Question for Cris and James R.,if possible...

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

I see absolutely no reason why a soul must be able to interact with matter/or be connected to matter. The soul is defined as immaterial; there is no definition about where exactly it lies.

If there is no method of communication or interaction between the material and the alleged immaterial then neither of them can ever be aware of the other. This does not mean that the immaterial does not exist but it may as well not exist since the two realms would never be able to influence the other.

If a soul or an immaterial realm is to ever have any meaning to us in the material realm then a method of interaction is a resultant necessity.

The entire premise is forced and thus the argument relying on the premise proves nothing except a false premise.

I think you haven’t quite grasped the fundamentals of the problem yet.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

Not all great people are famous Cris as I'm sure you know, however, truthfully, I don't even know if it's a man or woman who produced it. Persons who make such statements are great in my book... the person produced the book of Hebrews in the Christian bible.

Fair enough. I could perhaps argue that if someone was great and they left an impact on the world then they would probably also be famous. But this is not a point worth fighting over.

We often quote great people in our arguments because they carry authority, assuming they are being quoted from their field of expertise. We quote Einstein on matters of physics, cosmology, and mathematics, but we would not quote him (probably not) on matters of cooking.

As an aside, I always find it amusing how TV commercials often use famous celebrities to promote their products as if say an actor is qualified in the field of toothpaste and washing powder for example.

The essential point is that it is pointless to quote someone who is unknown since it is their fame in their field of expertise that makes them authorities on the subject and hence worthy of quotation.

The value of your argument would have been valid if the great man had been established as great from our joint perspectives, (e.g. as I assume we would both have respect for Einstein) as it is your authority figure is only great from your perspective since he supports your argument. If he was the author of Hebrews then that carries no weight with me especially if the author was Paul.

But regardless of who penned the quotes, I simply do not find the quotes meaningful or logical, and now that I understand the source I understand why.

 

[Cris]

MarAC,

Yet we can be sure that others can look at the same claimed evidence and reach a different conclusion. Without independent objectivity you can never be sure that what you choose to believe is true or not.

I always see this and have to ask how are you so sure?

Because without objective observation human imagination comes into play and that opens the possibility of an infinite number of different ideas.

Doesn’t that simply mean that it tells you what you want to believe?

I prefer to say what you choose to believe. But yeah, that's exactly my point.

Wouldn’t truth be more valuable than just a dream?

Yet worth your while to write a whole paragraph on the issue.

Hopefully; I always look ahead. It might save everyone some time in the future if you get the point.

I have perhaps used a profanity twice in my 4 years here, this was the second. There are some things that are such obvious nonsense that only meaningless profanities seem appropriate as a response.

 

[Canute]

Cris

To me you seem both right and wrong about objective knowledge. Knowledge that can be 'objectified' should be wherever possible, I agree. Otherwise our personal delusions will run amok.

But every philosopher from Plato onwards has concluded that such 'objective' knowledge cannot actually ever be certain, and have unanimously (as far as I know) argued that certain knowledge can only be gained by a collapse of the separation between knower and known. This can only be achieved subjectively. Thus there are these two different ways of looking at knowledge, and I feel you're only looking at one of them.

Any search for true knowledge of reality itself, rather than our conceptual metaphors of it, must make use of both forms of knowledge, but logically must accept that the second form, the subjective achievement of direct knowledge, is the more fundamental and trustworthy. In principle is the only form that can be known to be true.

(The self-referentiality involved in the knower being the known is why I keep mentioning Goedel etc.).

This is the Buddhist argument, and the argument of all those who affirm non-duality. However it also runs through Christian mysticism in all its guises. E.g. -

"Pilgrimage to the place of the wise is to find escape from the flame of seperation" (Jalau 'ddin in 'Mysticism' - Evelyn Underhill)

"When I stand empty in God's will, of God's will and of all His works and of God himself then am I above all creatures and am neither God nor creature, but I am what I was and evermore shall be" (Meister Eckhart - ibid)

All those who seek to know the reality that lies beyond the world of appearances take this approach to knowledge, although not all of them find any Gods there. However all of them find much the same thing, namely 'what I was and evermore will be', which seems more than a coincidence.

 

[Jenyar]

Well said Canute.

And I think this provides a clue to answer Cris:

If a soul or an immaterial realm is to ever have any meaning to us in the material realm then a method of interaction is a resultant necessity.

The mere recognition of a "soul" is already and interaction, a "collapse of separation" between something you can measure and the immeasurable nature of the same. It indicates something you recognize in/about yourself without ultimately "knowing" it. To the early Jews, soul meant "to be alive because of God".

 

[thefountainhed]

If there is no method of communication or interaction between the material and the alleged immaterial then neither of them can ever be aware of the other. This does not mean that the immaterial does not exist but it may as well not exist since the two realms would never be able to influence the other.

Again, they need not be aware of each or even interact. Frommy understanding, it is more like a metamorphosis. The body dies, the soul is "born"...

If a soul or an immaterial realm is to ever have any meaning to us in the material realm then a method of interaction is a resultant necessity.

Again, this is unnecessary. One state need not know of the previous state. There also need not be a physical connection as the previous state itself is the connection to the next state. One could even take the POV that the two states are really one, and exist as two states only because we assign meaning to them.

I think you haven’t quite grasped the fundamentals of the problem yet.

This is not true at all. I understand the premise he took; and I also believe he took it precisely because it was the only he could argue from-- by bringing the notion of the soul into the "physical" realm.

 

[Gravage]

Ok...

Originally posted by Jenyar
I'm not Cris or James, but they might have more to say if you could elaborate on where this energy came from, and why it should be exempt from the limits you put on everything that is infused with it. That puts it a close second to "omnipotence".

The following text is just copied from the second page:
What I meant to say is that forms of energy are not created or destroyed,they're all transformed,but since every form of energy is just ever-transforming,there is no way an entity can be at the same form forever.Nothing and none is alive in infinity and eternity,so there is no entity who lives in them(in infinity and ternity).If an entity can control all forms of energy,he/she/it still is the form of energy,and also should have the source of its consciusness.Destroy that source and you'll destroy its/her/his consciousness.If that entity can somehow transfer its/her/his consciousness,this consciousness wouldn't last forever-that consciousness would die and it will be transformed into another form of energy,and that would the end of that "all-supreme entity".So if that kind of entity exists,which I'm postively,completely sure that it doesn't,it would die and be transformed into another form of energy,like I explained above.

 

[Cris]

Canute,

I was being entirely pragmatic.

In this sense a religionist has a desire for their chosen beliefs to be true and interpret claimed evidence as supporting their belief. Whereas the practical reality is that the claimed evidence often has an unknown cause and the religionist tends to jump to the conclusion that a god must be the cause.

This conclusion isn’t an issue of subjectivity but simple irrationality.

The objectivity I was inferring was just simple reasoning that would place the claimed evidence outside a large proportion of the infinite imaginary causes of which a god can be just one of them.

Claiming that wishful thinking is knowledge is just nonsense. There was no need for a lecture on epistemology.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

The mere recognition of a "soul" is already and interaction,

No it isn’t. It remains only an imaginary concept that forms a paradox, as Boris has described. For there to be an interaction there has to be a way for the immaterial to connect with the material. But the definition of immaterial seems to exclude that possibility.

a "collapse of separation" between something you can measure and the immeasurable nature of the same.

How is something un-measurable, undetectable, and otherwise unobservable any different to the definition of something that does not exist?

It indicates something you recognize in/about yourself without ultimately "knowing" it.

That means it is detectable and the effects on you are measurable. But these are material qualities which we can diagnose and understand through the psychological sciences. These claims still do not indicate anything immaterial.

To the early Jews, soul meant "to be alive because of God".

And why would that assertion differ from any other imaginary fantasy?

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

If there is no method of communication or interaction between the material and the alleged immaterial then neither of them can ever be aware of the other. This does not mean that the immaterial does not exist but it may as well not exist since the two realms would never be able to influence the other.

Again, they need not be aware of each or even interact. From my understanding, it is more like a metamorphosis. The body dies, the soul is "born"...

OK but then what is the nature of the transition between body and soul? This still implies and requires an interaction between material and immaterial. Otherwise there is no relationship between body and soul and hence I would suggest the entire argument that people have souls is mute. We may as well say that when a person dies a butterfly is born somewhere else in the world. But who cares?

If a soul or an immaterial realm is to ever have any meaning to us in the material realm then a method of interaction is a resultant necessity.

Again, this is unnecessary. One state need not know of the previous state. There also need not be a physical connection as the previous state itself is the connection to the next state. One could even take the POV that the two states are really one, and exist as two states only because we assign meaning to them.

The entire purpose and legend of souls is that they influence and guide the material entity. If they are separate and do not and cannot interact then the entire purpose and concept of a soul is meaningless and pointless. If they do indeed exist then why would we care?

I think you haven’t quite grasped the fundamentals of the problem yet.

This is not true at all. I understand the premise he took; and I also believe he took it precisely because it was the only he could argue from-- by bringing the notion of the soul into the "physical" realm.

OK, but we know of no other realm, and there appears no reason to suppose there is another realm, and even the definition of immaterial seems to exclude any possible interaction between the two realms. If so then whether souls exist or not it would seem they do not and cannot affect our material world. In which case why would we care?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
There was no need for a lecture on epistemology.

I apologise profusely. It's impossible to tell what people do and don't know. I was trying to be clear about why I disagreed with you.

Nevertheless I still feel that you aren't giving epistemology its due. Your arguments against the God of naive forms of Christianity, the go to church on Sunday sort, are perfectly good, but they are quite harmless up against more metaphysically sophisticated opponents. If you have studied epistemology you must know this.

In this sense a religionist has a desire for their chosen beliefs to be true and interpret claimed evidence as supporting their belief.

That seem reasonable as long as they do it honestly. It is what scientists do most of the time.

Whereas the practical reality is that the claimed evidence often has an unknown cause and the religionist tends to jump to the conclusion that a god must be the cause.

Can you define 'religionist' here. I suspect you have defined him or her as a straw man, an easy target. I don't believe that there are many people left who argue that the existence of God can be proved by the scientific evidence. More sensibly they usually argue that the evidence is consistent with the existence of one.

This conclusion isn’t an issue of subjectivity but simple irrationality.

If you have defined a 'religionist' as someone who does what you accuse them of doing then this is true by definition, a tautology. To make it meaningful you would need to prove that people who believe in God are all 'religionists' by your definition, and they aren't.

Most people believe that the existence of the cosmos is caused, and nobody can prove what caused it. There is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, so you have no right to believe that there is not a God, although a perfect right to conjecture that there isn't, and argue your case. From a scientific viewpoint your case will be precisely as strong as the opposite view.

The objectivity I was inferring was just simple reasoning that would place the claimed evidence outside a large proportion of the infinite imaginary causes of which a god can be just one of them.

Ok. But what are you including in 'claimed evidence'.

Claiming that wishful thinking is knowledge is just nonsense. [/B]

Of course it is. That's why so few people do it, and nobody here as far as I can tell.

You have an opinion about the existence of God, fair enough. (I share your opinion). However your arguments against Him (It, Her, Them) are too weak to work. They are based on the primacy of objective knowledge, and it is an objectively known fact of epistemology that for logical reasons objective knowledge must always be less certain than the subjective kind, the kind that can't be communicated or proved to others in principle but which can, in principle at least, be known with certainty.

That doesn't prove anything about God's existence except that as far as the objective evidence goes there may be one.

 

[wesmorris]

Just about epistemology

/They are based on the primacy of objective knowledge

There is no such thing.

/and it is an objectively known fact of epistemology

Facts cannot be known objectively. They can be stored objectively. Technically there are no such things as facts.

/that for logical reasons objective knowledge must always be less certain than the subjective kind

All knowledge is subjective. It can be stored and passed through language, but it is meaningless until subjectively experienced.

/the kind that can't be communicated or proved to others in principle but which can, in principle at least, be known with certainty.

no knowledge can be 100% certain.

 

[thefountainhed]

Wesmorris,
I hate to do this, but you objected nothing in a Canute's argument.

This: "They are based on the primacy of objective knowledge, and it is an objectively known fact of epistemology that for logical reasons objective knowledge must always be less certain than the subjective kind, the kind that can't be communicated or proved to others in principle but which can, in principle at least, be known with certainty. "

The above means exactly what you just said. 'Objective' knowledge is based on subjective knowledge is thus is less 'certain'.





Cris,

OK but then what is the nature of the transition between body and soul? This still implies and requires an interaction between material and immaterial. Otherwise there is no relationship between body and soul and hence I would suggest the entire argument that people have souls is mute. We may as well say that when a person dies a butterfly is born somewhere else in the world. But who cares?

You see, using the word "transition" is making you think of a physical link between the two states. The word "transition" has no physical meaning. Take for instance, water in liquid and solid forms. Where is the physical transition? There are both exact; but of different states. The body is the soul and the soul is the body; but they are different.

The entire purpose and legend of souls is that they influence and guide the material entity. If they are separate and do not and cannot interact then the entire purpose and concept of a soul is meaningless and pointless. If they do indeed exist then why would we care?

The entire 'lengend' and purpose of souls is that they exist as a different state of being. Your 'soul' does not interact with your body when you are alive, and I have heard of no definition that says it does. Why would your soul interact with a living body? To feed it? You say 'guide'--from where did you here the argument that the soul guides the body? I am curious.

OK, but we know of no other realm, and there appears no reason to suppose there is another realm, and even the definition of immaterial seems to exclude any possible interaction between the two realms.

Yes, we know of no other "realm" outside the material. I disagree with the assertion that there 'appears no reason' to conclude that there is another realm. I believe Canute and I have both presented the notion of consciousness and the unknowns associated with it. I believe that the fact that the physical which is the fat we call the brain can somehow create consciousness/self awareness is reason enough for people to reach conclusions about a soul (however embellished they maybe from the original notion). The body is aware of itself, and can see 'itself' outside 'itself' and so imagines that its physical death is not its end.

hen whether souls exist or not it would seem they do not and cannot affect our material world. In which case why would we care?

Because a soul affecting this world is irrelevant and is not why the soul was thought of in the first place. Souls exist simple because of the 'immaterial'(world specifically inhabited by the soul) world.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Wesmorris,
I hate to do this, but you objected nothing in a Canute's argument.

I was just demonstratin how the typical usage of the word is all played out. He said "objective knowledge" when there is no such thing damnit. He said "facts" (regarding a conversation about epistemology mind you) and there is no such thing damnit. That is a direct objection, byatch.

 

[Cris]

Canute,

I apologise profusely. It's impossible to tell what people do and don't know. I was trying to be clear about why I disagreed with you.

Sorry, my comment came out too strong.

In this sense a religionist has a desire for their chosen beliefs to be true and interpret claimed evidence as supporting their belief.

That seem reasonable as long as they do it honestly. It is what scientists do most of the time.

That is an uninformed layman’s view of a scientist. You are clearly not a scientist. A good scientist will find your comment unrecognizable.

Can you define 'religionist' here.

One who adheres to a religion?

I don't believe that there are many people left who argue that the existence of God can be proved by the scientific evidence.

There have been many debates here where just such arguments have persisted for a long time. Creationists still argue fiercely that science proves their case.

More sensibly they usually argue that the evidence is consistent with the existence of one.

But that is not what we observe from history. Frequently throughout history science has made new discoveries that have destroyed religious claims and religions have been forced to adapt and change their story.

Most people believe that the existence of the cosmos is caused, and nobody can prove what caused it.

And most if not all the people on the planet not so long ago believed the world was flat. Truth is not determined by a majority vote and a majority view without facts has no value.

Or put another way we have nothing to indicate that the universe has not always existed and hence there wasn’t a cause.

There is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, so you have no right to believe that there is not a God,

Of course I do. In exactly the same way that you do not believe in fairies and leprechauns. Or do you want to argue that because there is no scientific evidence against fairies that you believe they might exist? These and gods are in the same class of imaginary fictional characters.

although a perfect right to conjecture that there isn't, and argue your case.

As I am doing.

From a scientific viewpoint your case will be precisely as strong as the opposite view.

Perhaps, but from the view of sensible credibility gods have no case.

Ok. But what are you including in 'claimed evidence'.

Anything that is claimed as having a supernatural cause.

Claiming that wishful thinking is knowledge is just nonsense.

Of course it is. That's why so few people do it, and nobody here as far as I can tell.

Faith is indistinguishable to wishful thinking and is practiced by some 5 billion religionists across the world. And that brings us back to epistemology and where religionists claim faith is a valid mechanism for the introduction of knowledge.

You have an opinion about the existence of God, fair enough. (I share your opinion). However your arguments against Him (It, Her, Them) are too weak to work.

Clearly I disagree.

They are based on the primacy of objective knowledge, and it is an objectively known fact of epistemology that for logical reasons objective knowledge must always be less certain than the subjective kind, the kind that can't be communicated or proved to others in principle but which can, in principle at least, be known with certainty.

Then throw away your esoteric argument and use your common sense.

If I imagined that my TV was currently standing in the middle of your living room it would not take any great science to know that my fantasy was not real. That people have fantasized about the existence of gods in the same way should not give us any doubt or hesitation that such things do not exist with equal certainty. These fantasies were originated by the minds of ancient and ignorant peoples – that many people today still believe such things is extraordinarily unbelievable.

And by ‘gods’ here I mean the childish fantasies like the Abrahamic religions.

That there might be super-intelligent beings beyond our imagination that might coexist with us in this universe is something that is indeed a matter of interesting conjecture. Perhaps we may eventually evolve into such beings.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Cris
That there might be super-intelligent beings beyond our imagination that might coexist with us in this universe is something that is indeed a matter of interesting conjecture.

Perhaps we may eventually evolve into such beings.

Your second statement is based on your 'objective' view that our ability only enables the future existence of us being super-something being (SSB?).

But what is circular is, your 'objective' view itself really depends on your ability (Intellectual & physiological) rather than reality. Reality does not depend on neither our ability nor our objective views that are restricted by our ability. If an SSB exists already in reality you would never recognize it as you are being blinded by the couple (ability & ability dependant objective approach - together they are supposed,by you, to provide light ) and you sincerely belief that it (SSB) really does not exist. That is you never know whether you are going in right way or in wrong. Theists are not alone in living in 'fantacy'.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I was just demonstratin how the typical usage of the word is all played out. He said "objective knowledge" when there is no such thing damnit. He said "facts" (regarding a conversation about epistemology mind you) and there is no such thing damnit. That is a direct objection, byatch.

Basically I agree with all you said, as Fountainhead noted. But I was following Cris's way of looking at it.

I agree that there are no third-person 'facts' in the sense that all thrid-person facts are derived from assumptions. However there are facts, (such as the one I mentioned) in the sense that systematic truths can be derived from agreed axioms. (E.g. 2+2=4). It is therefore not wrong to say that there are facts of epistemology anymore than it is wrong to say that there are facts of mathematics. However I take your point. When it comes to reality 'facts' can only be subjective.

The only thing I disagreed with is your comment that knowledge cannot be 100% certain. But it probably depends on how you define knowledge.

 

[Canute]

Cris

I won't argue with all your particular points. They come down to the fact that you are arguing against a very particular and naive kind of 'religionism'. But your own argument is also naive, based on a unproven belief that there is no God. You are not dealing with the real opposition to that view. This seems (so far) to be because you do not accept the possibility of something you find unpleasant to imagine rather than any reasonable or rational case. As Everneo says , theist are not alone in living in fantasy.

You are unable to prove the non-existence of God. In this case your belief in his non-existence is unjustified, and is no better or worse than 'religionism'. Physicalism is a metaphysical theory, not a proven fact.

You also choose to ignore the fact that not everyone believes in God for intellectually naive reasons. You have to address the strong arguments, not just the weak ones.

 

[Cris]

Canute,

But your own argument is also naive, based on a unproven belief that there is no God.

Where have I said that I believe there is no god?

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Canute
MarcAc

I'm not sure it's right to say that faith provides knowledge. It seems more accurate to say that faith provides the basis for knowledge, which is a slightly different claim. But I agree that the definition of 'knowledge' varies between people and needs a clear definition in this kind of discussion. I suggest 'certain knowledge', which excludes all varieties of guesswork.

Well yes, that's basically what I meant. I continue to strive to perfect my English - though I doubt anyone can achieve it.