Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

What kind of personal experience would you find convincing for you personally ?

Being substantiated or corroborated in some way would help. However as I said already in the thread I do not like making blanket criteria. I will consider any and ALL arguments, evidence, data and reasoning put before me independently. Simply none is forthcoming.

As I said however, useful would be some kind of methodology to distingush between claims of personal experience would be useful. The problem I have often in discussions such as this is that people want you to accept THEIR personal testimony but are quite happy to reject everyone elses.

This is intellectually dishonest. I can not arbitrarily accept one and not the other solely because someone wants me to. If 100 people come before me on the left saying they have had personal experience with god. And 100 people come before me on the right saying they have personal experience with being abducted by flashing UFOs full of aliens with anal probing devices. And each group demands I accept THIER testimony as evidence but laugh at that of the other....

.... then you tell me what intellectually honest methodology I have available to accept one and not the other?

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

I would agree it is unsubstantiated for you, and presumably for most atheists.

And for anyone else too given the lack of substantiation that is forthcoming.

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

What I'm interested in is examples of evidence / incidents / experience you personally, as an atheist, would find convincing and why.

And my answer remains unchanged since the final section of this post here which lays out exactly the form "evidence" must take for me to accept it.

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

As this is the Christianity forum, you can take God as the Christian definition of God.

Would that there was a single one! You make it sound... quite falsely I assure you.... that there even IS a single "Christian definition of" a god. There simply is not. There are over 33000 recognised branches of Christianity for a reason. You people simply can not agree on this stuff.

I have my own definition of "god" which I have typed on the thread a few times. However when speaking with any one theist I always seek their definition where possible first and use that instead of mine when discussing it with them. Otherwise one risks having a long long conversation only to have it end with "Oh but thats not what I mean by "god" anyway. I have no idea what YOU are talking about".

Charlatan Deepak Chopra for example had a 90ish minute debate with a few atheists, including Sam Harris. All the "standard" arguments went back and forth for the hour or so and Chopra was totally schooled and made a fool of.

His response? At the end he basically said "Hang on... what are you guys talking about? I mean G.O.D. which stands for Generational Ordered Distribution. No idea what you guys have been on about".

Confronted with dishonesty so blatant and egregious as that I have long learned to make sure I get a theists definition up front before discussing the issue with them. Hence step ONE in the three step definition of "evidence" I gave you before.

nagirrac wrote: »

Just because humans cannot figure something out does not mean it does not exist or cannot exist logically.

You have hammered on this same point quite a bit in the thread to the point I am wondering if you have any other one to make at all. I think the vast majority of people here who fail to believe in a god are in no way suggesting there could not be such a thing. The problem is that there is quite literally a 100% absence, especially from you, of a single reason to think there actually is one.

I think a line should be drawn clearly in the sand on threads like this between "X can not be true" and "There simply is not a single reason to think X is true".

The claim there is a god is the latter. Not the former. And we should not act like "it could logically exist" lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that it actually does exist.

Brian Shanahan

Lapis lazuli wrote: »

I'm not trying to prove God, I'm asking for an example of what evidence you personally would accept as evidence.

Whether you are trying to prove god or not is immaterial. It is your responsibility to furnish the evidence, not mine to tell you "here is what I would accept as evidence, now bring it back to me".

I have previously done exactly what I need to do in this task, told you under which framework I would evaluate the evidence.

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

As an aside: all this "advancement" has accelerated the rate at which the world is going to Hell in a handbag.

The murder rate in London today is roughly 1/10 of that of the time of Shakespeare. And that of Amsterdam compares 47/1.5 between 1500 and c. 1800 (source).

Considering the enlightenment values were well established by 1800, and many governments looking to base their policy on empirical data*, I would suggest that you don't actually want to live in the non-empirical world you talk about, you're just angry that in a more rational earth people now demand evidence before accepting your beliefs.

*Unfortunately across most of the world governments are falling back from this ideal, with disasterous consequences, like the lack of effort to combat global warming.

iainbumerford

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The murder rate in London today is roughly 1/10 of that of the time of Shakespeare. And that of Amsterdam compares 47/1.5 between 1500 and c. 1800 (source).

Considering the enlightenment values were well established by 1800, and many governments looking to base their policy on empirical data*, I would suggest that you don't actually want to live in the non-empirical world you talk about, you're just angry that in a more rational earth people now demand evidence before accepting your beliefs.

*Unfortunately across most of the world governments are falling back from this ideal, with disasterous consequences, like the lack of effort to combat global warming.

FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

The horrors of the 20th century are bound to repeat themselves.

Add abortion into the mix and you'll soon see what kind of a Dystopian race we've become.

iainbumerford

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Whether you are trying to prove god or not is immaterial. It is your responsibility to furnish the evidence, not mine to tell you "here is what I would accept as evidence, now bring it back to me".

I have previously done exactly what I need to do in this task, told you under which framework I would evaluate the evidence.

The evidence for God is everywhere. Where I see His beauty, you see a problem.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You have hammered on this same point quite a bit in the thread to the point I am wondering if you have any other one to make at all. The problem is that there is quite literally a 100% absence, especially from you, of a single reason to think there actually is one.

I think a line should be drawn clearly in the sand on threads like this between "X can not be true" and "There simply is not a single reason to think X is true".

If you had bothered to read the relevant posts on the thread rather than being in a rush to have a pop at a poster you disagree with, you would see I was making the same point you are making in the second paragraph above. To state as Brain Shanahan and others have stated that the Christian concept of God "cannot" exist, due to the existence of human paradoxes concerning such concepts of God, is gibberish. The only topic worth discussing is as you phrase it "is there any reason to believe in God"?

Brian Shanahan

iainbumerford wrote: »

The evidence for God is everywhere. Where I see His beauty, you see a problem.

"I think god created the world and everything in it, therefore god created the world and everything in it" is not evidence.

Next thing you'll be telling me is that all the evidence telling us the world is c.4.6bn years old is a lie.

Virgil° wrote: »

Can god make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

With all due respect ...

*Yawn*

You'll easily find answers to that question without having to expend yet more ink.

-

I take it you're not going to answer the question asked? Perhaps you might refrain from casting that old "logical impossibility" in until such time as you do?

antiskeptic wrote: »

With all due respect ...

*Yawn*

You'll easily find answers to that question without having to expend yet more ink.

I take it you're not going to answer the question asked? Perhaps you might refrain from casting that old "logical impossibility" in until such time as you do?

It's not up to me to supply the meaning of the words that lapis used. And if I attempted to I've little doubt I'd be told I'm wrong. So I won't be answering anything until that is supplied.

I rather hope he would have an answer that wasn't copied and pasted from some christian apologist. And if he holds that omnipotence to other definition that would allow him out of my supposedly yawn worthy question then I wan't to know how he's arrived at this.

I notice you've been reduced to just picking up snippets of the conversation now rather than address the bulk of what WAS being debated. Pretty boring.

iainbumerford wrote: »

The evidence for God is everywhere.

That is a mantra. A catch phrase. A slogan. It is not a discussion. You are just declaring yourself to be correct and then leaving.

If there is evidence.... adumbrate it for us. Show us where and what it is. Simply declaring it is there does nothing. Helps no one. And breaks down the one thing humans actually DO have: Discourse.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you had bothered to read

I have read every post on this entire thread thanks. I made my point in response to yours. You can either continue the discourse by responding in turn to it.... or you can pretend to yourself I have not read things I actually have. Your choice.

My point once again is that banging the drum of "a god COULD exist"... whatever way you choose to phrase it.... in no way lends even a modicum of credence to the idea that one actually does.

Yet it is a drum that you appear to keep banging in the vast majority of the posts I have seen (and yes, read) on this thread. To the point I am not sure any more what point you think you are even making anymore or, even, if you yourself are.

There is... to respond to another part of your post.... a difference worth highlighting between "a god can not logically exist" and "the christian god specifically can not exist". The latter is a different claim and Dan Barker deals with it well in a debate against the unfortunately named Kyle butt. Barker highlights a long list of contradictions in the definition many people follow for this "god" and such a god can not logically exist in the same way as a "married bachelor" can not.

But let us return to the topic. Since we both agree a god could exist.... do you have even the first shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoning you could adumbrate for me that lends even a modicum of credence to the idea one actually DOES.

Virgil° wrote: »

It's not up to me to supply the meaning of the words that lapis used.

Meanings

There are various. And in making your claim, you need to ensure you've covered all the possibilities.

I rather hope he would have an answer that wasn't copied and pasted from some christian apologist. And if he holds that omnipotence to other definition that would allow him out of my supposedly yawn worthy question then I wan't to know how he's arrived at this.

I recall you making a claim: an omnipotent omniscient God is a logical impossibility. I'm merely asking whether you've covered all the possible bases. You could try Wikipedia for possibilities around omnipotence for instance.

A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]
A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]
A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.
Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.

I notice you've been reduced to just picking up snippets of the conversation now rather than address the bulk of what WAS being debated. Pretty boring.

Be that as it may. Your claim is a standalone one and can be interrogated on it's own without reference to anything else you might be saying.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Meanings

I threw a question his way on the general understanding that omnipotent means all powerful and omniscient means all knowing. Nothing more. Lapis is a big boy I'm sure and If he wants to dispute my statement by supplying the meaning to his own words then he can do so without aid from you.

Virgil° wrote: »

I threw a question his way on the general understanding that omnipotent means all powerful and omniscient means all knowing.

Now that it's been pointed out to you that alongside the 'general' (not too accurate) understanding of those concepts, there are a number of more nuanced options..

Lapis is a big boy I'm sure and If he wants to dispute my statement by supplying the meaning to his own words then he can do so without aid from you.

... you'll refuse to take questions from the floor?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But let us return to the topic. Since we both agree a god could exist.... do you have even the first shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoning you could adumbrate for me that lends even a modicum of credence to the idea one actually DOES.

I think its a colossal waste of time debating the standard arguments for or against God, like the Ontological and Cosmological arguments as these go round in endless circles and we could add another thousand posts to the thread and get nowhere. Personally I find the Cosmological argument the most sound, but I understand the arguments against it.

There are two basic mechanisms for a human to gain knowledge, either directly / indirectly from others, or through their own personal experiences. The argument against knowledge acquired regarding the spiritual through personal experience from many atheists is typically that you cannot trust personal experience and in particular you cannot trust your own mind (much less so the minds of others). If that is the case how can you trust the reasoning that leads to your atheist conclusions, or the atheist conclusions of anyone else?

There is some knowledge that can only be gained from personal experience. The analogy I would use is learning a martial art like Ta'i Chi. You could spend your whole life learning about Ta'i Chi, studying the science behind it, etc. but you would literally "know" nothing about Ta'i Chi. Knowledge of Ta'i Chi or any martial art can only be gained through personal experience, long hours of instruction and practice. In my opinion the same is true of God and spirituality, you either immerse yourself in it through a practice such as meditation, contemplation, drumming, or whatever and stick with it through thick and thin of belief and doubt, or you don't. Nothing right or wrong with either decision, just like someone who is a master of Ta'i Chi is no better or worse than anyone else. Everyone has to find their way through this existence and how they chose to do that is a personal decision.

Modern organized religion is by and large the enemy of spiritual development as it consists mainly of human dogma. We are dealing with a universe and an existence that we do not understand and attaching dogma to it takes away from the experience of it.

ow that it's been pointed out to you that alongside the 'general' (not too accurate) understanding of those concepts, there are a number of more nuanced options..

Heh it certainly suit you that my use of the phrase wouldn't be accurate. Either way I was using 1. 2, 3 and 4 are essentially the same(The source you quoted says so).

The reason i chose the stone question is because despite what some christian apologists think about omnipotence, making a lump of concrete too heavy to lift is an easy task, even I could do this. It's not in the same realm as making a "married bachelor" or a "circle with edges".

Unfortunately even if you want to say he is bound by his nature you still end up with a scenario where there is a logical limit placed on god by an unknown source.
Followed swiftly by a how do you know this anyway?

antiskeptic wrote: »

... you'll refuse to take questions from the floor?

I was using my understanding of the word which I've already explained to you so there is a logical paradox using that.

And my initial statement was made at Lapis who has yet to provide the meaning of his words. So until he furnishes me with there's nothing to do here.

There is some knowledge that can only be gained from personal experience. The analogy I would use is learning a martial art like Ta'i Chi. You could spend your whole life learning about Ta'i Chi, studying the science behind it, etc. but you would literally "know" nothing about Ta'i Chi. Knowledge of Ta'i Chi or any martial art can only be gained through personal experience, long hours of instruction and practice. In my opinion the same is true of God and spirituality, you either immerse yourself in it through a practice such as meditation, contemplation, drumming, or whatever and stick with it through thick and thin of belief and doubt, or you don't. Nothing right or wrong with either decision, just like someone who is a master of Ta'i Chi is no better or worse than anyone else. Everyone has to find their way through this existence and how they chose to do that is a personal decision.

This is just a long winded explanation of muscle memory and excersize. Tai'chi is well documented by the sciences. Unfortunately we get no such results when taking equivalent steps in trying to know god. And absolutely nothing that gives so much as a hint that the universe was created by God.

The former part post essentially boils down to We cant know anything.
We could all be brains in jars floating in space. Terrific. As nozz said though still doesn't tell us ANYTHING about god existing.

Virgil° wrote: »

This is just a long winded explanation of muscle memory and excersize. Tai'chi is well documented by the sciences. Unfortunately we get no such results when taking equivalent steps in trying to know god. And absolutely nothing that gives so much as a hint that the universe was created by God.

The former part post essentially boils down to We cant know anything.
We could all be brains in jars floating in space. Terrific. As nozz said though still doesn't tell us ANYTHING about god existing.

My point is that there are two ways of gaining knowledge, but they are not equivalent. Yes, we can "learn about" Ta'i Chi but we will never "know" Ta'i Chi unless we devote the enormous hours of effort involved. A simpler example is riding a bicycle. If you took a group of humans who had never seen a bicycle before and showed them a bicycle they would be incredulous that it could do what you claim. You could show them people riding bicycles, have them read all the science behind a bicycle and a human riding a bicycle, but they will never "know" what it is to ride a bicycle unless they actually learn themselves and experience it themselves.

We know an enormous amount about the human body, how it is constructed from atoms to molecules, skeletal and muscle structures, nervous structures etc. In comparison we know nothing about the actual experience of mind, how it emerges and what kind of matter it consists of. We do know that just as the body can be trained and we can learn physical routines to the point they can be accomplished unconsciously, the mind can also be trained in a somewhat similar fashion. This is what spiritual practice is, and one does not need to believe in God to participate, many Buddhists do not even consider the question of God. However, if one does consider God as part of a spiritual practice, pandeism becomes a very valid philosophical position and concept of God.

nagirrac wrote: »

My point is that there are two ways of gaining knowledge, but they are not equivalent.

I know exactly what your point is. And as I say. Its just an overly verbose explaination of muscle memory and excersize. Two well scientifically documented aspects of humans.

There is simply NOTHING to suggest that this is a form of "gaining knowledge" which can be extended to learning scientific facts about the origins of the universe and powerful deitys.

Virgil° wrote: »

Heh it certainly suit you that my use of the phrase wouldn't be accurate. Either way I was using 1. 2, 3 and 4 are essentially the same(The source you quoted says so).

Did you read No. 4 in the context of your logical impossibility?

"A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan."

The reason i chose the stone question is because despite what some christian apologists think about omnipotence, making a lump of concrete too heavy to lift is an easy task, even I could do this. It's not in the same realm as making a "married bachelor" or a "circle with edges".

The reason you chose the stone question is the same reason every else choses it: they labour under simplistic notions and suppose that omnipotence means unlimited (by anything at all) powers.

Unfortunately even if you want to say he is bound by his nature you still end up with a scenario where there is a logical limit placed on god by an unknown source.

If God is bound by his nature not to lie then the source of his being bound isn't unknown. The source is his own nature.

I was using my understanding of the word which I've already explained to you so there is a logical paradox using that.

We'll see how you deal with omnipotence being understood to be limited by God's own nature for example. And leave your logical impossibility to one side for the moment given that what you understand by omnipotence isn't the end of the matter. Logical impossibilities have to jump through somewhat more challenging hoops than just your own.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did you read No. 4 in the context of your logical impossibility?

"A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan."

The reason you chose the stone question is the same reason every else choses it: they labour under simplistic notions and suppose that omnipotence means unlimited (by anything at all) powers.

I'm getting pretty bored with this fairly quickly. So i'll say it once more. These were words used by Lapis Lazuli. If he wants to correct me by giving me the meaning of them, he can. He doesn't need you to do it.

If God is bound by his nature not to lie then the source of his being bound isn't unknown. The source is his own nature.

If it is in his nature not to lie. Then his source of not being able to lie is his nature. The source of the nature itself is not his nature.

We'll see how you deal with omnipotence being understood to be limited by God's own nature for example. And leave your logical impossibility to one side for the moment given that what you understand by omnipotence isn't the end of the matter. Logical impossibilities have to jump through somewhat more challenging hoops than just your own.

Already dealt with in the second bit of my post.

Benny_Cake

Virgil° wrote: »

I'm getting pretty bored with this fairly quickly. So i'll say it once more. These were words used by Lapis Lazuli. If he wants to correct me by giving me the meaning of them, he can. He doesn't need you to do it.

FYI - Lapis Lazuli has been sitebanned, so he won't be responding.

Virgil° wrote: »

There is simply NOTHING to suggest that this is a form of "gaining knowledge" which can be extended to learning scientific facts about the origins of the universe and powerful deitys.

Where have I said anything in any post to suggest this? Science is a wonderful tool for examining the attributes of our natural world that we can observe currently, using the scientific method. Science however is not the only means of gaining knowledge. I can write a literary masterpiece, become a virtuoso musician, compose beautiful pieces of music, paint masterpieces, etc. etc., without knowing anything about science. All of these come from mind, not scientific observation. The beauty that is mathematics comes from mind. The only way we have to study mind directly, currently at least, is through our minds.

Science cannot explore mind directly as we have no idea what it is we are trying to explore. Mind cannot be measured directly like other forms of matter that we can detect and measure their attributes. We can look at the indirect effects of mind, like looking at the parts of our brain lighting up under fMRI studies when our senses are stimulated, but this tells us nothing about mind itself.

The experience of being human, like the experience of being a dog or a bat for that matter, is entirely in the mind. We simply cannot dismiss certain experiences of mind as "unreal" simply because we don't currently understand them.

nagirrac wrote: »

Where have I said anything in any post to suggest this? Science is a wonderful tool for examining the attributes of our natural world that we can observe currently, using the scientific method. Science however is not the only means of gaining knowledge. I can write a literary masterpiece, become a virtuoso musician, compose beautiful pieces of music, paint masterpieces, etc. etc., without knowing anything about science. All of these come from mind, not scientific observation. The beauty that is mathematics comes from mind. The only way we have to study mind directly, currently at least, is through our minds.

Science is thus far the only reliable tool we have for gaining knowledge about our universe. And as I said before, I don't know why people are happy to trust it when i comes to sitting in an airplane or crossing a bridge but throw it all out the window when asking one of the most important SCIENTIFIC questions.
The creation of the universe and the existence of a deity.

The rest of that is just a bit of waffle about the mind which while technically true I guess is so obvious I'm wondering why you bothered saying it. As you've just described, yet again, muscle memory/learning Yet again, two well scientifically documented aspects of humans.

Science cannot explore mind directly as we have no idea what it is we are trying to explore. Mind cannot be measured directly like other forms of matter that we can detect and measure their attributes. We can look at the indirect effects of mind, like looking at the parts of our brain lighting up under fMRI studies when our senses are stimulated, but this tells us nothing about mind itself.

It does actually. We can tell how people feel or reactions to things or if someone remembers things by these scans. The mind is a result of our brains, molecules and electrical signals.
A piece of meat. If i shot you in the head it would change or possibly terminate your mind. I see no reason why science can't give us the answers.

Just because we don't understand some elements of the mind doesn't give you an excuse to piggyback whatever bolloxolgy that you like onto it.

The experience of being human, like the experience of being a dog or a bat for that matter, is entirely in the mind. We simply cannot dismiss certain experiences of mind as "unreal" simply because we don't currently understand them.

But we aren't dismissing them. We're merely saying they aren't enough to lend credence to the idea of a god. Because if you want to go down the path of accepting "experiences of the mind" then you must accept all of them as we have no basis or methodology to separate the legitimate ones out. You end up not dismissing people who think they were probed by aliens in the same way as not dismissing people who think god can be reached by meditation.

This is why we use science.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Since we both agree a god could exist.... do you have even the first shred of evidence, argument, data or reasoning you could adumbrate for me that lends even a modicum of credence to the idea one actually DOES.

nagirrac wrote: »

I think its a colossal waste of time debating the standard arguments for or against God

You could have just said "no".

nagirrac wrote: »

If that is the case how can you trust the reasoning that leads to your atheist conclusions, or the atheist conclusions of anyone else?

What "atheist conclusions"? I have presented none and discussed none. The only thing I have said is that I find the claim that there is a god to be not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.

I have presented, discussed, implied, nor suggested any other conclusions but that. I simply fail to be convinced by the baseless but oft recited assertion that a god exists. No more. No less.

Your "personal experience" monologue is nothing but a long winded way of saying you will not be presenting any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning for the hypothesis today. As I said at the start of the post, you could have just said "no".

nagirrac wrote: »

you either immerse yourself in it

It sound like you are trying to sell confiirmation bias to me. Rather than substantiate the idea there is a god in even the smallest way all you are asking is that people simply take it as granted and then "immerse" and steep themselves in that conclusion until it infuses them to the point they actually start to believe it.

I am sure with enough immersion and bending of ones own credulity one can train oneself eventually to believe a baseless proposition. I fail to see even a modicum of motivation for doing so however.

You are just trying to sell the idea of "deciding" to believe something like many others on the thread have done. I have said often before though I can only believe something if there is cause or reason to. Clearly there are people in this world who can DECIDE to believe. Like belief is something they simply decide to do in the same way as I am now deciding to reach out and have another carrot as I type this.

It is a skill I simply do not have. My credulity is simply not labile enough for me to bend it towards a conclusion by choice. I have to be led there by some actual substantiation for a claim.

Perhaps that is where we differ.

As for meditation and spiritual development... both of which you mentioned... I am all for that. Strongly so. I see no reason to engage in it while subscribing to notions on insufficient reasoning or evidence however. Both are things I engage in deeply and we could probably spend many a long hour talking and exploring such issues amicably and profitably. There is a wealth of exploration to be done there without ever straying into the territory of unsubstantiated woo or nonsense.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You could have just said "no".

What "atheist conclusions"? I have presented none and discussed none. The only thing I have said is that I find the claim that there is a god to be not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.

..but I couldn't say "no" because I would argue the evidence at least strongly suggests a higher power or more accurately an intelligent mind involved in the universe. The reason I don't want to discus the cosmological argument for example is we would just go round and round until someone gets tired and gives up.

Everyone has conformation bias, and I agree it can be challenging to overcome. Atheists are not immune form it though, even though some think they are. If an atheist simply states "I don't believe in a God or Gods", that's fine, but when challenged with arguments for God most take a position. There are logical, reasonable arguments pro and con the Cosmological argument, and from an evidence standpoint the evidence is the same. The God hypothesis, depending I admit on the concept one has of God, is as good as any other hypothesis to answer the question "why do we experience a universe rather than nothing".

I don't know if you have read Michel Bitbol, but his questioning of the materialist reductionist position is about as good as I have read. To me it is quite reasonable given the scientific evidence we have to take a metaphysical position that the universe in terms of its basic reality, life and consciousness is more likely to be due to top down causation than bottom up, without even mentioning God. However, if you get to that place in terms of your interpretation of the available evidence, then coupled with your own "spirituality", it is very strong support for the God hypothesis.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4007/1/ConsciousnessPrimaryArt2.pdf

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4006/1/Emergence1.pdf

Virgil° wrote: »

The mind is a result of our brains, molecules and electrical signals. A piece of meat. If i shot you in the head it would change or possibly terminate your mind. I see no reason why science can't give us the answers. Just because we don't understand some elements of the mind doesn't give you an excuse to piggyback whatever bolloxolgy that you like onto it.

This is why we use science.

There is a sum total of zero empirical evidence that the brain is responsible for our conscious experience, the experience of being a human. Clearly the brain is involved, but the position that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, although the most common position of neuroscientists today, is a materialistic reductionist position that doesn't stand up well when you consider all the evidence we have from various scientific disciplines. I suggest you read the papers by Michel Bitbol that I posted in response to nozz for reasoning behind the alternate ways of looking at the world, that is not waffle or bolloxology, but positions that are held by many many eminent scientists today and in history.

The same evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Just because an atheist hates religion (understandably, especially an Irish atheist), and they "like" the interpretations that support their non belief in God, does not make it so. I happen to agree that the atheist position is more reasonably than most theist positions, but the atheist position and the deist position are both perfectly reasonable based on the evidence.

nagirrac wrote: »

The reason I don't want to discus the cosmological argument for example is we would just go round and round until someone gets tired and gives up.

So.... like very theist before you... you do not want to discuss the evidence for god because you realise the failings of your own arguments before you even make them

If only the majority of theists were so concise. I would have more time on my hands.

nagirrac wrote: »

but when challenged with arguments for God most take a position.

I will take your word for it here. Because no one has challenged ME thus. Much less yourself. Perhaps people are weary before they ever get to me which is why they (and you) dismiss me out of hand.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is a sum total of zero empirical evidence that the brain is responsible for our conscious experience, the experience of being a human. Clearly the brain is involved, but the position that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain,

There is plenty of evidence that the mind is a result of the brain and none to the contrary.

although the most common position of neuroscientists today, is a materialistic reductionist position that doesn't stand up well when you consider all the evidence we have from various scientific disciplines. I suggest you read the papers by Michel Bitbol that I posted in response to nozz for reasoning behind the alternate ways of looking at the world, that is not waffle or bolloxology, but positions that are held by many many eminent scientists today and in history.

I don't really feel like perousing through a dozen papers, from some french philosopher just to make your point for you, a very lazy approach you've attempted to take if I may say so. How about you take pieces that you want from whatever papers you like and show how they support your position instead.

What disciplines, what eminent scientists?

The same evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Just because an atheist hates religion (understandably, especially an Irish atheist), and they "like" the interpretations that support their non belief in God, does not make it so. I happen to agree that the atheist position is more reasonably than most theist positions, but the atheist position and the deist position are both perfectly reasonable based on the evidence.

There is no evidence of God presented so far. And if you'd ever listened to any of the atheists here, pretty much anyone of them can tell you that you should NEVER have to support a lack of a position EVER.