Show me the evidence.

[Jaxom]

Atheists aren't born again, they just wake up to reality. If you'd rather go back to your dreams, then good night.

As for your argument above, you addressed it to Cris, and from the past posts you dislike other people joining the conversation. Plus it makes no sense anyway, even for a hypothetical argument.

Seems kind of fickle to bounce between beliefs...take a breath and figure out what you want to believe...

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Jaxom
Atheists aren't born again, they just wake up to reality. If you'd rather go back to your dreams, then good night.

As for your argument above, you addressed it to Cris, and from the past posts you dislike other people joining the conversation. Plus it makes no sense anyway, even for a hypothetical argument.

Seems kind of fickle to bounce between beliefs...take a breath and figure out what you want to believe...

Fickle is not at all what I'm about. Bouncing is my god given right and style, and what might seem like bouncing to you is a proof to me that I'm in control of me, because as long as I'm right, no one can catch me, and I don't need to depend on no one.....Except god of course.

Everyone may take a crack at the probability problem?
The question of the probability relies on the fact that a human by nature wants to avoid harm, so let's explore the probability and see what view is providing more potential harm to it's holder and which view might be an over conservative view....

 

[Cris]

hef,

So what, no one talks to me now,

You perhaps need to show more patience. This isn't a chat room. I will often spend a long time researching something without posting.

For example yesterday I spent several hours studying seeds and definitions of whether they were alive or not. I found out some useful stuff about plants as well. That was kind of a pleasant diversion.

 

[Turduckin]

Originally posted by Cris
hef,

You perhaps need to show more patience. This isn't a chat room. I will often spend a long time researching something without posting.

For example yesterday I spent several hours studying seeds and definitions of whether they were alive or not. I found out some useful stuff about plants as well. That was kind of a pleasant diversion.

Did you learn facts about plants, or lessons that the plants have to teach you?

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Cris
hef,

You perhaps need to show more patience. This isn't a chat room. I will often spend a long time researching something without posting.

For example yesterday I spent several hours studying seeds and definitions of whether they were alive or not. I found out some useful stuff about plants as well. That was kind of a pleasant diversion.

Admit
Patience is not one of my virtues, I make up for my lack of patience by working myself harder than I should. At the end of the day, we're probably equal, I'm a bit more exhausted though and normally requiring more sleep than the average person.

 

[Cris]

heflores,

Let's play with probability to find evidance, because I think you have already shown me that exact solution can no be reached. I'm a little rusty on probability, 5 years out of school now, so I welcome corrections on calculations

Let us say hypothetically the following:

1- The probability of existance of a creator is 40%, you may select a confidence level if you wish.
2- Then that makes the probability that the creator does not exist 60% with a confidence interval.
3- In the 40% probability that a creator exist, there's a 100% chance of afterlife judgement of the soul and a soul abode in a hell or heaven.
4- In the 60% probability that the creator does not exist, there's zero chance of an afterlife, soul torture or reward.

Let's solve for the probabiilty of the soul abiding in heaven or hell?

I have started several threads in the past that postulate the following -

If the dualist proposition is not true then the relevance of a deity is of no consequence. The idea is that if we have no soul and death is a permanent cessation of our existence then concepts like heaven and hell are null and then what is the point of a god?

It seems to me that before we discuss whether gods exist or not we should first establish that souls exist. In terms of numbers this should be a much easier task, since there is only meant to be one god, and he could be hiding, but there should be as many souls as there are live people, several billion I believe, and there should be souls hanging around somewhere for the many millions of people that have died in the entire history of mankind.

So with so many billions of sources of evidence one would think that at sometime a soul would have made itself known to the physical world. But the evidence is zilch. The best claims seem to come from NDEs (Near Death Experience) victims who state that as they were dying they were able to look down on their bodies, etc, and there was a white light and so on. All of these victims have one thing in common; they were all suffering from brain trauma. As the brain is deprived of oxygen and other nutrients it begins to behave erratically. Any claims made by such people must of course be highly suspect. In the laboratory the use of recreational drugs (mind altering) can produce the same effects.

So where does that leave us for evidence of souls? It looks like zero evidence and massive unsupported speculation. I kind of trust the evidence scenario rather than the fantasies so I'll estimate a probability that souls exist, based on the evidence, as ZERO.

Now if souls do not exist then heaven and hell are meaningless places since they would be always empty, and without these places having a meaning then a god would have nothing with which to reward or punish his worshippers. In which case why worship such a useless entity?

So before you play games of speculative probability guessing you need to establish, discover, or create some credible evidence that shows that souls exist. Until then the question of whether a creator exists or not is irrelevant.

 

[spookz]

here we go again

 

[spookz]

Gödel's most famous results are a pair of theorems which show that computers cannot accomplish all of mathematics. More specifically, for any given finite automaton (i.e., computer) there exists a statement in arithmetic which is true but which cannot be proved by that computer. Gödel's first incompleteness theorem uses two clever ideas in its proof. The first of these is an embedding technique which allows metamathematical statements about a recursive axiomatization of arithmetic to be embedded within arithmetic itself. The second idea is a diagonalization argument which has some similarity to the famous Liar Paradox of philosophy, but which avoids the antinomous nature of the latter. Both embedding and diagonalization will be discussed in this essay in relation to the problems of consciousness.

In a paper entitled "Minds, machines and Gödel," published in Philosophy 36 (1961), the philosopher J. R. Lucas argued that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems have implications for our understanding of the mind and consciousness. The key to this connection is the fact that Gödel's work does not just show that a given computer is incapable of proving all the true statements in arithmetic. By an ingenious device known as the Gödel numbering Gödel was able to demonstate how to construct such a statement. Gödel's results are unquestionably correct. However, anybody who has studied these theorems is aware of a psychological tension that they bring: if Gödel has shown us how to construct this statement, then why is this construction not a proof of the mathematical statement? The answer is that it is. However, it is not a proof that the computer can perform itself. Nevertheless, we can apparently construct this proof: Gödel's first incompleteness theorem gives an explicit procedure for constructing a statement in arithmetic which is both true and which cannot be derived by the given computer. If we can prove this statement while the computer cannot, then does this not show that we can surpass the limitations of the computer? To put it another way, suppose someone designed a computer model of an individual's mind. By studying this model and Gödelizing it, so to speak, the individual would be able to construct a statement that he or she could prove but which could not be proved by the computer model. Lucas' argument generated a flurry of arguments claiming that his line of reasoning was fallacious. The battle has gone backwards and forwards since. (Christopher Small)

Minds, Machines and Gödel

old hat?

 

[Cris]

turduckin,

or lessons that the plants have to teach you?

With appropriate humility one can learn many things from almost anything or anyone.

Welcome to sciforums and especially this forum.

Sarcasm is an easy weapon to misuse, especially in debates such as this when arrogance and condescending attitudes cause not so subtle inclusions of insults and derogatory innuendos, all under the pretence of humorous sarcasm.

I can't tell yet whether you are being genuinely friendly or are just warming up. I'll of course assume the former and give you a warm welcome. But as Maverick says, it is important to watch the plays of others before the real poker begins.

I hope you enjoy the debates here and hope you will be prepared to contribute some real challenging value from your theist perspective, something that the forum lacks at the moment.

Take care
Cris

 

[Cris]

spookz,

here we go again

Yup. We'll see. But the issue is still there but I'm hoping something new will come out after each iteration.

As for the Minds, machines, and Godel article: I believe this was debunked some time ago and shown to be a misuse of Godel and the conclusions remain speculative. I.e. there is no proof there.

The thesis expounded in it is generally accepted as being at least naive (more likely wrong), but more importantly, there is almost no argument made in this paper in support of its iffy thesis.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Cris


It seems to me that before we discuss whether gods exist or not we should first establish that souls exist. In terms of numbers this should be a much easier task, since there is only meant to be one god, and he could be hiding, but there should be as many souls as there are live people, several billion I believe, and there should be souls hanging around somewhere for the many millions of people that have died in the entire history of mankind.

Your question regarding the existance of the soul is a reasonable one, and I'll discuss with you examples and proof regarding that the souls exist.

But I don't feel the necessaty to proof that the soul exist to proof that god exist, although that I know that the soul exist. Let me explain. One may regard the model to be developed or proofed as a blackbox and show proof that the model is valid. It will be understood that elements inside the black box still remain to be explained in detail. The elements in the box are degrees of freedom, and to describe the model in terms of it's dependants requires that all parameters be exactly defined. This black box method is the only valid method of proofing a concept, not the other way around of proofing the content of the box to proof the box exist, which is an unheard of concept in science.

F=ma is a black box theorm
E=mc2 is a black box theorm

This theorms by themselves like that may not be used to provide a solution, because the theorms are not an actual equalities, but just stating the general relationship.

If you want to see the actual three dimentional unsteady equations that were developed years later from the basic principal, you'll freak, and they're still in development. They look like gebrish and still many constants are standing as black boxes for future proofing.

These are fundemental basic theories that stands without the need to fully exactly understand the entire exact process. So can you explain to me why we need to define the soul before we study the probability of the existance of the creator. I have invited you to play with the level of confidence to account for things that we're not sure about.

 

[heflores]

In case you explore seeds again, here's a thought.

Remeber the concept of life being contained within death that I have raised and recieved an overwhelming instantanous denial to, although I thought that we are open minded adults here who gives appropriate weights to thoughts and don't discount things without having a strong reason for not to??

One of the most popular denial of the concept that life is contained within death was:
Death and life do not exist together, they are separated, with maybe a short transition period.

The problem with everybody's logic is that they look at things like they're in a plane or a straight line. Everyone could visually see this analogy like a straight line with something starting stopping and short transion.

It's not planar, it's really circular, and let me use an example.

Look at day and night the same way you view life and death. When can we really tell when day starts and when night starts or stops. One creeps upon the other in a circular manner with no distinct boundaries or transitions. Where does night go when it leaves our plane, we don't see it, but because our earth is within our reach, we know now that it goes to the other side.

The universe is not within our reach and it's circular and not planar so if you want to know where souls go....think about it.

 

[heflores]

I forget, three posts in a row..Sorry

Another denial that is prohibiting you from making a step is in lament term....PREJUDICE...You're mind can not comprehend or deal with the fact that other than you and specially someone with my controvortial characteristic (woman mother muslim bad english uneleqoante ect) just plain old regular or even less in your mind is capable of anything......So the mold must be thrown for real out of your brain. Don't go instantly denying...fight the diseace. It's not a shamefull diseace we all suffer from it and must constantly fight it to improve and to see the true value of things.

 

[Vienna]

Originally posted by heflores
So what, no one talks to me now, even Vienna

I am still waiting for your reply to my last post to you, I asked you a few questions which you have not answered. Here is the post again....just incase you forgot.

Originally posted by heflores
I normally wouldn't encourage anyone to enter in a debate with an Atheist

So why do you?


The opponent main believe is not based on an actual or real basis

I see, and the theists main belief is actual and real?


They claim to be exact while their whole argment is really an inexact argument which is proofing the non existance of a belief system.

1 - What is an ARGMENT?
2 - What exactly is an INEXACT ARGUMENT? hmmm!
3 - A belief system does exist, who is trying to prove it doesn't?


Suggestions for additional rules to Atheists so they may not appear as if they are dealing both sides of the table:

They may not use the word believe, love, destiny, spirituality, speculate, think, dream, god, supernatural, fantacy, ghosts, assume, inspirational, ideas, motivations, ect, or any of their derivatives, unless adequate proof is provided.

What planet do you live on?
Think about what you have just said here....can you guess why it sounds ridiculous?


This is what we call in our Theistic world, Satin's work.

The word for your imaginary enemy is SATAN not SATIN (Satin is a fabric, satan is a fabrication).


Heflores, would you be so kind as to reply to this

 

[Vienna]

Originally posted by heflores

It's not planar, it's really circular, and let me use an example.

Look at day and night the same way you view life and death. When can we really tell when day starts and when night starts or stops. One creeps upon the other in a circular manner with no distinct boundaries or transitions. Where does night go when it leaves our plane, we don't see it, but because our earth is within our reach, we know now that it goes to the other side.

The universe is not within our reach and it's circular and not planar so if you want to know where souls go....think about it.

OK, got it so far, you mean like:

Dawn - Conception
Daytime - Life
Dusk - Dying
Night - Dead

Sounds a bit lame, but I'm listening....carry on.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Vienna
I am still waiting for your reply to my last post to you, I asked you a few questions which you have not answered. Here is the post again....just incase you forgot.

Originally posted by heflores

Sorry for not responding. My time is limited and I have to prioritize my responces to remain efficient in my discussions.

I normally wouldn't encourage anyone to enter in a debate with an Atheist

So why do you?

Because my daddy who is a professor in transient fluids told me that what I'm doing with sciforum is incorrect. My husband is staying impartial. My dad is telling me that he had the same thoughts and curiosities that I do and that the way he vented them was through writing to himself. He offered to debate with me instead. He told me that Atheistic verses Theistic views results in wars and the rise of Marxism, Communism, ect. I trust my daddy and I accept his views as correct blindly, yet I decide to stay so I may experience his results for myself.

The opponent main believe is not based on an actual or real basis

Vienne: I see, and the theists main belief is actual and real?
heflores:I guess, we are yet to figure out and judgements in that area is premature.

This is what we call in our Theistic world, Satin's work.

Vienna:The word for your imaginary enemy is SATAN not SATIN (Satin is a fabric, satan is a fabrication).
heflores: Actually, the word in question is a derivation from Shaitan which is an arabic world. There's no basis for the word Satan in the English language, so we are both wrong here, you though with a hint of ignorance on the basis of the language you speak.

If you had any good English professor Vienna in College, you would have learned that English is not a real language but a compilation of various terms derived from various languages. A good professor like the ones I had in Illinois and Stanford taught me that it's not possible to make a mistake in the English Language. So please refrain in the future from commenting on my English, because it's unwarranted prejudice unfounded and somewhat aggravating.....

 

[spookz]

The argument is a dialectical one. It is not a direct proof that the mind is something more than a machine, but a schema of disproof for any particular version of mechanism that may be put forward. If the mechanist maintains any specific thesis, I show that a contradiction ensues. But only if. It depends on the mechanist making the first move and putting forward his claim for inspection. I do not think Benacerraf has quite taken the point. He criticizes me both for "failing to notice" that my ability to show that the Gödel sentence of a formal system is true "depends very much on how he is given that system and for putting the argument in the form of a challenge in which I challenge the mechanist to produce a definite specification of the Turing machine that he claims I am. Benacerraf thinks that the argument by challenge reduces the argument to a mere contest of wits between me and the mechanist. But we are not trying to see who can construct the smartest machine, we are attempting to decide the mechanist's claim that I am a machine: and however clever the mechanist is, even if he were not a mere man but Satan himself, I, or at least an idealised and immortal I, could out-Gödel it, and see to be true something it could not. Benacerraf protests that "It is conceivable that another machine could do that as well." Of course. But that other machine was not the machine that the mechanist was claiming that I was. It is the machine which I am alleged to be that is relevant: and since I can do something that it cannot, I cannot be it. Of course it is still open for the mechanist to alter his claim and say, now, that I am that other machine which, like me, could do what the first machine could not. Only, if he says that, then I shall ask him "Which other machine?" and as soon as he has specified it, proceed to find something else which that machine cannot do and I can. I can take on all comers, provided only they come one by one in the sense of each being individually specified as being the one that it is: and therefore I can claim to have tilted at and laid low all logically possible machines. An idealised person, or mind, may not be able to do more than all logically possible machines can, between them, do: but for each logically possible machine there is something which he can do and it cannot; and therefore he cannot be the same as any logically possible machine.

SATAN STULTIFIED: A REJOINDER TO PAUL BENACERRAF

"Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

 

[Vienna]

Originally posted by heflores

There's no basis for the word Satan in the English language, so we are both wrong here, you though with a hint of ignorance on the basis of the language you speak.
Try browsing through an English dictionary and you will find the word "satan"

From the Collins English Dictionary
Satan n the devil satanic adj devilish


English is not a real language
Oh, I see. So in which language are we conversing here....Japanese?????


A good professor like the ones I had in Illinois and Stanford taught me that it's not possible to make a mistake in the English Language.
If this is true the professor should be sacked.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Vienna
There's no basis for the word Satan in the English language, so we are both wrong here, you though with a hint of ignorance on the basis of the language you speak.
Try browsing through an English dictionary and you will find the word "satan"

From the Collins English Dictionary
Satan n the devil satanic adj devilish


English is not a real language
Oh, I see. So in which language are we conversing here....Japanese?????


A good professor like the ones I had in Illinois and Stanford taught me that it's not possible to make a mistake in the English Language.
If this is true the professor should be sacked.

So we are talking different languages. That's a great finding and quite an accomplishment for this debate.

In my language I reply to you that : It is obvious to me that we are talking in different levels. I must sound like I talk in codes to you, so I really think it's a waste of both our times to converse......
In Vienna's language that means: Chick must be jealous.

 

[Vienna]

Originally posted by heflores
So we are talking different languages. That's a great finding and quite an accomplishment for this debate.

At last....an agreement!

We speak different languages, I speak English, you speak pidgin.