God can exist

[Cris]

LG,

for instance consciousness cannot be explained merely in terms of matter and energy

That might be a useful observation if all the possible analysis of the brain were complete and there was nowhere else to look. But this area of research is still in its infancy.

So trying to imply a soul might exist because science at its early stages of analysis can't explain consciousness seems like a somewhat desperate attempt to hold onto a baseless concept.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

That might be a useful observation if all the possible analysis of the brain were complete and there was nowhere else to look. But this area of research is still in its infancy.

Empiricism can only offer tacit observations and not explicit ones.
We have gone through this in detail previously, but just to recap, if I point to my hand that can be broken down to parts like palm and fingers and that can be broken down to skin and bone and that can be broken down to cells and cells can be broken down to mitochondria, lysosomes and the like and so on and so to no (apparent) end.
In others words waiting for a complete investigation of the brain is simply passing the buck since its not even possible to do a complete investigation of a cup of flour.

So trying to imply a soul might exist because science at its early stages of analysis can't explain consciousness seems like a somewhat desperate attempt to hold onto a baseless concept.

That might be a useful observation if it was possible for empiricism to offer complete answers. If there is currently no methodology for determining consciousness arises from chemicals its not clear how you can anticipate a conclusion in the complete absence of a workable hypothesis.

Sorry, but thats the sole foundation for the credibility of science
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

The mind of the ignorant and gullible will revert to the fantastic or divine to explain that which they don't understand themselves or that which currently does not have an answer, yet.

.... and you are not in that catagory because?

 

[lightgigantic]

Believing in a Creator God eventually becomes disempowering - because the person has given over the responsibility for their happiness and for their suffering over to someone else, the person doesn't believe anymore that their happiness and their suffering are in their hands.

To work a simple philosophical analogy, there are two types of extremes, both of which result in misery.
One is "baby monkey" philosophy - they cling to the back of the parent for dear life ("I am totally responsible for my happiness").
The other is "baby kangaroo" philosophy - they get carried around in their parents pouch ("God is totally responsible for my happiness")

Deterministic models however offer a medium ground between these two extremes of misery, summed up succinctly in "God helps those who help themselves".

I have no doubt that attachment to a Creator God can for a long time feel very fulfilling, and the person thrives.
But at some point, this attachment becomes detrimental for the person's happiness.

Actually its kind of like a relationship - in one sense, a person has their independent will and activities curtailed by being emotionally attached to another. Whether this is a cause of misery or not depends on whether the relationship is dysfunctional or not.

If it is dysfunctional, yes, they suffer more than a person who is not in a relationship. However if it is functional, they have a richer standard that is impossible for one not involved in a relationship to achieve.

 

[lightgigantic]

It can be said that there is a great deal of work on ths subject. Of course nothing, not the tiniest little speck actually points to sky beings or anything 'supernatural'. The argument of "a god did it" serves no real value to anyone except to satisfy emotions. Anyway, some interesting reading:

well lets see

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...0-source-of-human-empathy-found-in-brain.html

empathy is a subfunction of consciousness and not consciousness itself - kind of like how the engine is a sub function of a car. The real integral element is the person driving it, since a car without a driver will do nothing for a million years.
You are talking about issues of the conceived self.
I am referring to the self as context

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...ld-quantum-effects-explain-consciousness.html

[/QUOTE]
Ditto above
another conceived self issue

Basically conceived self issues deal specifically with issues of wakefulness, dreaming and deep dreamless sleep.

Self as context issues deal specifically with how an an object came to have the opportunity to experience conceived self issues in the first place.

Saying that consciousness is affected by chemicals is a conceived self issue (to which I wouldn't disagree)

Saying that consciousness has arisen from chemicals is a self as context issue (to which I would strongly disagree with, and which neither you or anyone else has any evidence to back up).

If you don't understand the difference between self as context and conceived self you haven't even understood my argument, what to speak of understanding the reasons for my argument.

 

[SnakeLord]

Self as context issues deal specifically with how an an object came to have the opportunity to experience conceived self issues in the first place.

All in good time. Is there a valid reason to invoke spooks and spectres while we learn?

If you don't understand the difference between self as context and conceived self you haven't even understood my argument

Now now, I said it was interesting reading, I didn't say it would satisfy the person that claims an elephant headed god did it. Keep your knickers on.

 

[lightgigantic]

All in good time. Is there a valid reason to invoke spooks and spectres while we learn?

well if you think you can achieve such a conclusion by empirical means I would argue you have a spooky narrative or two running in your own state of affairs ....

Now now, I said it was interesting reading, I didn't say it would satisfy the person that claims an elephant headed god did it. Keep your knickers on.

Actually I am not talking about anything related to god at the moment.
I am talking about the substance behind the claim that consciousness arises from chemicals ... and further more I am not even violating the standard for discerning such knowledge ... simple straight forward empiricism.
So if you have anything to offer related to the issue, please be my guest ....

 

[greenberg]

To work a simple philosophical analogy, there are two types of extremes, both of which result in misery.
One is "baby monkey" philosophy - they cling to the back of the parent for dear life ("I am totally responsible for my happiness").
The other is "baby kangaroo" philosophy - they get carried around in their parents pouch ("God is totally responsible for my happiness")

Deterministic models however offer a medium ground between these two extremes of misery, summed up succinctly in "God helps those who help themselves".

Obviously, it also makes a big difference in what a god one believes in.

Believing in a wrathful killer god who will judge and condemn a large number of mankind to eternal hellfire and who wants to take credit for every good thing one does, does not inspire me with hope for anything good.

Actually its kind of like a relationship - in one sense, a person has their independent will and activities curtailed by being emotionally attached to another. Whether this is a cause of misery or not depends on whether the relationship is dysfunctional or not.

If it is dysfunctional, yes, they suffer more than a person who is not in a relationship. However if it is functional, they have a richer standard that is impossible for one not involved in a relationship to achieve.

Again, obviously. Admirable companionship (in terms of the people, as well as ideas an activities one engages with) is the vehicle of the spiritual life.

But there is only so much that one person can do for another - there is only so much that one person can give to another, and only so much one person can receive from another.

 

[lightgigantic]

Obviously, it also makes a big difference in what a god one believes in.

Believing in a wrathful killer god who will judge and condemn a large number of mankind to eternal hellfire and who wants to take credit for every good thing one does, does not inspire me with hope for anything good.

there is a basic model to understanding something

theory gives rise to practice and practice gives rise to conclusions

Or to put it more simply, if we start off on the wrong foot we pay for it later down the track.

Again, obviously. Admirable companionship (in terms of the people, as well as ideas an activities one engages with) is the vehicle of the spiritual life.

But there is only so much that one person can do for another - there is only so much that one person can give to another, and only so much one person can receive from another.

the reason our experience is like that is because nobody is fully worthy of complete surrender and no one is capable of fully surrendering to such persons anyway ...

 

[greenberg]

there is a basic model to understanding something

theory gives rise to practice and practice gives rise to conclusions

Or to put it more simply, if we start off on the wrong foot we pay for it later down the track.

I suspect you had something specific in mind here?

the reason our experience is like that is because nobody is fully worthy of complete surrender and no one is capable of fully surrendering to such persons anyway ...

But is complete surrender even possible? Try as one might, one cannot give up one's will.

 

[Avatar]

My point is, even if you believe in Science, what is the scientific reason God cannot exist? Perhaps there is a Creator that did create this universe, with its own set of laws (like the physical laws), and then "nature" guided the rest; but in the first place, God created it

I am interested in hearing why God is an impossibility to the atheists.

Yeah, and there can exist an invisible pink unicorn. Your point?

 

[Norsefire]

Yeah, and there can exist an invisible pink unicorn. Your point?

Please, keep this reasonable. Obviously you meant it to sound ridiculous by saying "an invisible pink unicorn"
However, the concept of God is very reasonable and even likely (or at least, not unlikely)

My point? It is an unknown. So therefore, atheists do NOT know whether or not there is a God; they just don't believe there is, but that is not knowledge nor facts.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Please, keep this reasonable. Obviously you meant it to sound ridiculous by saying "an invisible pink unicorn"
However, the concept of God is very reasonable and even likely (or at least, not unlikely)

My point? It is an unknown. So therefore, atheists do NOT know whether or not there is a God; they just don't believe there is, but that is not knowledge nor facts.

What makes the uncorn any less believable the god?
please exlain?

 

[Enmos]

Please, keep this reasonable. Obviously you meant it to sound ridiculous by saying "an invisible pink unicorn"
However, the concept of God is very reasonable and even likely (or at least, not unlikely)

My point? It is an unknown. So therefore, atheists do NOT know whether or not there is a God; they just don't believe there is, but that is not knowledge nor facts.

If it's an unknown, how come you do believe in God ?

 

[(Q)]

Please, keep this reasonable. Obviously you meant it to sound ridiculous by saying "an invisible pink unicorn"
However, the concept of God is very reasonable and even likely (or at least, not unlikely)

Unreasonable and unlikely, just like the invisible pink unicorn. That isn't even an argument.

My point? It is an unknown. So therefore, atheists do NOT know whether or not there is a God; they just don't believe there is, but that is not knowledge nor facts.

Since it is an unknown, we can therefore conclude theists are delusional.

 

[everneo]

What makes the uncorn any less believable the god?
please exlain?

It is not just uncorn, but an invisible pink unicorn. It is less believable than god for obvious reason.

 

[shichimenshyo]

It is not just uncorn, but an invisible pink unicorn. It is less believable than god for obvious reason.

How is an invisible pink unicorn and less believeable than a giant invisible man?

you cant disprove or prove either of them, god is just more "believable" because more people believe in it? Bull.

 

[Avatar]

It is not just uncorn, but an invisible pink unicorn. It is less believable than god for obvious reason.

Definitely more likely than an omnipotent, omnipresent invisible personality with an army of angels and other lesser spirits.

As shi here said "you cant disprove or prove either of them, god is just more "believable" because more people believe in it?"

 

[everneo]

Definitely more likely than an omnipotent, omnipresent invisible personality with an army of angels and other lesser spirits.

As shi here said "you cant disprove or prove either of them, god is just more "believable" because more people believe in it?"

The obvious reason is, there is no 'invisible pink' and no unicorn.

Faith in god depends on the perception of god.

So such a comparision is silly.

 

[Avatar]

It seems very unbelievable and silly to me to literally believe that there exists such a biblical god. It's equal in my mind if someone told me that I have to seriously consider the existence of an invisible unicorn living in Jupiter.