God is in the neurons

CiaranMT

ArtSmart wrote: »

dude, you never being to a wine bar in Cavan?

I hope I never have to cross into that place...

ArtSmart

CiaranMT wrote: »

I hope I never have to cross into that place...

tsk. a bag of colourful beads, and you'll be grand.

CiaranMT

ArtSmart wrote: »

tsk. a bag of colourful beads, and you'll be grand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMRTa5srNxw

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

What position?

The position that if you haven't evidence of the kind you limit things to then the postion held is irrational. In other words - provide evidence of the kind you limit things to in order to support your own position. Else it's not rational (according to you)

Ah sorry my bad I was using the actual definition of the words, not double speak bible ones.

Hmm. A biblical word defined in the bible will clearly trump any definition of a biblical word defined elsewhere. I'm not interested in non-biblical faith.

If evidence cannot be verified independently, it's useless and indistinguishable for fiction and delusion.

Do you assume people around you are a fiction or a delusion. You cannot verify their existance independently of yourself.

I was referring to actual evidence, which you clearly have none, hence why you have to invent a special kind of evidence that I can only see if I accept as true without and before verification.
This is not rational or logical.

See my remarks on the limitations of 'verification' above. Ultimately, you are the arbitrartor as to what you decide is evidence or not. All other attempts to point to what others say is bootstrap-ism.

Well the thing is, there a lot more religions out there which you'd agree that are based on scams and delusions.
I see no reason to distinguish your flavour from theirs.
So do you have any particular way of knowing that these ones are all wrong while your are right, without first needing to accept that premise beforehand?

The question was your blindness vs. my delusioin. And how you establish your position over mine. Could you answer me that question rather than pose the same at me?

antiskeptic

wonderfulname wrote: »

Water - H2O

Fermentation as seen in wine - C6H12O6 _ 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO

Other "evidence" includes the fact that water is not grape juice and fermentation cannot happen instantaneously, and of course that magic doesn't exist.

It is not remotely possible, I can't believe adults believe this crap, or that I just answered that.

By the way this is a wonderfully ironic thread...

That wasn't the position for which evidence was asked.

HUNK

Very interesting, thanks for posting this.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question was your blindness vs. my delusioin. And how you establish your position over mine. Could you answer me that question rather than pose the same at me?

So you're avoiding the question by asking another question that you already know the answer to.
There's little point in debating with you if you're going to refuse to tackle my point and resort to silly childish arguments.

I establish my position over yours because assuming the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence and reason is the default logical position, just as you hold for the existence and claims of other extraordinary things.

So again how do you distinguish your claims over the claims of other religions that you believe are false?

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

Still flogging the clearly laughable Scientology argument I see

Explain to me why it is a laughable argument? Because it is "clearly made up"? Right? Unlike a story with men turning water to wine and raising the dead?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What would figure as number 1 on your list?

Belief that the Bible is accurate.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Such as?

Well since we started it, belief that the Bible is accurate because the people who wrote it believed these things happened.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't confuse a person believing water can be turned into wine with a person thinking irrationality.

lol

Ok admiral, whatever you say, full sail ahead to magic-land.



Video is alright I suppose, they need a hell of a lot more references in there, and their understanding of evolution seems a little flawed. They also seem to make quite a few assumptions, and don't really make it clear when they're drawing their own conclusions and when they're citing something that's been proven.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

Explain to me why it is a laughable argument? Because it is "clearly made up"? Right? Unlike a story with men turning water to wine and raising the dead?

Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.

Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand

Doctor DooM

Newsite wrote: »

Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.

Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand

Genuine interest- is it recorded in any book other than the bible?

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Belief that the Bible is accurate.

Could you be a bit more specific? Accurate in what way?

Well since we started it, belief that the Bible is accurate because the people who wrote it believed these things happened.

That's not why I believe it's accurate (in the sense I believe it accurate). At least, I wouldn't stand on that point alone. There are a raft of reasons I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God and it's both. A like a raft, those reasons are interlinked to form a coherent structure. A structure which for me, floats.

It's rational thinking which allows me to observe the fact of structure.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So you're avoiding the question by asking another question that you already know the answer to.

It goes like this:

1) I've countered your definition of faith with the bibles definition of faith. I await good reason why the bibles definition of biblical faith should bow to your secular dictionaries definition of faith in general.

2) Since biblical faith derives from tangible evidence - precisely the kind of evidence you say rational thinking requires - biblical faith is rational. The only fly in the ointment is that you can't detect this evidence in order to declare it tangible. I can.

3) The obvious question is: is antiskeptic mistaken or deluded. Or is King Mob blind. Until we have a definitive answer to that question we enter stalemate.

I establish my position over yours because assuming the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence and reason is the default logical position, just as you hold for the existence and claims of other extraordinary things.

This sounds rather fancy. Perhaps you could tease it out? Without leaping to convenient conclusions using equally convenient assumptions?

So again how do you distinguish your claims over the claims of other religions that you believe are false?

Let's get past the constipation in your own position first. Shall we?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

It goes like this:

1) I've countered your definition of faith with the bibles definition of faith. I await good reason why the bibles definition of biblical faith should bow to your secular dictionaries definition of faith in general.

2) Since biblical faith derives from tangible evidence - precisely the kind of evidence you say rational thinking requires - biblical faith is rational. The only fly in the ointment is that you can't detect this evidence in order to declare it tangible. I can.

3) The obvious question is: is antiskeptic mistaken or deluded. Or is King Mob blind. Until we have a definitive answer to that question we enter stalemate.

I see little point it actually addressing these points as you are unable to actually address mine. Typing out responses to this would simply be a waste of time as you simply will not respond to what I write.

Also as a side point, you cannot be talking about the kind of evidence that ration thinking requires since that type of evidence is not dependant on what anyone believes as I said. If only you can detect it, it's not verifiable evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This sounds rather fancy. Perhaps you could tease it out? Without leaping to convenient conclusions using equally convenient assumptions?

You see I've out lined it perfectly well, you're simply trying to ignore what I wrote to avoid answering my question.

Assuming the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence is the default logical position.
You, assuming that you are at least rational in topics other than God, also assume this position for other fantastical claims.
For instance, explain exactly why you do not believe in:
Fairies
Magical Unicorns
Psychic powers
Mohammad's claim to be a prophet
Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet
Anything written by L Ron Hubbard.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's get past the constipation in your own position first. Shall we?

Yea, and I've answered your question, this is the third time asking mine.
If you can't answer it, just say so.

King Mob

Newsite wrote: »

Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.

Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand

But there's thousands (maybe millions) of people who've met or seen L Ron Hubbard and there's millions more who would know these people personally.
And better yet we have actual clear records of these people and of L Ron's life, actually written at the time, not decades later.

So if anything, but your silly standards, Scientology is more valid than Christianity.

Fbjm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The position that if you haven't evidence of the kind you limit things to then the postion held is irrational. In other words - provide evidence of the kind you limit things to in order to support your own position. Else it's not rational (according to you)




Hmm. A biblical word defined in the bible will clearly trump any definition of a biblical word defined elsewhere. I'm not interested in non-biblical faith.





Do you assume people around you are a fiction or a delusion. You cannot verify their existance independently of yourself.





See my remarks on the limitations of 'verification' above. Ultimately, you are the arbitrartor as to what you decide is evidence or not. All other attempts to point to what others say is bootstrap-ism.




The question was your blindness vs. my delusioin. And how you establish your position over mine. Could you answer me that question rather than pose the same at me?

Faith isn't a biblical word, it's an english one that is in every dictionary. What do dictionaries do? They define words. You're not interested in non-biblical definitions? So if a definition isn't in the bible you pay no heed? And you're trying to convince us that you're not close-minded?

The people around me aren't fiction or delusion, I know this because I interact with them on a daily basis and everyone treats this as normal. Also, I can see them and they can see me. They can be presented as evidence. They think, therefore they are.

Fbjm

Newsite wrote: »

Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.

Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand

How do you know it was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people? How do you know those books (if there is more than one) weren't compiled and added to over centuries by priests and non-priests who had heard sermons from others?

antiskeptic

Fbjm wrote: »

Faith isn't a biblical word, it's an english one that is in every dictionary. What do dictionaries do? They define words. You're not interested in non-biblical definitions? So if a definition isn't in the bible you pay no heed? And you're trying to convince us that you're not close-minded?

Where the biblical understanding of a word differs from a generic dictionary one I take the biblical one.

The people around me aren't fiction or delusion, I know this because I interact with them on a daily basis

Don't the deluded say they do the same thing?

and everyone treats this as normal.

Whoa! You need first establish they actually exist before considering what they say. I mean, the product of a deluded mind agreeing with the deluded mind isn't exactly a surprising outcome.

Also, I can see them and they can see me.

So far so like the deluded.

They can be presented as evidence. They think, therefore they are.

Presented in evidence to who? To yourself? To other potential products of a potentially deluded mind?

kylith

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where the biblical understanding of a word differs from a generic dictionary one I take the biblical one.

For all words or just some? Do you take the biblical definition of 'know', 'servant' and 'lie'?

muppeteer

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whoa! You need first establish they actually exist before considering what they say. I mean, the product of a deluded mind agreeing with the deluded mind isn't exactly a surprising outcome.

Also, I can see them and they can see me.

So far so like the deluded.


Presented in evidence to who? To yourself? To other potential products of a potentially deluded mind?

How about you lay off the epistemological bull crap long enough to answer the questions instead of dodging and diving behind 'we could all be in the matrix' type thinking.

While it all perfectly correct in the technical sense, it is not how we interact/experience the world we perceive. We pretty much all work on the assumption that 'I' am real as well as what I generally perceive around me (my body/the laptop in front of me) is real.

If you really thought and acted for a moment as if you were just a mind and all around you was just illusion you could very easily walk in front of the next bus and be content that the illusion of the oncoming bus will not harm your mind.

As I very much doubt this is something you would consider then you operate under the same assumptions that I do.
And as such you can and do operate to the same standards of evidence for discovering things about the world outside of your own mind.

Fbjm

muppeteer wrote: »

How about you lay off the epistemological bull crap long enough to answer the questions instead of dodging and diving behind 'we could all be in the matrix' type thinking.

While it all perfectly correct in the technical sense, it is not how we interact/experience the world we perceive. We pretty much all work on the assumption that 'I' am real as well as what I generally perceive around me (my body/the laptop in front of me) is real.

If you really thought and acted for a moment as if you were just a mind and all around you was just illusion you could very easily walk in front of the next bus and be content that the illusion of the oncoming bus will not harm your mind.

As I very much doubt this is something you would consider then you operate under the same assumptions that I do.
And as such you can and do operate to the same standards of evidence for discovering things about the world outside of your own mind.

That shut him up.

antiskeptic

muppeteer wrote: »

How about you lay off the epistemological bull crap long enough to answer the questions instead of dodging and diving behind 'we could all be in the matrix' type thinking.

I suspect you're about to dive down the rabbit hole yourself in a minute. Watch..

While it all perfectly correct in the technical sense, it is not how we interact/experience the world we perceive. We pretty much all work on the assumption that 'I' am real as well as what I generally perceive around me (my body/the laptop in front of me) is real.

Add the word 'God' to the list you've compiled above and carry on from there. I percieve God as well as the laptop in front of me. How should I proceed. Or rather, how does your argument proceed in the face of it.

antiskeptic

Fbjm wrote: »

That shut him up.

Er no.. that shut you up.

Mr. Boo

Through what means do you perceive god?

As in, you perceive everything as being evidence of god? Or you are privy to some extra-sensory perception?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Add the word 'God' to the list you've compiled above and carry on from there. I percieve God as well as the laptop in front of me. How should I proceed. Or rather, how does your argument proceed in the face of it.

The same way we assume you respond to people who make the same claims but believe in something you do. (Again assuming you're being rational.)

But it's clear that no matter how many times I try to get you to answer to same question you're just going to ignore it.

So the fact that you can't distinguish your claims from other similar ones or from total fiction shows me that you have no rational reason to believe in God.
And I am not capable the level of intellectual dishonesty needed to ignore that fact.

Fbjm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suspect you're about to dive down the rabbit hole yourself in a minute. Watch..




Add the word 'God' to the list you've compiled above and carry on from there. I percieve God as well as the laptop in front of me. How should I proceed. Or rather, how does your argument proceed in the face of it.

You perceive god in the same way as you perceive your laptop? So you see him in front of you? You're hallucinating then.

muppeteer

antiskeptic wrote: »

Add the word 'God' to the list you've compiled above and carry on from there. I percieve God as well as the laptop in front of me. How should I proceed. Or rather, how does your argument proceed in the face of it.

Under the assumption that God, my body, my laptop, unicorns and other humans are indeed real:

I assume that other humans are indeed much like me, independent minds perceiving the same world around them.

I assume these minds are just as fallible as my own in perceiving the world around them.

I assume that methods of reducing the impact of the fallibility of a human mind can lead to a better understanding of the real world.

I assume that these methods can be judged by their predictive value.

Now these methods with the greatest predictive power happen to involve independently verifiable evidence, decoupled as much as possible from subjective human assessment.

The methods which produce the least predictive value involve single human minds subjectively perceiving the world around them.

Now when the reality of God, my body, my laptop and unicorns are examined for independently verifiable evidence, decoupled as much as possible from subjective human assessment, we come to the conclusion that some claims can be verified and some can not. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which two of the above claims do not.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

The same way we assume you respond to people who make the same claims but believe in something (other than) you do. (Again assuming you're being rational.)

I'll assume you meant to type the words in brackets.


I don't see any difference between their gods and yours - to be frank. And I handle theirs precisely as I do yours. The bible explains them all. I doubt that's your way of dealing with my perceiving God.

So the fact that you can't distinguish your claims from other similar ones or from total fiction shows me that you have no rational reason to believe in God.

Er.. I can distinguish my claims from theirs and yours. You not being able to is a problem for you. Not me.

And I am not capable the level of intellectual dishonesty needed to ignore that fact.

Fact? You seemed to have jumped to self proclaiming victory without showing your work.

antiskeptic

Fbjm wrote: »

You perceive god in the same way as you perceive your laptop? So you see him in front of you? You're hallucinating then.

Same way as? Did I say that?

Sheesh, you guys are sloppy this weekend..