God probably exists ii

[RAMOSS]

It is simpler because thought would be the entire fabric of existence, not thought +non-thought.

I've already said that thoughts are ideas that when directed by the forceful thought called "will" become what we call beings. Beings can create more thoughts. As far as I know only beings can produce thought so that would mean there is a God...obviously.

That is the claim. Repeating a clam is not showing the claim is true. In fact, I reject that claim, and I don't think it's obvious at all. The claim 'Being create more thought' is vague, and does not explain anything. I would say this is nonsense, woo and just plain screwed up.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

None? Ok, I will. For me to accept evidence of a god, I would need:

1. A definition of what would constitute a god.
2. A means of independently confirming that a specific claimed god had independent existence.
3. A means of independently testing whether the claimed god meets the definition of a god.

For some god concepts it’s not possible to have any evidence. For example, a god that created the Universe, then left and had no further direct interaction. But that concept raises the question of how anyone would have known of such a god in the first place.

You say that in order to accept something as evidence for God you'd need to already have a means of independently confirming that a specific claimed god had independent existence.

This sounds exactly the same as saying that in order to accept something as evidence for God you'd need to already have some evidence for God.

I may have misunderstood so please explain.

 

[Big Eye]

I'm an atheist.
I don't hate the idea of there being a God I just don't see any evidence for it.
If you want to believe in God then go right ahead I won't try and dissuade you I'd just like it if theists did the same and didn't try and make me become a follower of whatever religion they believe in.

What you mean is that you choose not to accept the evidence as such. For your position to be reasonable you have to explain why this huge program we live in is not a program.

Some vile political parties in fairly recent history have had atheism as a core value that they have pushed...so let's not pretend atheists don't push their idea.Even now I'd say that the liberal left that has so dominated Western society (especially mainstream media/universities ) in recent decades is generally atheistic...and pushes that belief.

 

[Big Eye]

You claim it is. You have not backed up your claim.

You don't accept that intent is required to create complex, predictable systems.

You don't accept that this may be a program type event (ie, a complex predictable system).

You don't accept that there is no proof for mind independent reality (I know that because your whole argument against me rests on your belief in mind independence...even though you can't prove it.

You don't accept that one substance is less complex than two.

I can't reason with the unreasonable.:lamo

 

[Big Eye]

None? Ok, I will. For me to accept evidence of a god, I would need:

1. A definition of what would constitute a god.
2. A means of independently confirming that a specific claimed god had independent existence.
3. A means of independently testing whether the claimed god meets the definition of a god.

For some god concepts it’s not possible to have any evidence. For example, a god that created the Universe, then left and had no further direct interaction. But that concept raises the question of how anyone would have known of such a god in the first place.

If you're that demanding of proof for God why are you so undemanding for your proof of mind independence?

 

[ataraxia]

I think the fundamental mistake that materialists make is that they accuse theists of creating a "God of the gaps" whilst creating their own version... ie, mind independence. There is no proof of such a thing. At least with the God theory it uses something we know to exist...Will ,as an explanation for what causes reality. To make clear once more...there is no more proof for mind independence than there is for God...and as you imply, God is a simpler explanation.

Will certainly exists. But I guess it comes down to whether we think it can exist outside of the physical substrate which we know at least plays an important role in creating it.

We know we can mess with the will by messing with the physical substrate: surgery, trauma, stroke, chemicals/drugs/alcohol, electrical stimulation, etc... all can clearly impair and alter the the will. It’s a little like having a car which you can impair by messing with various parts of the engine. That makes it pretty clear that the concept of “car-ness” and its properties, function and ability to work clearly are an emergent property of its constituent components. There is no concept of “car” that can exist outside of the constituent components.

We have no examples of anything working outside of its constituent components. Now minds and brains MAY turn out to be different and the exception. But Can we agree that that would be very weird? Given all the overwhelming examples of everything working the other way, involving overwhelming examples of how messing the constituent components at least play a critically important role in the final product, I’m not sure why we would think this one case would be different.

 

[RAMOSS]

You don't accept that intent is required to create complex, predictable systems.

You don't accept that this may be a program type event (ie, a complex predictable system).

You don't accept that there is no proof for mind independent reality (I know that because your whole argument against me rests on your belief in mind independence...even though you can't prove it.

You don't accept that one substance is less complex than two.

I can't reason with the unreasonable.:lamo

That's right. I do not accept the claim that intent is required to create complex predictable systems. Random variation followed by filters is all that is required, no intent needed.

 

[Big Eye]

That is the claim. Repeating a clam is not showing the claim is true. In fact, I reject that claim, and I don't think it's obvious at all. The claim 'Being create more thought' is vague, and does not explain anything. I would say this is nonsense, woo and just plain screwed up.

If I make a claim , for instance that beings create thoughts, then unless I'm saying something unreasonable a reasonable person would accept it as evidence. You make the claim for mind independent material without any proof whatsoever, that means I'm being more reasonable than you.

If I then said that given what we know intentional thoughts can do it is not unreasonable to look at reality as a program because it ties in with this being a predictable system made with intention.

You don't have to believe it but you do have to show how I am being unreasonable if you are to come on this thread and keep stating that I'm wrong, or saying something "screwed up", you're just saying it proves nothing.

 

[watsup]

I'm not interested in answering your questions, I explained why too - we do not agree on even the most basic things; anyone who insists that "X is evidence of X" is a meaningful statement is not someone I can really have a sensible discussion with.

It's an idiotic assertion, I suggested you take this to the Philosophy sub-forum to get an idea of what others think, I wonder why you never did that...

No, you did not answer my question. You keep deflecting and ad homming. Here was his original question:

What evidence do you have that "thought" requires a physical anything?

I answered it with reference to scientific studies if the brain.

Your clear implication is that thought does NOT require a “physical anything”.
So my question remains: where else are you claiming that thought comes from except the brain???????

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's right. I do not accept the claim that intent is required to create complex predictable systems. Random variation followed by filters is all that is required, no intent needed.

Can you demonstrate this with an example?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, you did not answer my question. You keep deflecting and ad homming. Here was his original question:

What evidence do you have that "thought" requires a physical anything?

I answered it with reference to scientific studies if the brain.

Your clear implication is that thought does NOT require a “physical anything”.
So my question remains: where else are you claiming that thought comes from except the brain???????

Learn to read, I just explained "anyone who insists (as you do) that "X is evidence of X" is a meaningful statement is not someone I can really have a sensible discussion with".

In other words if you really regard "X is evidence of X" as a meaningful statement then it's inevitable we will disagree quite early on, so our disagreement is about this and if we disagree on this there's no point in discussing, we'll disagree on numerous things that all stem from this root disagreement.

Now stop trolling me and find someone else to pester.

 

[RAMOSS]

If I make a claim , for instance that beings create thoughts, then unless I'm saying something unreasonable a reasonable person would accept it as evidence. You make the claim for mind independent material without any proof whatsoever, that means I'm being more reasonable than you.

If I then said that given what we know intentional thoughts can do it is not unreasonable to look at reality as a program because it ties in with this being a predictable system made with intention.

You don't have to believe it but you do have to show how I am being unreasonable if you are to come on this thread and keep stating that I'm wrong, or saying something "screwed up", you're just saying it proves nothing.

Let's break that down further.

Define what you mean by 'Thought'. Show HOW thought is done. Show that thought is needed for complex systems and intent.

Prove your premises. The 'being create thoguht' is irreleivant if you can't properly define what thought is. or being is.

 

[watsup]

I'm not interested in answering your questions, I explained why too - we do not agree on even the most basic things; anyone who insists that "X is evidence of X" is a meaningful statement is not someone I can really have a sensible discussion with.

It's an idiotic assertion, I suggested you take this to the Philosophy sub-forum to get an idea of what others think, I wonder why you never did that...

And likewise when you state that “X is evidence of Y” without actually showing that such is so. “The universe is evidence of God” is a nonsensical statement from a standpoint of logic, no more true than “the universe is evidence of wood fairies” or Santa Claus.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And likewise when you state that “X is evidence of Y” without actually showing that such is so. “The universe is evidence of God” is a nonsensical statement from a standpoint of logic, no more true than “the universe is evidence of wood fairies” or Santa Claus.

Look your an atheist, you have your own set of beliefs and I'm really happy for you, but stop trolling me.

 

[Big Eye]

Will certainly exists. But I guess it comes down to whether we think it can exist outside of the physical substrate which we know at least plays an important role in creating it.

We know we can mess with the will by messing with the physical substrate: surgery, trauma, stroke, chemicals/drugs/alcohol, electrical stimulation, etc... all can clearly impair and alter the the will. It’s a little like having a car which you can impair by messing with various parts of the engine. That makes it pretty clear that the concept of “car-ness” and its properties, function and ability to work clearly are an emergent property of its constituent components. There is no concept of “car” that can exist outside of the constituent components.

We have no examples of anything working outside of its constituent components. Now minds and brains MAY turn out to be different and the exception. But Can we agree that that would be very weird? Given all the overwhelming examples of everything working the other way, involving overwhelming examples of how messing the constituent components at least play a critically important role in the final product, I’m not sure why we would think this one case would be different.

You might be right... but everything you describe as emergent merely means that that which emerged emerged due to the laws of nature....which I believe are a program written by a programmer. There is literally no proof for mind independence, you have to have faith for that idea to become part of your philosophical dogma.

Also there is no proof of causation insofar as objects like brains cause thoughts...that could be correlation , the cause could lie outside of the brain.

We know will exists 100%, we do not know a mind independent substrate exists...that substrate (reality) may be mind dependent.

 

[watsup]

Learn to read, I just explained "anyone who insists (as you do) that "X is evidence of X" is a meaningful statement is not someone I can really have a sensible discussion with".

In other words if you really regard "X is evidence of X" as a meaningful statement then it's inevitable we will disagree quite early on, so our disagreement is about this and if we disagree on this there's no point in discussing, we'll disagree on numerous things that all stem from this root disagreement.

Now stop trolling me and find someone else to pester.

Asking you to explain a statement that you made is not trolling. The face that you choose to deflect and ad hom pretty much shows that you can’t actually support the statement.
Point proven. Thank you.

 

[watsup]

Look your an atheist, you have your own set of beliefs and I'm really happy for you, but stop trolling me.

Pointing out errors in your thinking is not trolling. If you choose to avoid difficult questions, that is certainly up to you.

 

[Big Eye]

That's right. I do not accept the claim that intent is required to create complex predictable systems. Random variation followed by filters is all that is required, no intent needed.

So if you saw a program that represented reality in a small way (say like a computer game) your first assumption would naturally be "filtered random variation" done that! Intention is the simpler answer because we know what it can do...your theory we have no proof for...intention we know exists.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's interesting how emergent behavior is sometimes portrayed as evidence that design is not involved.

But anything that has the ability to exhibit emergent behaviors could have been designed to be just that - a generator of emergent behaviors.

Conway's famous "game of life" is an example, apparently simple rules lead to rather complex, unexpectedly rich patterns - but I'd argue that in fact the rules aren't simple because of what they give rise to.

 

[Big Eye]

Let's break that down further.

Define what you mean by 'Thought'. Show HOW thought is done. Show that thought is needed for complex systems and intent.

Prove your premises. The 'being create thoguht' is irreleivant if you can't properly define what thought is. or being is.

The simplest explanation I can think of is that thought is information (so it exists in a way material/energy exists for a materialist). Thought is done by Will...try it, think about, say , Scotland...there you've willed a thought! Well done!

I 100% guarantee that a jumbo jet can't be made without intent...even if you gave it 13 billion years it would not emerge with, or without "filters".

 

[pinqy]

You say that in order to accept something as evidence for God you'd need to already have a means of independently confirming that a specific claimed god had independent existence.

This sounds exactly the same as saying that in order to accept something as evidence for God you'd need to already have some evidence for God.

I may have misunderstood so please explain.

I said “a means,” a method, a way of testing the evidence. Evidence would have to support the existence of the specific proposed being and support that that being fits the definition of a god. For example, I can claim that my cat Luna is a god. First I would need to define what I meant by a god, and then any evidence I presented would have to confirm that Luna exists and matches the definition of a god. Evidence of a cat named Luna is not evidence that she is a god.

 

[pinqy]

If you're that demanding of proof for God why are you so undemanding for your proof of mind independence?

I’ve never mentioned mind independence or any criteria for proof of mind independence. I’m not even sure what you mean by the term.

 

[Triton]

The simplest explanation I can think of is that thought is information (so it exists in a way material/energy exists for a materialist). Thought is done by Will...try it, think about, say , Scotland...there you've willed a thought! Well done!

I 100% guarantee that a jumbo jet can't be made without intent...even if you gave it 13 billion years it would not emerge with, or without "filters".

Actually, after 13 billion years, jumbo jets did naturally emerge from humans creating them. Once you realize that human beings are a part of nature, rather than separate entities, a lot of these arguments tend to break down.

 

[RAMOSS]

So if you saw a program that represented reality in a small way (say like a computer game) your first assumption would naturally be "filtered random variation" done that! Intention is the simpler answer because we know what it can do...your theory we have no proof for...intention we know exists.

There is a difference between something that we have made, and nature. Sorry, bad analogy. In fact, an amazing stupid one.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Most atheists here believe the same things, there is a set of beliefs that fact that you don't even know this speaks volumes.

No they don't. Atheism is not a set of beliefs any more than theism is. You can not derive any more information from the term atheist than that they don't believe in god. That is the only requirement

You're inventing strawman because you want to have an enemy.

There are no set of core religious beliefs either....but atheism certainly leads to moral relativism because there is no good atheist argument against it.

The evidence has been stated many times in this thread, for instance , there is simply no proof whatsoever that complex balanced systems can be made without intent. If you state the laws of nature that begs the question "are the laws of nature intended?", because they sure as hell look and act like a program.

Prove that complex systems require design and intent. You can, so you won't. You pulled that out of your ass.

ALL morality is relative, even religious morality, otherwise Christianity wouldn't have nearly 1000 different sects with wildly different interpretations for everything. You just enjoy slapping the "god approved" label onto your own subjective morality, as if that gives it credibility.

For any given moral position you hold, I can find a group of Christians that believe you're wrong and believe something else. That's subjectivity.