Empirical Evidence of God
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Jan Ardena:
I'm sorry. I think I overestimated your ability to understand some of the points I put to you in my previous posts. The result is obviously that you're pouting with the frustration of it all.
We could have another discussion about animal rights, too. Again, a separate thread would be needed. I've done it before on this forum. Maybe you missed that one.
I'm sorry. I think I overestimated your ability to understand some of the points I put to you in my previous posts. The result is obviously that you're pouting with the frustration of it all.
Your body parts are attached to your body, Jan.
Yes. You are your body. Your body parts are attached to you. Work it out.
Why not start a separate thread, where we can discuss slavery, if you're interested.
My ruling?
We could have another discussion about animal rights, too. Again, a separate thread would be needed. I've done it before on this forum. Maybe you missed that one.
Your brain controls your body. You are your body, brain included. That's what we mean when we say "you".
Am I supposed to guess now?
Right. And we could say "there's that talking doorbell's house!"
The brain is a the core of your central nervous system, Jan. It is a bodily organ that you will find in your head. Why not google it?
Because a dead brain doesn't exhibit "you". The hardware is still there, but it's not running the software. By the way, it doesn't stop being your brain when you die. It's still attached to your body.
Yes, Jan. The human brain, and all its functionality, evolved from the primordial goo. It took a while, but we got there eventually.
It's true. We just don't know all the details, yet. Brains are complicated.
I don't know if it's correct. I only said it makes sense. It's an idea that is better supported by evidence than the "immortal spirit-soul" theory you believe.
I am some kind of science guy. Among other things.
I already gave you a broad overview. Go back and re-read. Happy to answer questions.
What did you read?
Okay. That's too big a topic to open in addition to the topic of this thread. So, all I'm going to say is: your belief on that is quite wrong, and you should learn some more about evolution. Clearly, you've been misled, or you never learned about evolution properly.
Okay. And I don't have to justify my statement that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to human evolution.
Last edited:
(continued...)
Acting as though there is no God takes about as much effort as acting as if there's no tooth fairy or no Grog the Cosmic Beetle.
Nothing is "obvious" until you make it so. Since your God is not "obvious" to me or to other atheists, does it not occur to you that, perhaps, you ought to check if your belief is supportable by any argument and/or evidence? If it isn't, then it doesn't really matter how "obvious" you think it is.
Some people think it's "obvious" that your star sign affects your future. That doesn't make it true.
Maybe if you were interested in questioning some of your own assumptions, you wouldn't stay so wrong about so many things for so long.
The application of what I said is this: whether God exists or not is not central to my "worldview". If God turns out to exist, I won't be overly fussed. I already know what it's like to believe in God. It's not like it's hard. Depending on what this God turns out to be like, it could even be good thing to know. If God tells me that I have to give up on rational thinking and evidence-based decision making, though, I'll have a bone to pick with him!
Yes. If I didn't have my licence, it would be absent. I'm with you so far. Where is this going?
Not a subconscious level. Atheists who have thought about the question carefully make a conscious choice.
Acting as though there is no God takes about as much effort as acting as if there's no tooth fairy or no Grog the Cosmic Beetle.
Don't you understand my position, even after all this time? There is no good evidence that God exists. Maybe he exists. If he does, he's doing a good job of making it look like he doesn't.
I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain.
Why would I cling onto a patently false belief, if I saw evidence that I was wrong right there in front of me? Is that what you do?
You can't even point me to one piece of empirical evidence for God, perhaps with a handy hyperlink?
That's your whole problem, in a nutshell, Jan.
Nothing is "obvious" until you make it so. Since your God is not "obvious" to me or to other atheists, does it not occur to you that, perhaps, you ought to check if your belief is supportable by any argument and/or evidence? If it isn't, then it doesn't really matter how "obvious" you think it is.
Some people think it's "obvious" that your star sign affects your future. That doesn't make it true.
Maybe if you were interested in questioning some of your own assumptions, you wouldn't stay so wrong about so many things for so long.
Clearly you didn't understand that example. Never mind. Let's move on.
Too long, didn't read? Sorry Jan.
The application of what I said is this: whether God exists or not is not central to my "worldview". If God turns out to exist, I won't be overly fussed. I already know what it's like to believe in God. It's not like it's hard. Depending on what this God turns out to be like, it could even be good thing to know. If God tells me that I have to give up on rational thinking and evidence-based decision making, though, I'll have a bone to pick with him!
Because that would be the appeal to nature fallacy. That's why not.
Aw shucks. I guess I'm just a cute guy.
(continue...)
I've already posted on that at length, earlier in the thread. No need to repeat.
I'm at the point now where I'm quite confident I understand your "worldview" inside and out - at least those parts that you have exposed on this forum. I could almost write your posts for you, or write an Eliza programme to randomly select from statements like "You're an atheist, so you would say that" and "There is no God for you" and "God Is. I don't need evidence for that."
I've already posted on that at length, earlier in the thread. No need to repeat.
"Empirical evidence of God"? I'm bearing it in mind.
I understand what you mean by God: omnipotent creator of the universe, everything is an aspect of him, the One that is Many, blah blah blah. It's only a minor variation on the usual religious line.
You might like to read my thread "Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?", where I discuss faith in its various aspects.
You're the one who is struggling to follow the points being put to you. Really, Jan, do you imagine this is a mentally taxing discussion I'm having with you? You offer so little. You constantly repeat yourself. After literally years of walking you through some stuff, you still haven't grasped some basic distinctions. And so it goes.
I'm at the point now where I'm quite confident I understand your "worldview" inside and out - at least those parts that you have exposed on this forum. I could almost write your posts for you, or write an Eliza programme to randomly select from statements like "You're an atheist, so you would say that" and "There is no God for you" and "God Is. I don't need evidence for that."
(continued...)
What's wrong with saying God is a real fantasy figure, then? Isn't this your point - that having the concept of or belief in a character means that character is real?
Are you now saying it's different for God than for Mickey?
I don't see much point in our going another round quibbling about "what is evidence?" I've discussed that at length, previously, including earlier in this thread.
I mean, in this series of replies, the best you've managed to come up is a vague wave of your hand towards the entirety of "material reality". Now, if you could establish that a God is needed for that, then you might have an argument, but you can't do that.
Was it he part about your claim that your God belief is "natural"? The part about your not requiring evidence for your belief? Or the part about it being irrational to believe in the absence of evidence?
Next time you make that kind of accusation, make sure you provide at least one example of the denial or rejection you allege. Otherwise people might think you're full of hot air.
He could, in principle. So could Santa Claus, given his described character and abilities.
I'm up to my obfuscation tricks? Who started that ball rolling by saying that Mickey Mouse is "a real fantasy figure"? Who has previously argued that Santa Claus is real (presumably he, too, is a "real fantasy figure")? Wasn't that you, both times?
What's wrong with saying God is a real fantasy figure, then? Isn't this your point - that having the concept of or belief in a character means that character is real?
Are you now saying it's different for God than for Mickey?
I try not to make false claims to knowledge, so I'm careful to only talk about my own perceptions and knowledge. I am not aware of any good evidence for a God. But I admit I don't know everything. There might be some evidence I'm not aware of, conceivably.
The most I can say is that I find what is presented as evidence for God unconvincing.
I don't see much point in our going another round quibbling about "what is evidence?" I've discussed that at length, previously, including earlier in this thread.
That might go a long way to explaining why you still believe in God. Think about it.
Really? Like what?
I mean, in this series of replies, the best you've managed to come up is a vague wave of your hand towards the entirety of "material reality". Now, if you could establish that a God is needed for that, then you might have an argument, but you can't do that.
Jan, think about this: atheists don't believe in your God. No, really, think about it. That means that while you have no doubts at all about God Is and all that, a rather significant proportion of the population does. Maybe they are onto something.
What have you learned so far?
Depends on the topic, and the poster.
For myself, I often find myself posting on topics to debate an issue, or to provide information to other people. Sometimes I ask questions and learn stuff I didn't know before.
Certainly I hope to change opinions from time to time, on various matters. Writing on a forum like this one is, I think, in part an attempt to persuade people about stuff. Look for yourself at how people use the forum, and judge for yourself.
As a self-declared man who doesn't give a monkeys about changing anybody's opinion, I wonder why you post here at all. Do you perhaps consider your posts to be evangelical?
I suppose you could consider yourself a mere observer of the opinions of others, and you are merely prodding people to express their opinions. Is that it? Are you studying us, Jan?
I think it's more fun to be a participant than an observer.
For myself, I often find myself posting on topics to debate an issue, or to provide information to other people. Sometimes I ask questions and learn stuff I didn't know before.
Certainly I hope to change opinions from time to time, on various matters. Writing on a forum like this one is, I think, in part an attempt to persuade people about stuff. Look for yourself at how people use the forum, and judge for yourself.
As a self-declared man who doesn't give a monkeys about changing anybody's opinion, I wonder why you post here at all. Do you perhaps consider your posts to be evangelical?
I suppose you could consider yourself a mere observer of the opinions of others, and you are merely prodding people to express their opinions. Is that it? Are you studying us, Jan?
I think it's more fun to be a participant than an observer.
I can happily live with my atheist delusion already, Jan. I'm a realist. I don't really expect you to change your mind. And I really don't have the energy to take on all the crazy theists out there, or the arrogance to assume that I can "refute theism" any better than anybody else has managed to do in the past 3000 years or so. Theism will always be with us, probably. I can live with that.
Don't be childish, Jan. Tell me which part I got wrong.
Was it he part about your claim that your God belief is "natural"? The part about your not requiring evidence for your belief? Or the part about it being irrational to believe in the absence of evidence?
Lack of evidence. Now answer the question, please.
Didn't you read what I wrote?
No, Jan. We're not doing that. Remember I said I would discuss my theism once you're willing to discuss yours. In the meantime, I give out personal information only if I want to. When you show good faith in the discussion, then I might reciprocate.
Posted earlier in the thread.
*yawn*
Next time you make that kind of accusation, make sure you provide at least one example of the denial or rejection you allege. Otherwise people might think you're full of hot air.
Already posted earlier in the thread.
Which questions? I think I have replied fairly comprehensively to your posts.
Last edited:
I think the only frustration here is yours.
It's not that I don't understand some of your points. It's that I expose them for what they are. Not applicable!
Do the parts make up my body, or do I have a body despite my parts?
Do you regard the torso as part of my body? Or is it the body?
I have so many questions, but let's see how you handle those.
So I don't have to do anything. Just sit back and let my brain do all the work.
Is that how you live your life James?
Speak for yourself.
That's not what I'm asking.
My question was in response to...
The brain itself is not exactly what you think of as "you"...
You're assuming a live brain does.
Why do you think it does?
So I am me, even when I'm dead?
Interesting! Don't bother to elaborate. Please.
I get you.
It's true, we just need to find a way to make the evidence match the conclusion.
Let me know when it does.
No it doesn't
It is almost in the same ball park as the universe the universe brought itself into being.
I don't agree with you.
I have read, and listen lots about that specific branch of evolution, and it makes no difference.
I think you have been misled.
Are you saying everyone who accepts human evolved from non human, have learned evolution properly. And everyone who doesn't, hasn't
Jan.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
I think what you need at this point is a dictionary.
Can we conclude that it would be you in the grave with your name on the headstone?
Not necessarily, there are those who work in science but have a Creationist agenda, they attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory but always fail to deliver. Most theists who have the same agenda never bother to take the time to understand evolution, so for the most part, the answer to your question is yes.
Kinda like... the guy who gets the aircraft in the air, gets it where he wants to go and gets it back on the ground with no unpleasant effects has learned aviation properly? Yeah. And the guy who can't find the "On" switch hasn't? Yeah.
It is safe to say that anyone who does not think that humans evolved from non-humans is provably incorrect about that issue.
There is far more to evolution, of course, than humans evolving from another primate.
If one is of the view that the body is merely a vessel for consciousness, then when the body dies it is no longer "you". It is instead just a body, albeit the one you used while you inhabited the material realm. It would certainly not be "you" in the grave, even if it has the name that you used engraved on the headstone.
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
That's a good point and one I think Jan is pursuing. However, I think either James has missed that point or is either trying to explain that although the body may be used as a vessel, it is still the body in which Jan interacts with others and they interact with him. Our senses don't tend to construct or interact with a consciousness in another person, they just respond to the environment based on what we see, hear, touch, etc. In that sense, it is the body that is "you" even if in the grave, it just no longer interacts anymore.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But when the body you dies, the brain you also dies with it. Thus the whole you dies.
And it is correct to identify your remains as you, and a short commemorative of who (what) you were.
What we perceive as a continued existence after we die, are the memories, the legacy we leave, but these memories reside in other living people and have no independent existence of their own. Maybe in books...
Christ, if he ever existed, is dead, both in body and brain. His thoughts live on in our (living) memory, that is located in our mirror neural network. These thoughts don't float around in space.
The same goes for Hitler. There is no distinction in the memory other than the content of the memory.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Almost missed this tidbit.
Wow. That puts his other ideas in a bit of context.
Beliefs about things whose evidence is in-question is one thing, but actively rejecting an entire science - and the centuries of extant* evidence built up in it - that is a very different kettle of fish.
*literally: existing, available, archival, studiable nature
Jan interprets the existence of every rock and tree and furry animal as compelling evidence of an invisible being that loves him.
Yet, we have literally uncountable extant exemplars of the evolution of man from proto-humans, that Jan need only bus fare to go and look at in virtually every major city in the world. We could accompany him, and point at actual fossils and discuss the morphology of them over time, from early primate to H. Sapiens. Jan could disagree, but we would be able to literally handle the actual evidence first-hand and pass it back and forth. We could come back the next day, and continue to examine it first-hand. We could cll in experts. We could make hypotheses, then go BACK to the evidence and TEST our hypotheses. It will wait there, for as long as we need it to. For as many experts as we need.
But no, he sees evidence everywhere of an invisible, all-knowing, all-loving spirit. That's where Jan puts his money.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
We get believers unsucessfully nit picking science as if even a spelling mistake should cause it all to be rejected and yet they tolerate extreme mistakes and inconsistency in their good book.
It is a pity their determination to jump upon their smallest percieved flaw in science could not be applied to their God stories...you must throw out the good book before you turn the first page.
They can happily reject evolution as being crazy yet have no problem swallowing the fairey tale that the first male human was made from dirt and the first female needed a rib from the first male...most think a human female has one less rib than a male because their good book says so and ignore the reality that such is not true.
Take the good book literally and we have a flat Earth and many folk ignore the reality science gives us in favour of a flat Earth.
Their approach serves to illustrate they are incapable of applying reason to analyse the God story.
I have pointed out earlier that essentially just one single error or even a single prediction that does not agree totally with observation in science causes the model to be cast out...
Yet they totally ignore mistakes in their good books usually without appology.
Take the slavery references and how a believer will try to explain them away rather than just admit slavery is just wrong.
And when you talk about the horrors in the OT you get this crap about a new covenant, that supposedly wipes the slate, being in place and yet JC himself says nothing has changed.
And confront them with the proposition that if the OT is out then the ten commandments must be out...er well no.
But but but we say...and the reply."I dont care this is my faith" as if faith is makes it all OK.
Their fear of death and hell has destroyed their ability to make any negative observation upon their world view.
Reading the bible cover to cover shouls be compulsory in schools as I can not imagine that even a child would not become atheist when they had read a little way in.
And the calls to kill etc in the good book...heck any other publication would be banned as a call to terrorism...and that is what it is.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
:like:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Just as believers cherry pick the good book for whatever I have spent time whilst my lappy is downloading astronomy and camera stuff to read some proverbs...I was going to post the stupid ones but there were so many and at that point I thought what a waste of time it is trying to talk reason with a theist but trying to do so has merit in that one really does not have to think too hard and really there is no need to make them look silly as they do a good job of that already.
But I am starting to think Dawin may be wrong as it could be that the common ancestor for apes were superstitious humans anyway when JC returns I will ask him☺
Who was it who effectively said the only way to deal with nonsence is ridicule?
Alex
But I am starting to think Dawin may be wrong as it could be that the common ancestor for apes were superstitious humans anyway when JC returns I will ask him☺
Who was it who effectively said the only way to deal with nonsence is ridicule?
Alex
Jan Ardena,
Think of your brain as the hardware on which your "operating system" runs, roughly speaking. Of course, the regulation of the body is more complicated than that, but what we're focussed on here is your conscious perception of yourself as a person, are we not? That conscious perception is the product of the functioning of your brain. The consciousness itself is part of what the brain does.
If you like, you can mentally separate the "hardware", so to speak, from the "software". Using that analogy, the physical neurons in your brain are the hardware, and your sense of self is software. Damage the hardware, and the software doesn't run any more. Damage your brain, and the "you" goes away. Kill the brain and the "you" stops.
I realise that you are trying to muddy the waters by flip-flopping between discussion of the physical and the mental, calling both of them "I" or "me". But it's not really that hard.
Your brain is a bodily organ. It is attached physically to your body. Your arms are, too. Your arms and your brain are not controlled by anybody else but you, so they are "your arms" and "your brain". "You", in this context of mind+body simply refers to everything inside and including your skin. Hopefully we won't have to have a typical Jan diversion on a topic like "What about the food I ate. Is that me, too?" Work it out.
When it comes to the soul, you are simply adding an additional and unnecessary layer of complexity to the description above. You assert that, by some unknown and unspecified process, a non-physical entity that you call a "spirit-soul" can influence or control your physical brain. You assert that it is this spirit soul that is "you", and that the body and/or brain is essentially just a vehicle for that spirit-soul. None of this is evidenced in any way, of course. It's pure speculation.
You say, in effect, "My brain just does what it does, but I (the spirit-soul) am the one who is in charge". If so, then you need to explain how spirit-souls actually control processes in a physical brain. What is the interface method between the supposed driver of the vehicle and the vehicle itself? How does it work? Note that the answers to the equivalent questions are already well understood in the case that the brain is the driver of the body. If you want to assert that the spirit-soul is the driver of the brain, you need to explain how that works.
Similarly, lots of people reject things for reasons that have nothing to do with having the wrong information, or not being able to access proper learning.
Your body consists of your limbs, your internal organs, your skin, your brain, your bones, etc. etc.
Think of your brain as the hardware on which your "operating system" runs, roughly speaking. Of course, the regulation of the body is more complicated than that, but what we're focussed on here is your conscious perception of yourself as a person, are we not? That conscious perception is the product of the functioning of your brain. The consciousness itself is part of what the brain does.
If you like, you can mentally separate the "hardware", so to speak, from the "software". Using that analogy, the physical neurons in your brain are the hardware, and your sense of self is software. Damage the hardware, and the software doesn't run any more. Damage your brain, and the "you" goes away. Kill the brain and the "you" stops.
I realise that you are trying to muddy the waters by flip-flopping between discussion of the physical and the mental, calling both of them "I" or "me". But it's not really that hard.
Your brain is a bodily organ. It is attached physically to your body. Your arms are, too. Your arms and your brain are not controlled by anybody else but you, so they are "your arms" and "your brain". "You", in this context of mind+body simply refers to everything inside and including your skin. Hopefully we won't have to have a typical Jan diversion on a topic like "What about the food I ate. Is that me, too?" Work it out.
When it comes to the soul, you are simply adding an additional and unnecessary layer of complexity to the description above. You assert that, by some unknown and unspecified process, a non-physical entity that you call a "spirit-soul" can influence or control your physical brain. You assert that it is this spirit soul that is "you", and that the body and/or brain is essentially just a vehicle for that spirit-soul. None of this is evidenced in any way, of course. It's pure speculation.
You say, in effect, "My brain just does what it does, but I (the spirit-soul) am the one who is in charge". If so, then you need to explain how spirit-souls actually control processes in a physical brain. What is the interface method between the supposed driver of the vehicle and the vehicle itself? How does it work? Note that the answers to the equivalent questions are already well understood in the case that the brain is the driver of the body. If you want to assert that the spirit-soul is the driver of the brain, you need to explain how that works.
The "you" is nothing but your brain "doing all the work".
It's how we all live our lives.
Who else would you be?
If you want to discuss how the universe came into being, that's a different thread. You're all over the place, Jan. In the last few posts, you've attempted to create at least three separate diversions onto other topics. Try to stay on topic. You can start other threads where we can perhaps attempt to educate you about the big bang theory, or evolution, or some of the other areas of science you're not too hot on. My impression is that science is most likely outside your field of expertise, whatever that is. Your attempts at scientific arguments tend to be naive, and they invariably expose big holes in your knowledge.
I know. You're clearly uneducated on the topic. It might not be your fault, entirely. For now, I can just add you to a long list of deluded creationists, and hope that you see the error of your ways at some point in the future.
Again, we could have a discussion about that in a separate thread, if you like. At this stage, I can't identify your specific pathology on that topic. It would no doubt take a while to work out what particular misconceptions you're laboring under.
Quite obviously, you're in no position to make an informed judgment when it comes to that topic, so your opinion can be safely disregarded.
No. People accept or reject things for lots of different reasons. People accept things on faith. People accept things on the basis of authority. People accept things because they like or admire the person or people who told them the things. And so on and so forth. Having learned something properly is only one possible reason for accepting it.
Similarly, lots of people reject things for reasons that have nothing to do with having the wrong information, or not being able to access proper learning.
Goldtop:
You're right, except for the part where you say I missed Jan's point. I have tried to bring the discussion back to that point in my post above. Hope that helps.
I don't see why, as it is obvious what a body is, but let's see what the definition states.
Body - the physical structure, including the bones, flesh, and organs, of a person or an animal.
No. We can't conclude that. It would be "my" remains that would be either in the grave, or burnt to ashes. No different than currently burying or burning my clothes.
Hopefully you're implying that a person is also a person.
Are there those who work science that have an atheist agenda?
I think your being prejudicial against theists.
Jan.