- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 43,296
- Reaction score
- 20,353
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That is NOT what I’m saying. Right now, you are claiming no god exists. If you are going to make that claim then you have the burden of proof.
it’s not the same as simply saying “I don’t believe in a god” as I do. I don’t believe in any god, I don’t claim any god exists. I also don’t claim no god exists because I would have to provide proof of that. I don’t know if any god exists, but I won’t believe in one until positive objective proof of its existence is provided.
That is Agnostic Atheism and it’s the only rationally consistent position.
That is NOT what I’m saying. Right now, you are claiming no god exists. If you are going to make that claim then you have the burden of proof.
it’s not the same as simply saying “I don’t believe in a god” as I do. I don’t believe in any god, I don’t claim any god exists. I also don’t claim no god exists because I would have to provide proof of that. I don’t know if any god exists, but I won’t believe in one until positive objective proof of its existence is provided.
That is Agnostic Atheism and it’s the only rationally consistent position.
please see above reply. they are not super sonic.
um, i would go for supernatural. we have no clue how these things operate or UFO's for that matter.
you can't test these things scientifically either. many christians know that there are things way beyond our conventional science. we are starting to scratch the surface when physics leaves the newtonian world and peers into the quantum world.
from there you go into the Spiritual world, that is Light Years ahead of anything you would acknowledge on this forum. .......
but some day you will.
we are starting to scratch the surface when physics leaves the newtonian world and peers into the quantum world.
We don't have any objective evidence that UFO's are real. You can't just jump to "they're supernatural" without evidence. Until we have evidence, the only answer is "I don't know".
Watsup, the deal i think is maybe your imagination can't handle anything but the most Conventional Stuff out there.
for instance, this is just in the news; a bit tooo super natural for you but it exists anyway...
Defense specialist claims unidentified object whizzed by US Navy sub
A defense specialist with top clearance claims he encountered an unidentified submerged object while conducting classified work on a US Navy submarine.www.dailymail.co.uk
,,Defense specialist encounters unidentified object 'going faster than the speed of sound underwater' while doing classified work on the Navy's USS Hampton submarine
- Bob McGwire claims he encountered an unidentified submerged object
- The scientist was conducting classified work on the Navy's USS Hampton
- He wasn't told to keep it quiet and said he was 'blowing this wide open'
please see above reply. they are not super sonic.
um, i would go for supernatural. we have no clue how these things operate or UFO's for that matter.
,,you can't test these things scientifically either. many christians know that there are things way beyond our conventional science. we are starting to scratch the surface when physics leaves the newtonian world and peers into the quantum world.
from there you go into the Spiritual world, that is Light Years ahead of anything you would acknowledge on this forum. .......
but some day you will.
These theist types like to throw in the word “quantum” because they think it gives them some science cred and also think that it must show the influence of God when it is no different from the primitive humans who thought that an eclipse did the same. It’s still just so much superstition on their part.
Hypercavitating torpedos are supersonic underwater objects. It doesn’t require a supernatural explanation.
The Russian VA-111 Shkval is one example of a supercavitating torpedo that can reach speeds in excess of 200 knots (230 miles per hour) underwater. Iran has also reportedly developed a variant of the Russian Shkval called the Hoot . The German navy has worked on the development of a supercavitating torpedo called the Superkavitierender Unterwasserlaufkörper, but it never went into production . The U.S. Navy has also shown interest in supercavitating torpedo technology .
Agreed; but we could likewise say that morality and language are socially constructed systems, and our nature/development predisposes us towards acceptance of those. I should note/reiterate that the description "natural born dualists" was not my phrase but Richard Dawkins' (more precisely Richard Dawkins quoting developmental psychologist Paul Bloom), and taken literally is certainly hyperbole. I'm not suggesting that three year olds are sitting there thinking "The metaphysical substance of this sippy cup must have a set of essential properties fundamentally distinct from the substance of my own cognition"; I'm saying that they view the world at large as 'other,' as different from themselves (and from other selves). I'm saying that recognizing some things about their own self, the extent of their own body's feelings and perceptions, is much easier than conceiving that there are feelings or perceptions elsewhere that aren't their own, and while they do eventually recognize other selves in their family (likely sometime before the terrible twos) doing so for animals or even other humans takes a lot longer. Do you really think that's not the case?It's that being either dualist or monist is not an inherent cognitive structure (like interpreting the world in 3 physical dimensions, or enhanced facial recognition skills). They're socially constructed beliefs.
I agree that study doesn't prove the point of a tendency or at least bias towards dualism, but it does suggest commonplace tendencies which as you suggest can be easily interpreted as and reinforce the view that minds and bodies/matter are largely distinct.You're likely interpreting this as "evidence for inherent dualism" because you grew up with, or were extensively exposed to, dualist societies.
True, which makes it all the more striking when we recognize that the idea of non-conscious material stuff has no empirical basis at all! How do you observe or experience the absence of consciousness? As I've pointed out, all we can do is infer its presence based on similarities of structure and behaviour, which starts to become pretty tenuous beyond the animal world... but inferring its absence based on the absence of those structures and behaviours is wholly fallacious, denying the antecedent.It's not based on scientific research, but empiricism -- as in, knowledge gained via experience, rather than reasoning -- is much broader than science.
We all acknowledge the existence of an external reality, yes, but it doesn't follow from that that all minds must have some further substrate. We could make a similar point about anything that exists, that everything must have some more fundamental substrate... except the most fundamental things that don't. There's no necessary reason why even human minds couldn't be that type of most fundamental thing without any further substrate, as in solipsism; in practice, based on our acknowledgement of a reality external to our minds we do view human minds as requiring (or at least having) a substrate/brains, but that in no way implies that "you need some sort of brain in order to have mental stuff."No, it's just an assumption that if you have a mind, then it has some sort of substrate.
There's no basis for asserting mental activity/consciousness has to have some kind of substrate beyond itself, without first supposing that consciousness only exists in certain cases for which we can identify a substrate. It's a circular argument in other words.I said nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that if you have mental activity, it has to have some kind of substrate. I see no reason why that substrate can't be silicon or some other physical substance.
You have proposed that there is some kind of non-conscious 'material' stuff. Where is your evidence to support that proposal?We have discussed this before. It is incumbent upon the person or persons who first propose an item to them provide evidence of same before it has any merit.
for those of us into the gap theory of Genesis
I don't believe in fairy tales.
You have proposed that there is some kind of non-conscious 'material' stuff. Where is your evidence to support that proposal?
You have proposed an atheistic reality. Where is your evidence to support that proposal?
Because it's purely a religious story with no supporting objective evidence.and you 'know' they are fairy tales because why?
A typical agnostic will claim that “there is the possibility of a God/gods/ID, but then add a qualifier such as “but the probability is extremely low” to show their lack of confidence in the actuality of such an entity.
Where did you get this idea?
What is wrong with it?
We have discussed this before. It is incumbent upon the person or persons who first propose an item to them provide evidence of same before it has any merit.
You have proposed that there is some kind of non-conscious 'material' stuff. Where is your evidence to support that proposal?
You have proposed an atheistic reality. Where is your evidence to support that proposal?
Are you pretending that you haven't proposed those things? Or are you just saying that in this case you are unwilling/unable to provide evidence for what you've proposed?See post #291 and try to understand it.
Are you pretending that you haven't proposed those things? Or are you just saying that in this case you are unwilling/unable to provide evidence for what you've proposed?
You made a factual claim and provided no basis for it.
I still can’t proceed unless and until you can provide me with how and why you consider it to be in error. I can’t fight ghosts. Again, what is specifically wrong with the statement?
You said this..And where exactly in that post did I say “matter has no physical basis”?
Why don’t you admit you lied about me?
Simply put, take away a persons brain and there is no reality or soul or spirit.Agreed; but we could likewise say that morality and language are socially constructed systems, and our nature/development predisposes us towards acceptance of those. I should note/reiterate that the description "natural born dualists" was not my phrase but Richard Dawkins' (more precisely Richard Dawkins quoting developmental psychologist Paul Bloom), and taken literally is certainly hyperbole. I'm not suggesting that three year olds are sitting there thinking "The metaphysical substance of this sippy cup must have a set of essential properties fundamentally distinct from the substance of my own cognition"; I'm saying that they view the world at large as 'other,' as different from themselves (and from other selves). I'm saying that recognizing some things about their own self, the extent of their own body's feelings and perceptions, is much easier than conceiving that there are feelings or perceptions elsewhere that aren't their own, and while they do eventually recognize other selves in their family (likely sometime before the terrible twos) doing so for animals or even other humans takes a lot longer. Do you really think that's not the case?
This is all in an attempt to answer the question of why - having no ability to detect the absence of consciousness and therefore having no logical or empirical basis for imagining the existence of non-conscious stuff at all - it seems so commonplace in our societies for people to assume materialism as the only/natural alternative to dualism. (A particularly striking but hardly unique example being that even an academic like Dawkins in discussing the subject just pretends that idealism/mental monism doesn't even exist; either justifiably confident that most of his readers wouldn't notice or genuinely not even thinking about it himself.) As I noted I think there are two big cultural reasons for that - our Christian heritage of dualism viewing 'the world' as distinct from God and 'the flesh' as distinct from 'spirit,' and the current materialist tendencies of capitalism viewing everything in the world up to animals and often even workers/competitors as little more than inert things to be exploited - but it seems likely that there's also a bias from our cognitive development as infants.
I agree that study doesn't prove the point of a tendency or at least bias towards dualism, but it does suggest commonplace tendencies which as you suggest can be easily interpreted as and reinforce the view that minds and bodies/matter are largely distinct.
True, which makes it all the more striking when we recognize that the idea of non-conscious material stuff has no empirical basis at all! How do you observe or experience the absence of consciousness? As I've pointed out, all we can do is infer its presence based on similarities of structure and behaviour, which starts to become pretty tenuous beyond the animal world... but inferring its absence based on the absence of those structures and behaviours is wholly fallacious, denying the antecedent.
We all acknowledge the existence of an external reality, yes, but it doesn't follow from that that all minds must have some further substrate. We could make a similar point about anything that exists, that everything must have some more fundamental substrate... except the most fundamental things that don't. There's no necessary reason why even human minds couldn't be that type of most fundamental thing without any further substrate, as in solipsism; in practice, based on our acknowledgement of a reality external to our minds we do view human minds as requiring (or at least having) a substrate/brains, but that in no way implies that "you need some sort of brain in order to have mental stuff."
There's no basis for asserting mental activity/consciousness has to have some kind of substrate beyond itself, without first supposing that consciousness only exists in certain cases for which we can identify a substrate. It's a circular argument in other words.
You said this..
"The possibility that we might develop the technology to detect non-physical things in the future".
Again, something can't be made out of nothing.
The possibility of it occurring sometime in the future is as dumb as saying non-physical things exist now.
Let's pretend (for the sake of argument) that there is no evidence for a conscious reality; then if (as seems quite clear) there is also no evidence for a non-conscious reality, the two would be on exactly the same footing. Two equally broad and vague options which are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive; the plausibility of a conscious reality would be exactly the same as the plausibility of a non-conscious reality, 50/50.I have not made the initial proposal. You have done so, and have been unwilling to provide any objective, reality-based evidence for it. In fact, you won’t even tell us where this non-brain consciousness might supposedly resides.. You seem intelligent, but this puts your claim on the same level as those simplistic folks in here and elsewhere who proffer their “God” or “ID” without providing an iota of said evidence. I am not making a claim, per se, but rather REJECTING your claim, and theirs, for lack of evidence. This is not that difficult to understand.
Now—do you have any evidence, or can you tell us where this consciousness that you claim resides? The fact that you try to brush aside these central questions with a verbal jui-jitsu shows that they are on the same level of “made-up” as said God/ID believers.
Let's pretend (for the sake of argument) that there is no evidence for a conscious reality;
then if (as seems quite clear) there is also no evidence for a non-conscious reality,
I'd actually already hinted at a fourth reason also, which I didn't include above because what I'd mentioned of it in a previous post was only a fairly minor point, but on reflection is probably even more important than #3 above:They're not actually on equal footing of course, for at least three main reasons that I've outlined (so far), none of which have been coherently addressed:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?