If god were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, there would be no atheists.

[SkinWalker]

it explores the general principle of whether their are prerequisites to knowledge, particularly of the technical variety - since one would be hard pressed to name any field of knowledge that doesn't require training and such, its not clear why an atheist demands that the 'evidence' of god not meet such criteria

Many atheists are are well-versed or even better learned in the relevant knowledge than theists. Physics, biology, chemistry, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and so on. What fields of knowledge, specifically, does one need that aren't listed above to understand the nature of belief in superstitions, cults, and magical thinking? It would be immodest of me, but I'd be willing to bet my understanding of anthropology and sociology is better than yours (I could very well be wrong, of course), therefore, I'm probably better equipped to understand the technical aspects of belief and magical thinking than you. I'm still willing to discuss the topic with you, though.

So, what is the evidence for the existence of your god? Assume that we are all (or at least some of us) in possession of the prerequisite knowledge and go for it. Tell us. Put up or shut up, in other words.

But I suspect you're going to maintain that evidence of a god falls into some other "special" knowledge that we don't know. Yawn.

 

[lightgigantic]

Skinwalker

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it explores the general principle of whether their are prerequisites to knowledge, particularly of the technical variety - since one would be hard pressed to name any field of knowledge that doesn't require training and such, its not clear why an atheist demands that the 'evidence' of god not meet such criteria
”
Many atheists are are well-versed or even better learned in the relevant knowledge than theists.

perhaps in theory but I doubt in practice

Physics, biology, chemistry, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and so on.

since all these branches of knowledge are based on the senses (ie empiricism) and since god is primarily understood as being transcendental to the senses, its not clear what your issue is.

What fields of knowledge, specifically, does one need that aren't listed above to understand the nature of belief in superstitions, cults, and magical thinking?

practice, which is distinct from theory

It would be immodest of me, but I'd be willing to bet my understanding of anthropology and sociology is better than yours (I could very well be wrong, of course), therefore, I'm probably better equipped to understand the technical aspects of belief and magical thinking than you. I'm still willing to discuss the topic with you, though.

Its not clear how one could begin a discussion about how god/religion is a socially constructed phenomena, since one would expect that if god did actually exist that a social influence would be perceivable

So, what is the evidence for the existence of your god? Assume that we are all (or at least some of us) in possession of the prerequisite knowledge and go for it. Tell us. Put up or shut up, in other words.

Assuming that a person had a sufficient level of theoretical and practical knowledge would make even the most difficult of verifiable phenomena easy - coming to that point is the difficulty

But I suspect you're going to maintain that evidence of a god falls into some other "special" knowledge that we don't know. Yawn.

All such fields that you mention are empirical, which are fine for the observation of dull matter, but are grossly under equipped to approaching the phenomena of consciousness (How do you propose that one sees what one is seeing with?)
The conclusion of basic spiritual foundations of knowledge is that a serious candidate is obliged to act in ways that cultivate higher aspects of knowledge

success in the field is qualified by

# krpalu: merciful
# akrta-droha: humble
# satya-sara: truthful
# sama: equal to all
# nidosa: faultless
# vadanya: magnanimous
# mrdu: mild
# suci: clean
# akincana: without material possessions
# sarva-upakaraka: working for the welfare of everyone
# santa: peaceful
# krsna-eka-sarana: exclusively surrendered to Krishna (or god)
# akama: desireless
# aniha: indifferent to material acquisitions
# sthira: fixed in devotional service
# vijita-sat-guna: completely controlling the six bad qualities (lust, anger, greed, etc.)
# mita-bhuk: eating only as much as required
# apramatta: without inebriation
# mana-da: respectful
# amani: without false prestige
# gambhira: grave
# karuna: compassionate
# maitra: a friend
# kavi: a poet
# daksa: expert
# mauni: silent.

http://www.iskcon.com/education/culture/13.htm

you can see how it differs from regular empirical claims since the capability of an empirical researcher is not determined by how much they control the six bad qualities etc - the reason being that the object of research of an empiricist is not consciousness but dull matter (if you are examining how a plant photosynthesizes it doesn't matter whether you are a rascal or a saint)

 

[SkinWalker]

since all these branches of knowledge are based on the senses (ie empiricism) and since god is primarily understood as being transcendental to the senses, its not clear what your issue is.

If all you have to discuss is magical causes that exist only in the imaginations of believers, then a science forum is really no place for you. Will you be leaving us now?

 

[lightgigantic]

If all you have to discuss is magical causes that exist only in the imaginations of believers, then a science forum is really no place for you. Will you be leaving us now?

Rather than making confidence statements you should examine the general principles you applied to determine that its only in one's imagination

Which BTW comes in as atheistic flaw #

3. "Atheism is supported by science."

Again, this is not true. Because no scientifically verifiable evidence
exists on either side of the God question, science can't even address the
issue, let alone reach any conclusion.

are you ready to give up your modship since atheism cannot be scientifically established?

 

[SkinWalker]

There you go again with the ad hominem attack on me as a moderator. This always crops up when you get frustrated. In poker, its called a tell.

I don't recall ever saying "atheism is supported by science," so this would seem to be a straw man of your own construction. Moreover, I've made no confidence statements with regard to your imagination. I've only quoted your own words. You said the knowledge required to know about your god is "transcendental" in nature and cannot be empirical. The reality-based world understands this to be imagination. Its in your head. Also known as a delusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

There you go again with the ad hominem attack on me as a moderator. This always crops up when you get frustrated. In poker, its called a tell.

its a natural consequence of your trolling and flaming

I don't recall ever saying "atheism is supported by science," so this would seem to be a straw man of your own construction.

you deride the claims of theism because they cannot be validated by empiricism yet you don't recognize that the claims of atheism are equally invalid

Moreover, I've made no confidence statements with regard to your imagination. I've only quoted your own words. You said the knowledge required to know about your god is "transcendental" in nature and cannot be empirical. The reality-based world understands this to be imagination.

hardly .... or at least there are contrary schools of philosophy.
empiricism accepts the world as dictated from the senses as the platform of reality - since the senses are imperfect and fallible it should be clear how knowledge derived from it is not reliable when one wants to discuss the real world.

Its in your head. Also known as a delusion.

and your knowledge in which you are nestled in is solely defined by the senses - which are known as fallible and hence delusional (like accepting a rope that looks like a snake as a snake)
a more practical example is your deriding theism because it cannot be established by empiricism - yet your claim that theism is all imagination cannot be claimed as valid by empirical standards either - and to top it all off you claim that your branch of atheism is not making a positive stand against the nature of god (since there is some apparent distinction between labeling something as imagination and non-existent which is only present in your head)

 

[Sarkus]

the high school drop out rules the claims of a physicist as gappy because they are ignorant of the process or even the ability to distinguish credible claims from fallacious

But you have yet to put this "theistic process" up to scrutiny.
And until you do - and until we have verifiable and repeatable evidence - your claims about it are moot.

actually it is verified through theistic processes already...

Where? How? Please put forward the links that we may all see.

...so when persons like yourself hold out that it is yet to be claimed through exhausting the limits of empiricism (which is technically impossible, since the foundation of empiricism is the limited and imperfect senses and the desire to see what one is seeing with is much like trying to jump over one's knees) it simply indicates a reluctance or stubbornness to apply the relevant process (much like the high school drop out's predicament)

Drivel. Don't really know what else to call that.

You are making claims of future knowledge - or more precisely the lack of.

yes
the reason being is that they are ignorant of the foundational substance of consciousness.

No - it is you who jump on the gaps in current knowledge and say "well, these are uncrossable gaps - but our unverified, unprovable claims are just what you need."

Its kind of like trying to buy italian chocolates at an abattoir supply warehouse

LOL!
It's more like you not realising that you don't have to go to Italy to buy Italian chocolates.
Your analogies are nearly always inventive, but also very flawed. You have yet to provide any proof that this analogy holds - and is therefore logically flawed.

What can you say to a person who is hoping to purchase italian chocolates at a place that sells meat hooks and rubber boots?

Strawman - continuing from the false analogy (as it is unproven) that you started above.

At the very least it indicates where your faith lies.

That's the point, LG.
Most atheists just DON'T HAVE FAITH!
We do not BELIEVE anything where there is no evidence.
I do not have FAITH that God exists, or that he doesn't.
I do not have FAITH that science WILL provide answers - but I will go by the answers it DOES provide rather than jump on the unsubstantiated claims of a religion.

this is incomplete empirical knowledge since
have brain - have consciousness
is not a fact

I never said it was. You have twisted the phrasing to suit yourself.
I merely said - "remove brain, remove consciousness".

the engine is connected to the steering wheel which is connected to the person driving it

And there you go again with these flawed analogies as there is NO PROOF that consciousness is separate (i.e. the driver).
If you continue to use analogies that are begging the question then you will continually be correctly told that they are flawed analogies and meaningless in the discussion.

particularly if you rely on processes (ie reductionist models of atoms etc) that deal exclusively with matter.

THEN PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT MATTER!
As soon as you can do that then we can start looking at whether "consciousness" is similar in its "non-materiality". But until you provide EVIDENCE it is irrational to believe.

At the very least it would be impossible to give a material definition of consciousness - in fact even such subtle activities of consciousness (such as love, happiness, boredom etc)

Why impossible? Where is your evidence of the impossibility os such things? You are making unsubstantiated claims and not even realising it, LG.

- so that leaves us with the highly irrational theoretical conclusion of modern science - individuality doesn't actually exist since as it is merely a complex array of chemical reactions (very few scientists however would be prepared to live in a world that didn't assert legal responsibility with individuality)

Where the f**k did you pull this drivel from?
Why does the material nature of consciousness suddenly deprive us of individuality?
It is the uniqueness of everyone's consciousness that IS our individuality.

This is just another RED HERRING logical fallacy, not to mention ARGUMENT FROM FEAR and INCREDULITY.

And it speaks volumes for your own thought processes, LG.

actually there is zero evidence for your claim - there is some information about the chemical processes used by life

You actually believe what you say?

The two parts of your sentence above are oxymoronic, and yet you don't realise. Double-

The body is made up of matter, agreed?

THIS in itself is MORE EVIDENCE for "life" being a material process than it being a non-material "thing".
If you do not realise that then you really shouldn't be discussing things on a scientific forum - religion or otherwise - and you should get back to school. Maybe YOU are the high-school dropout you are so keen for us to consider?

as it stands at the moment by contemporary empirical understanding, there is a big gap between life and the chemicals that life utilizes, so its not clear where you have been doing the research for your lesson

Have I at ANY POINT said that there are NO GAPS in understanding - gaps big or small?

You see the gap, assess that it is unbridgeable, and come up with "non-materiality" as a god-of-the-gaps.

You confirm it with every argument you make yet can not see that that is what you are doing.

I am merely going to wait to see what answers come out, to see how much of this gap they bridge.
If they don't bridge it in my life-time then okay - so be it.
If they NEVER bridge it - so be it.

But at NO POINT will I "believe" in something for which there is no verifiable evidence, let alone something for which there can BE NO EVIDENCE.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the high school drop out rules the claims of a physicist as gappy because they are ignorant of the process or even the ability to distinguish credible claims from fallacious
”
But you have yet to put this "theistic process" up to scrutiny.

How can one scrutinize a process if they have an attitude problem about seriously investigating it (like say, how would the drop out scrutinize the process of physics if they were reluctant to budge from their position that they can scrutinize it with their current level of knowledge/perception?)

And until you do - and until we have verifiable and repeatable evidence - your claims about it are moot.

the claims are repeatable to the degree that the process is repeated

“
Originally Posted by LG
actually it is verified through theistic processes already...
”
Where? How? Please put forward the links that we may all see.

you are not familiar with saintly persons making claims on the basis of normative descriptions in scripture?

“
Originally Posted by LG
...so when persons like yourself hold out that it is yet to be claimed through exhausting the limits of empiricism (which is technically impossible, since the foundation of empiricism is the limited and imperfect senses and the desire to see what one is seeing with is much like trying to jump over one's knees) it simply indicates a reluctance or stubbornness to apply the relevant process (much like the high school drop out's predicament)
”
Drivel. Don't really know what else to call that.

A high school drop out would be more inclined to include a few more swear words

You are making claims of future knowledge - or more precisely the lack of.

how do you propose to see what you are seeing with?
Is it the same process that would enable one to jump over their knees?

“
Originally Posted by LG
yes
the reason being is that they are ignorant of the foundational substance of consciousness.
”
No - it is you who jump on the gaps in current knowledge and say "well, these are uncrossable gaps - but our unverified, unprovable claims are just what you need."

its you who are claiming that the statements are unverified - and such a statement would be perceived of as true by a person who has not applied the relevant process

“
Originally Posted by LG
Its kind of like trying to buy italian chocolates at an abattoir supply warehouse
”
LOL!
It's more like you not realising that you don't have to go to Italy to buy Italian chocolates.

it would be more like that if you could establish how the nature of consciousness can be perceivable by one's senses

Your analogies are nearly always inventive, but also very flawed. You have yet to provide any proof that this analogy holds - and is therefore logically flawed.

you don't find italian chocolates in slaughter houses
similarly you can't find complete knowledge via empiricism, simply because the foundation, the senses, are fallible

“
Originally Posted by LG
What can you say to a person who is hoping to purchase italian chocolates at a place that sells meat hooks and rubber boots?
”
Strawman - continuing from the false analogy (as it is unproven) that you started above.

perhaps you should establish how one can establish proof to one who has not applied the process to perceive the proof

“
Originally Posted by LG
At the very least it indicates where your faith lies.
”
That's the point, LG.
Most atheists just DON'T HAVE FAITH!
We do not BELIEVE anything where there is no evidence.

yet you have faith that empiricism can unlock the noumena of any phenomena

I do not have FAITH that God exists, or that he doesn't.

but you have faith that everything can come under the purview of the senses of humans
so effectively you place the human senses in the position of god (ie the topmost 'substance' in the universe).
This is totally ridiculous since the senses are practically cheated at every moment

I do not have FAITH that science WILL provide answers - but I will go by the answers it DOES provide rather than jump on the unsubstantiated claims of a religion.

yet you claim that consciousness will come under the grip of empiricism ??

“
Originally Posted by LG
this is incomplete empirical knowledge since
have brain - have consciousness
is not a fact
”
I never said it was. You have twisted the phrasing to suit yourself.
I merely said - "remove brain, remove consciousness".

but you were saying it to establish how that the brain is the ultimate substance in a body that enables consciousness - since there is zero evidence of processes that enable one to invest consciousness in a brain that is bereft of it, it appears that at best you have a theory or a subject suitable for a sci-fi novel

“
Originally Posted by LG
the engine is connected to the steering wheel which is connected to the person driving it
”
And there you go again with these flawed analogies as there is NO PROOF that consciousness is separate (i.e. the driver).

no empirical evidence of course, since consciousness does not come under the purview of empiricism (ie the senses) - its just like the drop out demanding "okay, if electrons really exist, show me one"

If you continue to use analogies that are begging the question then you will continually be correctly told that they are flawed analogies and meaningless in the discussion.

the question ultimately comes down to whether a person thinks they are in a position to validate/invalidate claims when they have not applied the relevant process

“

Originally Posted by LG
particularly if you rely on processes (ie reductionist models of atoms etc) that deal exclusively with matter.
”
THEN PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT MATTER!

no doubt you lay the condition, "by empircism"
- empiricism is based on the understanding that reality can be determined by direct perception (the senses)
- rationalism is based on the understanding that reality can be determined by inference (since the senses are imperfect)
- hearing from authority is based on the understanding that persons who are specialized have a degree of empiricism and rationalism not open to scrutiny by others (Tradesmen really love it when they get subcontracted to persons who lean over their shoulder and say "hey do you really know what you are doing?" all the time)

As soon as you can do that then we can start looking at whether "consciousness" is similar in its "non-materiality". But until you provide EVIDENCE it is irrational to believe.

until a person enters into practical application of a process, their analysis of a field of knowledge is insubstantial

“
Originally Posted by LG
At the very least it would be impossible to give a material definition of consciousness - in fact even such subtle activities of consciousness (such as love, happiness, boredom etc)
”
Why impossible? Where is your evidence of the impossibility os such things? You are making unsubstantiated claims and not even realising it, LG.

no more impossible than it is to take off a 1" bolt with a 2" spanner

“
Originally Posted by LG
- so that leaves us with the highly irrational theoretical conclusion of modern science - individuality doesn't actually exist since as it is merely a complex array of chemical reactions (very few scientists however would be prepared to live in a world that didn't assert legal responsibility with individuality)
”
Where the f**k did you pull this drivel from?

Here is a quote from Roger Penrose

The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each of us, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook"

Why does the material nature of consciousness suddenly deprive us of individuality?

because the reductionist theory advocates that individuality is essentially a combination of atoms/electrons etc - so essentially it doesn't exist

It is the uniqueness of everyone's consciousness that IS our individuality.

hence the reductionist paradigm, at least in the opinion of Roger penrose, has serious problems

This is just another RED HERRING logical fallacy, not to mention ARGUMENT FROM FEAR and INCREDULITY.

its an argument that tallies with an accredited scientist established in the field

And it speaks volumes for your own thought processes, LG.

and it speaks volumes of your foundations of knowledge

“
Originally Posted by LG
actually there is zero evidence for your claim - there is some information about the chemical processes used by life
”

You actually believe what you say?

The two parts of your sentence above are oxymoronic, and yet you don't realise. Double-

The body is made up of matter, agreed?

yes

THIS in itself is MORE EVIDENCE for "life" being a material process than it being a non-material "thing".

I guess the problem arises when we try to work the opposite way - namely if all that is required is a body for life, why can't we put life in a body that is bereft of it?

If you do not realise that then you really shouldn't be discussing things on a scientific forum - religion or otherwise - and you should get back to school. Maybe YOU are the high-school dropout you are so keen for us to consider?

I think you are reinforcing the stereotype of th emotional atheist losing a grip on their abilities of reason

“
Originally Posted by LG
as it stands at the moment by contemporary empirical understanding, there is a big gap between life and the chemicals that life utilizes, so its not clear where you have been doing the research for your lesson
”
Have I at ANY POINT said that there are NO GAPS in understanding - gaps big or small?

You see the gap, assess that it is unbridgeable, and come up with "non-materiality" as a god-of-the-gaps.

actually I am saying that consciousness is validated by processes outiside of empiricism and that empiricism, by its constitutional position (namely having the senses at the foundation) is not in a position to approach such subjects

You confirm it with every argument you make yet can not see that that is what you are doing.

I am merely going to wait to see what answers come out, to see how much of this gap they bridge.
If they don't bridge it in my life-time then okay - so be it.
If they NEVER bridge it - so be it.

somethings are just impossible
how many years or life times would it take you to unscrew a 1" bolt with a 2" spanner?
how many years or life times woul dit take you to jump over your knees?

But at NO POINT will I "believe" in something for which there is no verifiable evidence, let alone something for which the
re can BE NO EVIDENCE.

until you use the right tool for the job, or until one applies the required process to determine evidence one will be stuck in their wonders of hope (or frustration)

 

[Juan Tres]

They choose to say they do not belive but deep inside they always do

 

[Sarkus]

you are not familiar with saintly persons making claims on the basis of normative descriptions in scripture?

I am familiar with the stories in the Bible - and I am also familiar with the lack of evidence supporting them.

how do you propose to see what you are seeing with?
Is it the same process that would enable one to jump over their knees?

Irrelevant. Answer the question - and not just with (irrelevant) questions.

its you who are claiming that the statements are unverified - and such a statement would be perceived of as true by a person who has not applied the relevant process

Then provide the verification! Which you singularly FAIL to do!

it would be more like that if you could establish how the nature of consciousness can be perceivable by one's senses

First define conciousness!

you don't find italian chocolates in slaughter houses
similarly you can't find complete knowledge via empiricism, simply because the foundation, the senses, are fallible

This is your view - which has yet to be substantiated - given that ALL knoweldge thus far is empirical - with rationalism merely providing the theory on which to attain the empirical knoweldge.

yet you have faith that empiricism can unlock the noumena of any phenomena

I wouldn't call it faith - I would merely say I have yet to receive any knowledge/fact from anything else that I am aware of.

but you have faith that everything can come under the purview of the senses of humans

It's not faith - possibly there are some things that are not perceivable - but their interaction with the perceivable IS.
e.g. radiation.
The interactions with the perceivable allow us to even know it exists - and this empirical knowledge of existence leads us to create instruments to enhance our senses (e.g. telescopes, detectors etc).
However - if something "exists" but makes NO OBSERVABLE interactions with our universe then, for all intent and purpose, IT DOES NOT EXIST.
No evidence can be provided for its existence, and therefore at best it is an idea. A perfectly logical idea, maybe, but to believe it is truth when no evidence exists is laughable.

Now please tell me WHERE AND, more importantly, HOW these "non-material" things you claim exist interract with the observable?

so effectively you place the human senses in the position of god (ie the topmost 'substance' in the universe).

No. I do not believe in God - so why would I place anything in its position?

yet you claim that consciousness will come under the grip of empiricism ??

You really don't understand, do you!!
I don't claim. I will go by whatever knowledge I get - however it is obtained.

But please feel free to provide any example of knowledge (i.e. fact) that is NOT obtained empirically and is not merely definition.

but you were saying it to establish how that the brain is the ultimate substance in a body that enables consciousness - since there is zero evidence of processes that enable one to invest consciousness in a brain that is bereft of it, it appears that at best you have a theory or a subject suitable for a sci-fi novel

Strawman.

no empirical evidence of course, since consciousness does not come under the purview of empiricism (ie the senses)

And yet you provide no evidence of any sort - merely unsubstantiated claims.

Here is a quote from Roger Penrose...

hence the reductionist paradigm, at least in the opinion of Roger penrose, has serious problems

Strawman.

its an argument that tallies with an accredited scientist established in the field...

Strawman.

I guess the problem arises when we try to work the opposite way - namely if all that is required is a body for life, why can't we put life in a body that is bereft of it?

LOL! Strawman.

I think you are reinforcing the stereotype of th emotional atheist losing a grip on their abilities of reason

The statement came from the logical assessment of your arguments.

actually I am saying that consciousness is validated by processes outiside of empiricism and that empiricism, by its constitutional position (namely having the senses at the foundation) is not in a position to approach such subjects

"Validated"? What sort of drivel is that?
Feel free to "understand" the nuances of "consciousness" by inference or processes outside of empiricism - but do NOT claim that it IS a non-material thing unless you have PROOF - or even any evidence - of any sort.

somethings are just impossible

And your evidence for this with the matter of consciousness?

 

[Godless]

They choose to say they do not belive but deep inside they always do

Wrong! with every fiber of my being, with every conscious thought, with every going on in the world in name of said deity, why the hell would you believe atheist deep down believe BullShit?

 

[SkinWalker]

More importantly, with all the gods to choose from, which is the poster you quoted asserting that atheists believe? Obviously his, but there are thousands of extant and extinct gods from whom to choose.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you are not familiar with saintly persons making claims on the basis of normative descriptions in scripture?
”
I am familiar with the stories in the Bible - and I am also familiar with the lack of evidence supporting them.

the next q is whether saintly persons advocate learning stories from the bible by rote is sufficient

“
Originally Posted by LG
how do you propose to see what you are seeing with?
Is it the same process that would enable one to jump over their knees?
”
Irrelevant. Answer the question - and not just with (irrelevant) questions.

It deals with the limits of certain branches of knowledge

“
Originally Posted by LG
its you who are claiming that the statements are unverified - and such a statement would be perceived of as true by a person who has not applied the relevant process
”
Then provide the verification! Which you singularly FAIL to do!

how do you propose to verify a finding to someone who is bereft of the foundational principles of knowledge (how does a physicist verify an electron to the drop out who is inimical?)

“
Originally Posted by LG
it would be more like that if you could establish how the nature of consciousness can be perceivable by one's senses
”
First define conciousness!

the difference between a dead person and a living one

“
Originally Posted by LG
you don't find italian chocolates in slaughter houses
similarly you can't find complete knowledge via empiricism, simply because the foundation, the senses, are fallible
”
This is your view - which has yet to be substantiated - given that ALL knoweldge thus far is empirical - with rationalism merely providing the theory on which to attain the empirical knoweldge.

hardly

what is the empirical evidence for the mind?
what is the empirical evidence for a building appearing small on the horizon yet getting larger when you walk towards it?

inference plays a big part in our understanding, since knowledge that can solely be reduced to atoms and electrons lacks completion

“
Originally Posted by LG
yet you have faith that empiricism can unlock the noumena of any phenomena
”
I wouldn't call it faith - I would merely say I have yet to receive any knowledge/fact from anything else that I am aware of.

at the very least you must agree that empiricism, at either end (macro/micro) is shrouded in mystery. It should be obvious why it is impossible for empiricism to completely diminish these boundaries since it s foundation is the senses (which are limited by definition)

“
Originally Posted by LG
but you have faith that everything can come under the purview of the senses of humans
”
It's not faith - possibly there are some things that are not perceivable - but their interaction with the perceivable IS.
e.g. radiation.
The interactions with the perceivable allow us to even know it exists - and this empirical knowledge of existence leads us to create instruments to enhance our senses (e.g. telescopes, detectors etc).

creating instruments that enhance our senses are still limited (they cannot penetrate the extremes of macro/micro), since the foundation of them is still the senses (which are imperfect)

However - if something "exists" but makes NO OBSERVABLE interactions with our universe then, for all intent and purpose, IT DOES NOT EXIST.

so before scientists stumbled upon radiation and electrons they did not exist?

No evidence can be provided for its existence, and therefore at best it is an idea. A perfectly logical idea, maybe, but to believe it is truth when no evidence exists is laughable.

hence evidence is not self evident, since it relies on one having applied relevant processes to determine evidence

Now please tell me WHERE AND, more importantly, HOW these "non-material" things you claim exist interract with the observable?

Here is one offerred by a Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry)

MATTER

1.Is the inferior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (material) energy
3. Eternal
4. Obeys the laws of physics and chemistry to some extent
5. Lacks consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose


LIFE

1. The superior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (spiritual) energy
3. Eternal
4. Non -physical and non-chemical
5. Possesses consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose

He also offers th e phenomena by which we can detect the difference between matter and matter associated with life --like a dead tree and a living tree

Matter by itself

1. Inert and dead
2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures
3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states
4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter
5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation
6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal)
Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain)

Matter associated with Life

1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc)
2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form
3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role
4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism)
5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction).
6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age)
7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles

“
Originally Posted by LG
so effectively you place the human senses in the position of god (ie the topmost 'substance' in the universe).
”
No. I do not believe in God - so why would I place anything in its position?

God = topmost substance in the universe - for you, it is clearly the senses

“
Originally Posted by LG
yet you claim that consciousness will come under the grip of empiricism ??
”
You really don't understand, do you!!
I don't claim. I will go by whatever knowledge I get - however it is obtained.

provided it is obtained by empiricism right?

But please feel free to provide any example of knowledge (i.e. fact) that is NOT obtained empirically and is not merely definition.

I mentioned earlier when breaking down empiricism, rationalism and hearing from authority

- empiricism is based on the understanding that reality can be determined by direct perception (the senses)
- rationalism is based on the understanding that reality can be determined by inference (since the senses are imperfect)
- hearing from authority is based on the understanding that persons who are specialized have a degree of empiricism and rationalism not open to scrutiny by others (Tradesmen really love it when they get subcontracted to persons who lean over their shoulder and say "hey do you really know what you are doing?" all the time)

“
Originally Posted by LG
but you were saying it to establish how that the brain is the ultimate substance in a body that enables consciousness - since there is zero evidence of processes that enable one to invest consciousness in a brain that is bereft of it, it appears that at best you have a theory or a subject suitable for a sci-fi novel
”
Strawman.

actually it is integral evidence for your argument - if I say that I can fly yet refuse to jump off a building I would not expect to be taken very seriously

“

Originally Posted by LG
no empirical evidence of course, since consciousness does not come under the purview of empiricism (ie the senses)
”
And yet you provide no evidence of any sort - merely unsubstantiated claims.

the claims are substantiated by persons who apply the process
as for your claim that the brain is the brain is the final last word in life, that is unsubstantiated

“
Originally Posted by LG
Here is a quote from Roger Penrose...

hence the reductionist paradigm, at least in the opinion of Roger penrose, has serious problems
”
Strawman.

lol -
(what else can I say in light of your response "Where the f**k did you pull this drivel from?" that warranted the quote by penrose - its becoming more and more apparent that you are just like the high school dropout and are not really interested in understanding the issue in discussion but airing your attitude)
“

Originally Posted by LG
its an argument that tallies with an accredited scientist established in the field...
”
Strawman.

lol

“
Originally Posted by LG
I guess the problem arises when we try to work the opposite way - namely if all that is required is a body for life, why can't we put life in a body that is bereft of it?
”
LOL! Strawman.

lol - I can fly (but please don't ask me to jump off a building)

“
Originally Posted by LG
I think you are reinforcing the stereotype of th emotional atheist losing a grip on their abilities of reason
”
The statement came from the logical assessment of your arguments.

somehow I am not convinced

“
Originally Posted by LG
actually I am saying that consciousness is validated by processes outiside of empiricism and that empiricism, by its constitutional position (namely having the senses at the foundation) is not in a position to approach such subjects
”
"Validated"? What sort of drivel is that?

reread the penrose quote (oops I forgot - strawman)

Feel free to "understand" the nuances of "consciousness" by inference or processes outside of empiricism - but do NOT claim that it IS a non-material thing unless you have PROOF - or even any evidence - of any sort.

then why do you blatantly flirt this golden rule when you state that the brain is the final last word in consciousness

“
Originally Posted by LG
somethings are just impossible
”
And your evidence for this with the matter of consciousness?

in short - the senses are limited and have no entrance in examining the nature of seeing (ie consicousness) - for more info reread the penrose quote (or get yourself an education)

 

[lightgigantic]

Wrong! with every fiber of my being, with every conscious thought, with every going on in the world in name of said deity, why the hell would you believe atheist deep down believe BullShit?

because they are habituated to making appeals to emotion as indicated above

More importantly, with all the gods to choose from, which is the poster you quoted asserting that atheists believe? Obviously his, but there are thousands of extant and extinct gods from whom to choose.

thousand s of head ache tablets are also there and they all claim to cure headaches so obviously they are all false (or alternatively they are all work to a greater or lesser degree according to their possession of several key ingredients)

 

[Sarkus]

at the very least you must agree that empiricism, at either end (macro/micro) is shrouded in mystery.

Of course it is - otherwise we would already have knowledge of ALL.

It should be obvious why it is impossible for empiricism to completely diminish these boundaries since it s foundation is the senses (which are limited by definition)

I do not follow this.
Every interaction is observable - for if it isn't observable - either directly or indirectly - then it is akin to non-existence.

so before scientists stumbled upon radiation and electrons they did not exist?

This is the crux of it, LG.
Yes, radiation DID exist prior to this - but prior to any evidence it would have been irrational to BELIEVE THAT IT EXISTED!
Why do you seem to have a problem with this?

Here is one offerred by a Dr singh (PHD organic chemistry)

Flawed definitions as the definitions themselves require further definition.

1.Is the inferior energy of the absolute truth

Define "inferior energy".
Define "absolute truth".

4. Obeys the laws of physics and chemistry to some extent

Quantify "to some extent".

5. Lacks consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose

Define "consciousness", "meaning" and "purpose".

1. The superior energy of the absolute truth

Define "superior".

2. Satisfies conservation of (spiritual) energy

Define "spiritual energy".

4. Non -physical and non-chemical

Define "non-physical".
Define "non-chemical".
Provide evidence that either of these terms actually exist - WITHOUT reference to those things that you are using this definition to explain!

5. Possesses consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose

Define "consciousness", "meaning" and "purpose".

...hearing from authority is based on the understanding that persons who are specialized have a degree of empiricism and rationalism not open to scrutiny by others

Appeal to authority. And thus a logical fallacy to accept it in argument at face value WITHOUT EVIDENCE!!!

(Tradesmen really love it when they get subcontracted to persons who lean over their shoulder and say "hey do you really know what you are doing?" all the time)

You just don't get it, do you!
Tradesmen are NOT in a (supposedly) logical argument.
If they were they would realise that it is ARGUMENTS that count - NOT qualifications.
Until there is EVIDENCE of their ability (i.e. their argument) then WHY SHOULD THEY BE BELIEVED???

actually it is integral evidence for your argument - if I say that I can fly yet refuse to jump off a building I would not expect to be taken very seriously

Again you are missing the point entirely - deliberately or not I can not tell.
YOU are making the assertion that there is the "non-physical".
YOU are the one that has to supply the evidence.
I am saying that I have yet to hear of ANY EVIDENCE of the non-physical.
I am therefore NOT BELIEVING that such exists until there is evidence of such.
I am not making any positive claims - but refusing to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. You show me one iota of evidence and I MAY take you seriously.

the claims are substantiated by persons who apply the process
as for your claim that the brain is the brain is the final last word in life, that is unsubstantiated

I have NOT made that claim. You are putting words in my mouth! So yet another Strawman from you, LG.

somehow I am not convinced

Not really my problem, is it.

then why do you blatantly flirt this golden rule when you state that the brain is the final last word in consciousness

I don't. You merely seem to read into it that I do - and put words and beliefs in my head that just aren't there.

in short - the senses are limited and have no entrance in examining the nature of seeing (ie consicousness) - for more info reread the penrose quote (or get yourself an education)

And yet it is you who seem entirely unable to argue for yourself and relies on other people's claims.
It is I who suggest that you have been brainwashed into your current thinking, LG, unable to escape from the cleverly woven trap that you are in, convinced that Authority supplies all that is needed.

Learn to think for yourself, LG.

It beats an "education" hands down.