact? They don't intersect in any way.

It is possible that the material is a subset of the immaterial. Either way, the fact that we don't know how they interact doesn't mean that they can't.

Immaterial, inconsequantial::tomato, tomato. I think inconsequentiality follows from the immateriality, so I do think both are an issue, but, yes, as far as our lives are concerned the only thing that really matters is the inconsequentiality of such a "being" (and I use that term very loosely).

For the purposes of this discussion, inconsequentiality is the issue. But even that isn't much of an issue since a consequential being could exist without there being evidence of it, particularly if it was all-powerful and didn't want us to know for certain of its existence.

Only as far as existence is concerned. An inconsequential god would have a big impact on our lives. As in no afterlife, no being held under judgment, etc.

An inconsequential being could perhaps impact an afterlife, if there is one. But again, there is no way whatsoever to have any evidence of that.

No, but that there cannot be a mechanism would mean that.

Sure, if you could prove that there cannot be a mechanism. But I doubt that you can.

The only possibility I can see is "magic" and that is merely a fantasy position.

That you can't see another possibility doesn't mean there isn't one.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

I'm not dismissing the idea of god on those grounds, merely pointing out the problems inherent in a full exposure of the idea of the immaterial. God may exist, but, if god is immaterial, it seems to follow that he is inconsequential.


Imagine that there is a god, an immaterial being. Each time that god thinks "I want the moon to move 5000 km towards the sun", the moon moves. Each time he thinks "I want the moon to move 5000 km away from the sun", it also happens.

I guess that all we would see in the physical universe is that the moon moves for no reason at all. It would be indeed a breakup of nature's laws. But, if we were able to measure god's mind,we would be able to see at least a statistically significant correlation between god's thoughts about the moon, and the movement of the earth.

You might say that we cannot, but it is irrelevant.



By the way, you can imagine god B, who doesn't have the power to move the moon, but he does have the power to read god A's mind. Such a god would be able to establish the correlation.

It is all hypothetical.


(In my posts above, I was talking of an inconsequential god. )

[drkitten]

I'm not sure that it is even logically possible (with the possible exception of magic and that simply defies logic making everything possible).

What's wrong with "magic" as an explanation? More accurately, why do you assume that your logic is valid in an area completely outside of its observational base?

The laws of physics we know about are derived from the study of the material; the immaterial is under no obligation to respect those laws. And, in fact, Gell-Mann has a skeletal theory of how "information" can affect mass/energy while possessing neither. If there's some definition of "material" that you're using that applies to information (and not to its carrier), I'd like to hear it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, I obviously didn't explain myself very well, so I will try again. Please bear with me since these are new ideas to me, though I am sure they are not new ideas in any sense.

I am arguing by means of definitions. That is why I invoked the idea of logical impossibility, though even there I am not completely sure since I haven't thought this through completely.

What do we mean by material? In the past this was easy since it meant "made of matter". But now the line between matter and energy has been irrevocably smeared. They are equivalent.

We used to use the idea of spooky action at a distance as the analogy of the immaterial affecting the material world. Now we know that gravity, the biggest spooky 'actor' at a distance in the book is a routine material force at home in the materialistic universe. 'Energy' played a similar role -- just look at those metal filings lining up. We now speak of four forces, three of which we have 'explained' or at least cobbled together in a unified theory and they act via 'particles'. This 'stuff' that is not made of matter supposedly but acts on matter was always our analogy for the immaterial acting on the material world. But now we know that it is all material.

So, we turn to consciousness. Thoughts. They are immaterial, right? The only experience we have of thoughts is our own and those we discuss them with. I cannot point to a thought and say -- look, there it goes. Thoughts have existence only in their instantiation within our brains -- that is how they can have an effect in the material world/plane.

These are, of course, our experiences and refer to the material world, and you may argue that it is unfair to discuss the immaterial by recourse to the material.

But what do we mean by 'immaterial'? It is defined in contradistinction to 'material'. I have no means of discussing the immaterial except by recourse to the material because that is how immaterial is defined.

What do we mean by 'material'? In essence, it means that which has an effect within the world. If something takes up no space, cannot be detected, has no force in the world, then it is not part of the material world. It is immaterial, the opposite of material.

While we used to speak of immaterial forces in the world -- gravity, light, etc. -- we now know that they are material. We know they are material because they act in the world. We can measure them, quantify them, etc.

The immaterial, by definition, is not material. One of its properties, if we can even speak of such a thing should be that it has no effect on the world. If it did have an effect on the world then we would call it a material force. It might be one that we do not currently understand, but if those things that have an effect in the material world are defined as material (that is how we use the word now that we understand the equivalence of matter and energy, energy being a measure of things that have an effect in the material world), then the immaterial, by definition, cannot affect the material world.

So, to answer your questions: God moving the moon with his mind would constitute a new material force that can be measured. It wouldn't be immaterial. God's mind would therefore be material.

Second issue, a mind that is 'immaterial' doesn't make sense. It has no boundary. I don't see how you could define such a 'thing'. Mind is only sensical as a term if it has a boundary. Thought can only occur by contrast, comparison, analogy, etc. which require boundaries. I could try and fudge a concept of an 'immaterial mind', but I would only be fooling myself. I see other people and they seem to think. I cannot see their minds, so I think mind is immaterial. But that is because mind is not a 'thing', it is action. Action requires something that acts. The immaterial acting makes no sense. By definition there isn't anything there to act in the first place.

What is my problem with magic? It is cheating. It destroys any possibility of rational discussion. My magic can make a square circle. If 'magic' can be invoked to perform logical impossibilities, then there is no sense in discussing any of this once it is brought into the picture.

[JetLeg]

Bri, I still owe you an answer.







What do we mean by 'material'? In essence, it means that which has an effect within the world. If something takes up no space, cannot be detected, has no force in the world, then it is not part of the material world. It is immaterial, the opposite of material.




You have two different ideas inside your definition of material
-1- Takes space in the world
-2- Has effect upon things that take space in the world.

I think that I showed with my god example that -1- and -2- don't always have to go hand in hand from a strictly logical point of view. Therefore, your definition of "material" is a complex definition which includes two terms that go together, but do not have to, from a logical point of view. Do you agree?





Second issue, a mind that is 'immaterial' doesn't make sense. It has no boundary. I don't see how you could define such a 'thing'. Mind is only sensical as a term if it has a boundary. Thought can only occur by contrast, comparison, analogy, etc. which require boundaries. I could try and fudge a concept of an 'immaterial mind', but I would only be fooling myself. I see other people and they seem to think. I cannot see their minds, so I think mind is immaterial. But that is because mind is not a 'thing', it is action. Action requires something that acts. The immaterial acting makes no sense. By definition there isn't anything there to act in the first place.





What do you mean by boundary? A spatial boundary, or a logical one? The immaterial by definition cannot have a spatial boundary, so what is your point?

Action always happens to something, you cannot have an action without a thing that the action happens to.

I think that it is an important point that defining a mind as immaterial is not enough. Seems you cannot define something by saying what it is not. Seems that you need to have something positive to say about the mind.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Bri, I still owe you an answer.



You have two different ideas inside your definition of material
-1- Takes space in the world
-2- Has effect upon things that take space in the world.

I think that I showed with my god example that -1- and -2- don't always have to go hand in hand from a strictly logical point of view. Therefore, your definition of "material" is a complex definition which includes two terms that go together, but do not have to, from a logical point of view. Do you agree?

No. First I did not say that for something to be material it must take up space in the world. Some of the things we call material take up space and others do not. A photon takes up no space.

I was enumerating examples of what we call material not defining material as having to have all those characteristics.

Those things that we call material have an effect in the world in some way. That is part of what it means to have an effect.

I disagree with you because you seem to be defining an "immaterial entity" as having an effect in the world. If what we mean by material is "that which has an effect in the material world" -- that is how we use the term -- then the immaterial, being non-material, cannot have an effect in the world.





What do you mean by boundary? A spatial boundary, or a logical one? The immaterial by definition cannot have a spatial boundary, so what is your point?

That is my point. No spatial boundary, so thought makes no sense.

Action always happens to something, you cannot have an action without a thing that the action happens to.

Yes, that is my point. How can we define the immaterial as a "thing". It is boundaryless. It has no limits. I think it is undefined.

I think that it is an important point that defining a mind as immaterial is not enough. Seems you cannot define something by saying what it is not. Seems that you need to have something positive to say about the mind.


What I am saying is that I don't see how you can do that with an immaterial starting point.

[JetLeg]

That is my point. No spatial boundary, so thought makes no sense.
Yes, that is my point. How can we define the immaterial as a "thing". It is boundaryless. It has no limits. I think it is undefined.


Well, if so, it does follow from your assumptions.

If only things that have spatial boundaries exist, then the immaterial doesn't exist because it does not have spatial boundaries.

But we need to think if the assumption is correct. It seems you beg the question, by assuming that only things that have spatial boundaries exist. It is exactly what needs to be proven in the first place.

[JetLeg]

Eh...

I think that truth is relative, and not objective. It is defined by the personal views. So an argument is really the only way to settle what is true. And if you can't win someone in an argument , you can't know that you are right and he is wrong. And if you can't disprove someone's views, you can't win an argument. So unless I abandon the above ideas, you have the chance of forcing me into admiting that faeries exist because they can't be disproven.

From wiki on relativism :

The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture

Truth is relative not only to a culture, but to person. No objective truth, each one and his own. So, the only way you can disprove the truth of someone is by arguing him out of it. If you can't argue a religious person out of his truth, you can't know if he is right or wrong.

[Bri]

As an aside, this whole discussion about material vs. immaterial doesn't matter as far as the topic of the thread is concerned. The only question is whether or not JetLeg's god can affect the world, and even that is only marginally relevant.

JetLeg's question is whether or not these three beliefs concerning an unfalsifiable proposition P are equally valid:


the belief that P is true.
the belief that P is false.
having no belief whatsoever that P is true or false until further evidence presents itself.


What JetLeg doesn't get is that he himself holds belief (3) or possibly (2) concerning the existence of faeries, the big brother of his god, the gods of other religions, pixies, Harry Potter, gnomes, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, hobbits, Klingons, and unicorns.

The question is why he would expect anyone else to hold belief (1) about the existence of his god without evidence.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

A proposition is either true or false, regardless of who believes or doesn't believe it.

-Bri


Again, how do you show that it is true with unfalsifiables?
It is easy to prove it with falsifiables. But with unf?

[Bri]

If you can't argue a religious person out of his truth, you can't know if he is right or wrong.

So what?

We've already conceded that point. The same can be said for faeries, the big brother of his god, the gods of other religions, pixies, Harry Potter, gnomes, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, hobbits, Klingons, and unicorns but you don't believe in them.

So why would you expect anyone to believe in your god without evidence?

-Bri

[Bri]

Again, how do you show that it is true with unfalsifiables?
It is easy to prove it with falsifiables. But with unf?

Again, so what?

Faeries, the big brother of his god, the gods of other religions, pixies, Harry Potter, gnomes, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, hobbits, Klingons, and unicorns -- all unfalsifiable.

Do you believe in all of them?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

So what?

We've already conceded that point. The same can be said for faeries, the big brother of his god, the gods of other religions, pixies, Harry Potter, gnomes, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, hobbits, Klingons, and unicorns but you don't believe in them.


-Bri

Well, it seems that I should, actually. It is quite a logical implication of the "personal truth" idea...

[Bri]

Do you?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Not so far.

But I have either to consider this idea, or to re-consider the "personal truth" idea.

I think that democracy is based in some extent upon the idea that one's beliefs should be respected we don't have a way to determine which ones are the right ones, so all should be respected equally.

[Bri]

OK, so JetLeg -- I believe in the existence of a god who created the entire universe, the material and the immaterial, the consequential and the inconsequential. Except that I believe he would never create a god as silly as your god, and therefore my god precludes the existence of your god.

Do you also believe in my god?

By the way, the majority of the world likely believes that your god does not exist. Does that mean that your god doesn't exist?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

In what is he different from my god specificaly?

[Bri]

I think that democracy is based in some extent upon the idea that one's beliefs should be respected we don't have a way to determine which ones are the right ones, so all should be respected equally.

Yes! That's what I've been telling you all along. There is no way to know what unfalsifiable beliefs are right and which are wrong. In many cases they contradict one another so we know that they can't all be right.

So, just realize that your belief is only opinion and respect the beliefs of others. [ETA: Note that respecting the beliefs of others doesn't necessarily mean believing the beliefs of others.]

Could it be that you're finally getting that?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

By the way, the majority of the world likely believes that your god does not exist. Does that mean that your god doesn't exist?

-Bri

*scratching head*

[Bri]

In what is he different from my god specificaly?

Mine is consequential (he must be if he created the universe).

Oh, and yours doesn't exist.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Yes! That's what I've been telling you all along. There is no way to know what unfalsifiable beliefs are right and which are wrong. In many cases they contradict one another so we know that they can't all be right.

So, just realize that your belief is only opinion and respect the beliefs of others.

Could it be that you're finally getting that?

-Bri

Please give me some examples of unfalsifiable beliefs that contradict each other.

[Bri]

*scratching head*

At one point you said that a belief held by the majority of people in the world must be true. The majority of people in the world don't believe that your god exists (they tend to believe in consequential gods). Therefore, by your logic, it must be true that your god doesn't exist. Right?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Mine is consequential (he must be if he created the universe).

Oh, and yours doesn't exist.

-Bri

I admit : I am really annoyed by this argument.

[Bri]

Please give me some examples of unfalsifiable beliefs that contradict each other.


The belief that your god exists.
The belief that your god does not exist.


-Bri

[JetLeg]

At one point you said that a belief held by the majority of people in the world must be true. The majority of people in the world don't believe that your god exists (they tend to believe in consequential gods). Therefore, by your logic, it must be true that your god doesn't exist. Right?

-Bri

:mad:

[Bri]

Have I just argued your god out of existence? I'll miss the little guy, inconsequential as he may be.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Bri,

I am really annoyed by your arguments. But I don't have anything smart to say, so I'll shut up for a while.

[Bri]

Annoyed in a good way, or annoyed in a bad way?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Bad. :mad:

[Bri]

Oh, well I am truly sorry to hear that. It was honestly not my intent to annoy you, but hopefully in the process you've also seen the logical fallacies of your argument.

Which, in my book, would make it annoying in a good way!

-Bri

[JetLeg]

__

[Bri]

Nobody said you have to let go of your beliefs. Just realize that your beliefs are only beliefs, not facts. Other (possibly contradictory) beliefs are equally valid, so respect the beliefs of others as you would like them to respect yours.

-Bri

[Complexity]

So, just realize that your belief is only opinion and respect the beliefs of others. [ETA: Note that respecting the beliefs of others doesn't necessarily mean believing the beliefs of others.]


Bri - I don't hold all opinions in equal regard. Some are better than others.

Your religious beliefs, for example, I characterize as 'woo' - I find them to be rank superstition.

I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion - I've read many threads in which you attempt philosophy, and don't wish to encourage more.

I just wish to point out that your beliefs and 'meta-beliefs' are not agreed upon by all, and that your arguments are not persuasive.

[slingblade]

I just wish to point out that your beliefs and 'meta-beliefs' are not agreed upon by all, and that your arguments are not persuasive.

Call me silly, but I'm pretty sure she just did a fine job of proving that to JetLeg.



So.....I think she knows that.

[slingblade]

Argh, too late to edit my post, sorry...I meant, Bri just proved to Jetleg that his beliefs are not agreed upon by all, and his blah, blah, etc.

Sorry for not being more clear. It was supposed to be a defense, not an indictment. :blush:

[JetLeg]

Bri - I don't hold all opinions in equal regard. Some are better than others.


Is not saying that anti-democratic?

[JetLeg]

[LIST]
The belief that your god exists.
The belief that your god does not exist.


-Bri

Are you sure you would classify the second (the bolded) as unfalsifiable? Why?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, if so, it does follow from your assumptions.

If only things that have spatial boundaries exist, then the immaterial doesn't exist because it does not have spatial boundaries.

But we need to think if the assumption is correct. It seems you beg the question, by assuming that only things that have spatial boundaries exist. It is exactly what needs to be proven in the first place.

I don't want to spend much time or waste much space on this because I think Bri's points are well taken, but I am not arguing that only things with spatial boundaries exist. What I said was that our experience with thought is that it seems to require spatial boundaries. We can only argue by analogy to an immaterial 'being', and our analogies break down completely when discussing such an 'entity' (and the further one gets from the specifics of an analogy the less reliable that analogy becomes). We may try to project characteristics onto such a being and say that we can conceive of it, but I don't think we really do for any meaning definition of the word 'conceive'.

To summarise. I did not argue that only things with spatial boundaries exist. I argued against your proposal of immaterial boundaryless consciousness. I don't think that concept is coherent.

[Bri]

Are you sure you would classify the second (the bolded) as unfalsifiable? Why?

Because if your god is inconsequential and immaterial, one cannot prove that your god doesn't exist, just as one cannot prove that it does exist.

-Bri

[Bri]

Bri - I don't hold all opinions in equal regard. Some are better than others.

I don't believe I said that all opinions are equal. However, when it comes to opinions, which opinion is "better" is usually itself a matter of opinion.

Your religious beliefs, for example, I characterize as 'woo' - I find them to be rank superstition.

What religious beliefs would that be?

I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion - I've read many threads in which you attempt philosophy, and don't wish to encourage more.

Fair enough, I suppose. I don't recall ever attempting philosophy, other than to point out that these sorts of discussions have been going on for thousands of years so they're nothing new.

I just wish to point out that your beliefs and 'meta-beliefs' are not agreed upon by all, and that your arguments are not persuasive.

I don't recall ever saying that my opinions are agreed upon by all (if they were, they wouldn't be opinions).

-Bri

[Bri]

Sorry for not being more clear. It was supposed to be a defense, not an indictment. :blush:

Thanks, slingblade. I knew what you meant!

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Because if your god is inconsequential and immaterial, one cannot prove that your god doesn't exist, just as one cannot prove that it does exist.

-Bri

Hm...

If you assert that an inc-imm-being DOES NOT exist, you can falsify it, by proving somehow the existance of an inc-imm-being.

[Bri]

You cannot prove the existence of an inconsequential being. Nor can you disprove the existence of an inconsequential being.

Disproving either assertion requires proving the other.

-Bri

[slingblade]

Is not saying that anti-democratic?

No. Ideas don't hold political positions.

I'm sure you've heard it said that one is entitled to his or her own opinion. But this entitlement doesn't render every opinion automatically right, sound, valid, or worthwhile. Opinions and ideas are generally based on information. If one's info is less than ideal, one's opinion will be the same.

Opinions can be wrong. But one is still entitled to be wrong, if that's what one wants.

For instance, based on information from my personal experience, I could form the opinion that all men are pedophiles. Is my opinion correct?

Hm...

If you assert that an inc-imm-being DOES NOT exist, you can falsify it, by proving somehow the existance of an inc-imm-being.

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist."

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist."

So, no.

[drkitten]

The belief that your god exists.
The belief that your god does not exist.


Perhaps a better example (since there's less metaphysical baggage) would be


Allosaurus could count to four.
Allosaurus could not count to four.


Counting capacity in non-verbal animals (including small children) is relatively easy to test in the lab, and probably thousands of psych students have run such experiments as part of their degrees. But such experiments require living animals to run. Since Allosaurus is dead, extinct,and unavailable (and any rational observer would assumethat it always will be so), we cannot in principle run the necessary experiments.

Ergo, these two statements are contradictory -- but both unfalsifiable.

[Bri]

So, no.

I think JetLeg is correct in saying that IF one could prove the proposition P (an inconsequential being exists), that would disprove the proposition not P (an inconsequential being does not exist).

The problem is the "IF" in the above sentence, since the propositions P and not P are both unfalsifiable in the case of an inconsequential being.

-Bri

[drkitten]

Is not saying that anti-democratic?

The world is not democratic. I teach for a living, and part of my job is to recognize which opinions of my students are wrong and correct them. For example, if your opinion is that three apples added to a pile of five apples yields a pile of thirty-five apples, your opinion is wrong.

[drkitten]

I think JetLeg is correct in saying that IF one could prove the proposition P (an inconsequential being exists), that would disprove the proposition not P (an inconsequential being does not exist).

Yes. And similarly, if one could prove the not P, that would immediately disprove P. The statement "I have no full-grown Siberian tigers in my sock drawer" is immediately disprovable despite its superficially negative form.


The problem is the "IF" in the above sentence, since the propositions P and not P are both unfalsifiable in the case of an inconsequential being.

THAT, however, is an assumption that I don't think JetLeg (yet) accepts. And I think on this point I agree with him; I have no qualms with disproving an inconsistent inconsequential being, for instance. If you tell me that God is a hatless inconsequential being wearing a fedora, I think the confusion over His headgear is enough to disprove that particular instantiation of the Divine.

[Bri]

Perhaps a better example (since there's less metaphysical baggage) would be


Allosaurus could count to four.
Allosaurus could not count to four.


...

Ergo, these two statements are contradictory -- but both unfalsifiable.

Good example, although it can be argued that because we know its brain size and can compare it to similar creatures alive today that there is evidence that allosaurus could not count.

JetLeg's god is inconsequential, which means that it can in no way affect the world, which means that we cannot have any evidence whatsoever of its existence or non-existence. Therefore, it would be impossible to provide any evidence that such a being exists, nor would it be possible to provide evidence that such a being doesn't exist.

The exception would be that if JetLeg were to provide additional attributes that were self-contradictory (such as all-powerful but inconsequential), then I suppose we could prove that it cannot exist as described.

-Bri

[slingblade]

Heh, yes, but JL's "if" is the sticking point. However, concedo.

[Bri]

And I think on this point I agree with him; I have no qualms with disproving an inconsistent inconsequential being, for instance. If you tell me that God is a hatless inconsequential being wearing a fedora, I think the confusion over His headgear is enough to disprove that particular instantiation of the Divine.

Thank you for correcting my statement. The being as currently described by JetLeg is unfalsifiable. It is possible that JetLeg might go on to add attributes to the being that would make it logically self-contradictory and therefore could be proven to not exist. But JetLeg will never be able to prove that his inconsequential being exists, regardless of any additional attributes.

I suppose to be entirely accurate, I should have said that it is possible to describe an inconsequential being which cannot be proven to exist nor can be proven to not exist.

ETA: As slingblade pointed out, the "IF" is still the sticking point.

-Bri

[Complexity]

Is not saying that anti-democratic?


Yes.

[JetLeg]

What I said was that our experience with thought is that it seems to require spatial boundaries.

Ok, but why do you think so?


For example, you have an idea that Randi exists, though you never saw him. You must have a body to think this idea, so far I agree. An idea of a "being" includes a body. But the idea itself, I don't think of it as something with spatial bounds... Can you measure the velocity of ideas? It sounds absurd?

[JetLeg]

Yes.

Alright, so are you anti-democratic? What is your preferred system?

[cyborg]

Reason is cold - emotion is warm. If you reject emotion, and act on reason, then you are a cold person.

Emotion is built on the cold reason of atoms.

If synthetic warmth does not satisfy you then you will be doomed to search for something that does not exist.

[cyborg]

Alright, so are you anti-democratic? What is your preferred system?

Democracy makes no promise about the wisdom of rule: it just makes a promise that the people will rule.

Preferring one system or another is really quite irrelevent.

[JetLeg]

Perhaps a better example (since there's less metaphysical baggage) would be


Allosaurus could count to four.
Allosaurus could not count to four.


Counting capacity in non-verbal animals (including small children) is relatively easy to test in the lab, and probably thousands of psych students have run such experiments as part of their degrees. But such experiments require living animals to run. Since Allosaurus is dead, extinct,and unavailable (and any rational observer would assumethat it always will be so), we cannot in principle run the necessary experiments.

Ergo, these two statements are contradictory -- but both unfalsifiable.


I think that there is a need for different categories of unfalsifiablity.


Allosaurus could count to four.
Allosaurus could not count to four.

Are unfalsifiable.

But

Allosaurus could count to 599853932.
Allosaurus could not count to 599853932.

Are also unfalsififiable because we cannot test a living one. But, infering from the animals we know, we can say that most of them don't count to large numbers, morever, there is no reason to assume this specific number.

So, even though four and 599853932 are both unfalisifiables, one of them is more credible by the other. How would you explain it?

[cyborg]

How would you explain it?

A priori knowledge about biological reasoning systems.

Or put more simply: those statements would not jive with what we already know about brains.

[JetLeg]

THAT, however, is an assumption that I don't think JetLeg (yet) accepts. And I think on this point I agree with him; I have no qualms with disproving an inconsistent inconsequential being, for instance

Eh...


P : An immaterial being exists

Q : An immaterial being does not exist.

I agree they are contradictory.

P seems to be unfalsifiable because there is no way you can demonstrate his non-existance.

Q seems to be unfalsifiable because you cannot demonstrate its existance.

But do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ok, but why do you think so?


For example, you have an idea that Randi exists, though you never saw him. You must have a body to think this idea, so far I agree. An idea of a "being" includes a body. But the idea itself, I don't think of it as something with spatial bounds... Can you measure the velocity of ideas? It sounds absurd?

I'm not sure what you point is. There is a very definite distinction between an idea of something and the something itself. We can assign properties to ideas, but that does not make those properties existent in any real sense. Existence is not a property that a being can 'have'.

In other words, Kant already dealt with the ontological argument more than 200 years ago.

Speaking of ideas as having velocity is simply a category mistake. Ideas only have meaning in their relation to other ideas. The ideas themselves must have some boundary so that they can be compared to those other ideas. They cannot be completely boundaryless. If they are, I don't see how they can ever be defined.

Our only experience with ideas is as instantiations in our brains. We have no other experience to suggest otherwise. If we want to argue for boundaryless thought we can do so only by means of analogy since no one has ever experienced it. We create this concept by shoving together two other concepts -- consciousness and boundary and then removing the idea of boundaries. But if we remove the boundaries, how is any form of thought possible? Ideas themselves only make sense when they take place within a larger context of language game. Now if you want to argue that there is an entirely other level of thought totally beyond anything that we are capable, then that's fine. But we can't discuss it and we could never be sure if such a thing is even possible since we can't really think it, only talk around the edges of it.

[Bri]

Eh...


P : An immaterial being exists

Q : An immaterial being does not exist.

I agree they are contradictory.

P seems to be unfalsifiable because there is no way you can demonstrate his non-existance.

Q seems to be unfalsifiable because you cannot demonstrate its existance.

But do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

Given that the only evidence possible would be evidence against the inconsequential being, the more attributes you assign to it to make it "meaningful" the more likely you are to introduce a logical inconsistency, and the less likely it is to exist.

In addition, since the existence of a being matching your description would be entirely coincidental rather than based on any actual evidence, the more attributes you assign to your description of your being, the less likely a being actually exists that falls under that description.

And of course, the fewer attributes you assign to your being, the higher the possibility that more than one being might fit the description, not to mention the fact that if you only describe the being as "inconsequential" you're not really saying much about it or giving anyone any reason whatsoever to care much whether it exists or not. You have previously referred to the inconsequential being that you believe exists as a "god" so what attributes does it possess that makes you think it's a god rather than some more mundane inconsequential being?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

And of course, the fewer attributes you assign to your being, the higher the possibility that more than one being might fit the description, not to mention the fact that if you only describe the being as "inconsequential" you're not really saying much about it or giving anyone any reason whatsoever to care much whether it exists or not. You have previously referred to the inconsequential being that you believe exists as a "god" so what attributes does it possess that makes you think it's a god rather than some more mundane inconsequential being?

-Bri

Alright, I call it a divine-immaterial-inconsequential being.

But, you didn't answer my question :

Do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

[slingblade]

There are pink flamingo beings living on the planet Dingo.

You can't falsify that. You can't prove it one way or the other. It might very well be absolutely true.










So what?

[Bri]

Alright, I call it a divine-immaterial-inconsequential being.

What do you mean by "divine"? What can your being do that make it divine?

But, you didn't answer my question :

Do you think that because they both are unfalsifiable, the probability of them being true is the same? Does not seem to be so. If the probability is different, what is the source of difference for statements that are both unfalsifiable??

As described, I don't think we can calculate the probability of a being existing that meets your criteria, which also means that we can't calculate the probability of no such being existing.

Your description is quite vague and so there could be many beings that fit the description, in fact infinitely many. If you believe that there is only one being that fits your idea, you'll have to be more specific as to what attributes your being has that would make it unique.

Only when you've adequately described it can we even begin to consider the probability of a being existing that fits the description.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

What do you mean by "divine"? What can your being do that make it divine?




-Bri

I have to think about it. What does divine even mean?

It feels a bit unfair that I am asked to define these terms, and think about their meaning when so many religious people are totally sheltered from it. When the pope says something about divinity, he is not asked what can his being do that makes it divine, but everyone assumes he is right, and start finding meanings in his words... Not many people of the religious community are asked to defend their views.



As to the question, divine is rather a vague concept. I am not sure what it means. Some options :

-1- Divine is the attribution of god. Being a god is what makes him divine. The nature of a god is being divine.
-2- Divine means the ability to act against the laws of nature.
-3- Divine means nothing. It is simply a feel-good word.

As to 2, my definition of god means he is not divine. As to 3, I can describe 3 to god if I wish to.
As to 1, I am not sure, but something seems wrong with it. I think it is the ordinary meaning of this word, but when I think of it, it is merely a tautology. If the nature of god is being divine, then by saying that god is divine, you simply call god - god.

I think I will stay with 3.

[Bri]

I have to think about it. What does divine even mean?

You used the term, so it can mean whatever you want it to mean. Usually, it just means "godly" which doesn't help us much here, as you point out below.

It feels a bit unfair that I am asked to define these terms, and think about their meaning when so many religious people are totally sheltered from it. When the pope says something about divinity, he is not asked what can his being do that makes it divine, but everyone assumes he is right, and start finding meanings in his words... Not many people of the religious community are asked to defend their views.

The pope believes a lot of things about his God. He believes it created the universe, for one thing. Your "god" cannot have created the universe, since it is inconsequential. The Christian God is generally believed to be able to do anything that can be done and to know anything that can be known. Your being can't and doesn't, since it is inconsequential. So, yes, the pope does use the word "divine" to describe his God, but he also backs it up with a lot of other adjectives which assign various "godly" attributes to God. Can you do the same?

As to 2, my definition of god means he is not divine. As to 3, I can describe 3 to god if I wish to.

I'm willing to accept whatever attributes you assign to your god. But it would seem that in order for anyone else to believe in it (much less worship it) you might want to assign more to it than just "immaterial" and "inconsequential." As it stands, there could be an infinite number of gods that fit your description (or none at all). So why should I believe that exactly one being exists that fits the description?

As to 1, I am not sure, but something seems wrong with it. I think it is the ordinary meaning of this word, but when I think of it, it is merely a tautology. If the nature of god is being divine, then by saying that god is divine, you simply call god - god.

I agree. Without elaboration, saying that the being is divine is the same as saying it's a god since "divine" means "godly." I want to know what "godly" attributes you assign to your being in order to call it a god.

I think I will stay with 3.

Well, then you haven't really added anything to your god by calling it "divine." What other attributes do you assign to your god in order to distinguish it from an immaterial, inconsequential cockroach, for example? Or any number of other immaterial, inconsequential beings?

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Well, then you haven't really added anything to your god by calling it "divine." What other attributes do you assign to your god in order to distinguish it from an immaterial, inconsequential cockroach, for example? Or any number of other immaterial, inconsequential beings?

-Bri


What do you mean by the need to distinguish him from other immaterial, inconsequential beings?

Posit a few of them for the sake of the discussion, and I will try to distinguish.

It is not a cockroach, because it doesn't have the shape of a cockroach. Actually, how can an immaterial thing have the shape of a cockroach - being immaterial?

[Bri]

Well, I can posit that there are thousands of immaterial, inconsequential beings just as the one you describe as easily as I can posit that there are none or one. Why should I believe that there is exactly one? More importantly, why do you believe there is only one?

What do you mean by "immaterial" if it's already inconsequential? It's already clear that we cannot see an inconsequential being, so isn't "immaterial" superfluous? Could your being be seen or otherwise detected by other beings exactly like itself?

By "cockroach" I mean insignificant, weak, small, relatively unintelligent, and perhaps that it crawls around on the ground. But until we clarify what you mean by "immaterial" some of those adjectives might not apply.

-Bri

[JetLeg]

Well, I can posit that there are thousands of immaterial, inconsequential beings just as the one you describe as easily as I can posit that there are none or one. Why should I believe that there is exactly one? More importantly, why do you believe there is only one?



By "Why", do you mean the psychological reasons, or the rational ones?

So, you say that there are many imm-inc-beings?

Hm...

10? 100? 750?

Actually, one could say that they have different qualities. My love the human race, but I can think of a one that loves crocodiles only ; another one that loves people whose name begins with R; another one who likes only similar imm-inc-beings ; another one who loves only people that like star trek ; another one that is totally indifferent ; another one that thinks about juggling all the day ; another one who thinks that imm-inc-beings that love crocodiles are immoral, and that they should start loving zebras instead; another one that thinks that all of the person whose names begins with Z are immoral ; another one who fantasises about having sex with rhinoceroses all day long ; another one who is busy calculating the value of PI ; another one who is a secret fan of james randi ; another one who thinks of crocodiles between 2 and 4 pm ; another one who calls himself Jack, and all the other Jack as well ; another one who watches (secretly and unconsequentialy) porn.

How do I decide which one is really existing.
Hm...
Hm...
Hm...

I don't really have a good answer to it.



Could your being be seen or otherwise detected by other beings exactly like itself?

-Bri

Assuming that there are? I can think of a being that is able to detect others, and a being that is not. How am I supposed to find out about my being which one he is ? :(

[Mashuna]

Assuming that there are? I can think of a being that is able to detect others, and a being that is not. How am I supposed to find out about my being which one he is ? :(

You can't - your being is imm/inc, so there's no way for you to discover anything about it.

[JetLeg]

So how am I supposed to answer about his feelings of other imm-inc beings, and whether violet is his favorite color??? Ask a preacher???

[Mashuna]

So how am I supposed to answer about his feelings of other imm-inc beings, and whether violet is his favorite color??? Ask a preacher???

You can't answer about his feelings of other imm/inc beings, or whether violet is his favourite colour. You have no way of knowing anything about your being, and it has no way of letting you know. That's an attribute of being imm/inc.

The preacher would be no help either - he's in the same situation as you.

[JetLeg]

Hm...

So what do you advise me to do? How would you advise me to answer such questions with regards to my inc-imm being? I feel stupid not being able to provide an answer.

[Mashuna]

Hm...

So what do you advise me to do? How would you advise me to answer such questions with regards to my inc-imm being? I feel stupid not being able to provide an answer.

I don't think you should feel stupid, my point is just that if you're defining a being as imm/inc, then by definition you can't ever know anything about it. You can come up with ideas about what such a being might be, but you've no way to confirm or deny any of them. It's no different to just making up stories. Which is fine, I like stories.

[JetLeg]

I don't think you should feel stupid, my point is just that if you're defining a being as imm/inc, then by definition you can't ever know anything about it. You can come up with ideas about what such a being might be, but you've no way to confirm or deny any of them. It's no different to just making up stories. Which is fine, I like stories.

Hm...

Can you give me some examples of things that I am not able to know about my being?

[Mashuna]

Hm...

Can you give me some examples of things that I am not able to know about my being?

What do you think you could know about it?

[JetLeg]

What do you think you could know about it?

I thought I could know its love. But it seems that it doesn't fit with the definition of inc.

[Mashuna]

I thought I could know its love. But it seems that it doesn't fit with the definition of inc.

I'm afraid not. Anything you find out about the being has to come from somewhere, in which case the being becomes consequential. Your imm/inc being may exist, but you can't know if it exists, and you can't tell the difference between it existing and not existing.

[JetLeg]

Hm...

It seems that inc beings are not a very useful type of god.

I can't know if they are capable of loving or not ; if they are capable of emotions ; if they are capable of changing the laws of nature ; capable of creation ; capable of writing books ; capable of talking to prophets ; capable of incarnating as men ; capable of appearing in sandwiches ; capable of loving everyone equally.

[Mashuna]

Hm...

It seems that inc beings are not a very useful type of god.

I can't know if they are capable of loving or not ; if they are capable of emotions ; if they are capable of changing the laws of nature ; capable of creation ; capable of writing books ; capable of talking to prophets ; capable of incarnating as men ; capable of appearing in sandwiches ; capable of loving everyone equally.

I agree. :)

[JetLeg]

Hm... Are there problems with a consequent god that is known only emotionaly?

The only effect that he has is upon the emotions of people.

I am changing my proposal into an immaterial-consequential god. But the only consequences he may have are upon the emotions of people - causing him to feel his love.

[cyborg]

But the only consequences he may have are upon the emotions of people - causing him to feel his love.

God: thy name is Dopamine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine).

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am changing my proposal into an immaterial-consequential god. But the only consequences he may have are upon the emotions of people - causing him to feel his love.

What is the nature of human emotion? Is it generated from without or from within? Don't we feel love by virtue of a relationship? Don't we (ouselves) generate that feeling of love? What relationship might we have with an immaterial 'being'?

[JetLeg]

What is the nature of human emotion? Is it generated from without or from within? Don't we feel love by virtue of a relationship? Don't we (ouselves) generate that feeling of love? What relationship might we have with an immaterial 'being'?

The fact that we feel sometimes love without an immaterial being, does not in itself disqualify the idea that sometimes we feel love that is caused by an immaterial being.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The fact that we feel sometimes love without an immaterial being, does not in itself disqualify the idea that sometimes we feel love that is caused by an immaterial being.

We have no evidence that love is caused by any being external to ourselves. We feel love as a result of a relationship with another being. It is generated from within us.

In other words, the idea that love is caused by an external being does not accord with any human experience that we can identify. It may be the case, but there is absolutely no evidence for it and signficant evidence to suggest that the feeling is based on pure fantasy (internally generated). John Hinckley felt the supreme love of Jody Foster. But Jody Foster didn't cause it.

I am not proposing here a logical proof, so there is no reason to treat it as such.


ETA

Besides you're now back with a material God essentially. We call things that act in the material world 'material'. Gravity doesn't take up space but it is a material force. If your God acts in such a way that it affects the material world -- by causing a feeling of love (as if love could be a force like gravity) -- then it is material or at least acts via material forces.

[JetLeg]

We have no evidence that love is caused by any being external to ourselves. We feel love as a result of a relationship with another being. It is generated from within us.

In other words, the idea that love is caused by an external being does not accord with any human experience that we can identify. It may be the case, but there is absolutely no evidence for it and signficant evidence to suggest that the feeling is based on pure fantasy (internally generated). John Hinckley felt the supreme love of Jody Foster. But Jody Foster didn't cause it.

I am not proposing here a logical proof, so there is no reason to treat it as such.


ETA

Besides you're now back with a material God essentially. We call things that act in the material world 'material'. Gravity doesn't take up space but it is a material force. If your God acts in such a way that it affects the material world -- by causing a feeling of love (as if love could be a force like gravity) -- then it is material or at least acts via material forces.

First, I am a dualist. I think that thoughts, emotions, dreams and so on are immaterial, based mainly upon different arguments about qualia.

Second, if god is immaterial, and so are emotions, according to me - then we can somehow actually feel god himself. That can't be done with Jody Foster.

[Ichneumonwasp]

First, I am a dualist. I think that thoughts, emotions, dreams and so on are immaterial, based mainly upon different arguments about qualia.

Second, if god is immaterial, and so are emotions, according to me - then we can somehow actually feel god himself. That can't be done with Jody Foster.

I've been waiting for you to say that again. Dualism is the only solution to this problem.

But then you have the problem of dualism. How do immaterial "things" like thoughts interact with the material world? How can a thought cause an action? That problem seems utterly insoluble.

ETA

Personally I think the best way to solve the issue is through idealism, but that requires a radical restructuring of the way most people think about the world. And it is far too easy to fall into its traps. It really doesn't solve that many problems. People have a tendency to fudge its lessons.

[JetLeg]

I've been waiting for you to say that again. Dualism is the only solution to this problem.

But then you have the problem of dualism. How do immaterial "things" like thoughts interact with the material world? How can a thought cause an action? That problem seems utterly insoluble.

ETA

Personally I think the best way to solve the issue is through idealism, but that requires a radical restructuring of the way most people think about the world. And it is far too easy to fall into its traps. It really doesn't solve that many problems. People have a tendency to fudge its lessons.

I can start a new thread on dualism. Given the assumption of dualism, do you agree that a case for feeling god can be made?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I can start a new thread on dualism. Given the assumption of dualism, do you agree that a case for feeling god can be made?

Oh, sure. When magic is involved anything is possible.

[Mashuna]

I can start a new thread on dualism. Given the assumption of dualism, do you agree that a case for feeling god can be made?

It's a new day, it's a new dawn, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling god.

[JetLeg]

It's a new day, it's a new dawn, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling god.

Its funny, but in a more serious note?

[slingblade]

You should find a supersensate. That's the term I use for what's also known as a highly sensitive person. Jung described it, and Elaine Aron, with other researchers, has written several journal-submitted papers and a book or three about it. It appears to be a legitimate and documentable phenomenon, observable in about 15 to 20% of the general population.

A highly sensitive person can be described as someone [who] is overwhelmed by the senses. Having a nervous system that absorbs and processes ten times more information than the average person's leaves an HSP exhausted after a "normal" day of activity. Not only are they overwhelmed by their physical senses such as sight, sound, touch, taste and smell, but can be exhausted by their emotions as well. They tend to absorb the feelings and energies of others, which can be taxing on the mind.

Now, I've only recently run across this description, and am currently trying to discover if this is a real set of personality traits, or sheerest Woo designed to sell books, or something in the middle somewhere. In the meantime, I would think that if gods were detectable by the emotions, people like that would be able to do so. You should find some, and ask.

I'll help by giving you your first response:




NO. Not one iota. That's part of the reason I became atheist after 30 years of being a Fundamentalist Christian.