[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Type R

You go to buy 1 kg of meat. The butcher weighs 1 kg. You pay your money, collect the beef and go your way, happy.

But that 1 kg only exists in your mind!!! You've probably bought 0.99987662471837683672364897238 kg of meat, or maybe 1.00023348827348 kg, or even better 1.0202023489398239 kg, or 1.13498390805834 kg. That 1 kg only exists in your mind. The 1 kg is "extra-natural" in the sense that it is as fictitious as a unicorn, but it is a material impression/assumption/illusion stored in grey matter, not in ndigila's world of spirits. "1 kg" as believed by the happy shopper is an error.

Every time you go shopping you are either the victim or a perpetrator of fraud.

The deepest words in the Bible are when Pontius Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" Jesus did not even answer.

I posed the problem "Explain how a naturalistic deterministic brain can come up with the concept of a unicorn (or flying witch)".
In your first response, you merely accused me of a 'fictitious' separation of the human being from human thoughts.
In your second response, you claimed that all human thoughts are extra-natural.
In your third response, you reiterated the claim that all human thoughts are extra-natural and exist only in the mind.

The point is, you are still not answering the question. In fact, the closest you came to answering the question was this:

Originally Posted by Type R

There must be a core (cerebrum) around which the imagination, creativity operate (cortex), sending/receiving stimuli from/to, all within the brain. I don't think we need spirits for this ... unless it's spirits and liquour!!!!!!

The question isn't whether or not unicorns exist or whether or not they exist in the mind. The question is how a naturalistic deterministic brain comes up with such a concept.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ndigila

The question isn't whether or not unicorns exist or whether or not they exist in the mind. The question is how a naturalistic deterministic brain comes up with such a concept.

I do not know whether to classify myself as naturalistic or deterministic. In any case, self-classification would be a violation of the spirit of free thought, in which nothing is pre-determined. As I said earlier, de omnibus dubitandum -- Latin for, everything is to be doubted.

Ndigila, if you are specifically looking for someone who officially classifies him/her-self as a naturalist and subscribes to it wholly in a near-religious manner, you have found the wrong person. You seem to be at war against specific ideologies. Personally, I shun "isms" simply because they tend to package concepts together and create religious-like devotions in a intellectual world that should be free and borderless.

Human thoughts are stored in the brain, whether you like it or not. The brain is a piece of grey fatty matter, consisting of complex neural networks. A simple computer can manipulate its own memory. What is the big deal with the brain manipulating its memory? These are just complex electrical impulses that run along nerves.

Let me vex you even more: to all practical purposes and intents, we are not aware of anything extra-natural (ie non-material). What I have referred to as extra-natural are only mental impressions within varying degrees of error. Non-material substance is a possibility but is by definition - since we are made of matter - inaccessible to our five senses.

If a drug like LSD or crack-cocaine can create images in my mind, or even feelings of elation and contentment, why can't an organ whose job description involves sending (and receiving) impulses to various parts of the body send an impulse to a selected part of itself? What's the big deal Ndigila? If this is not the answer to your question, maybe we ought to call it quits?

Can the brain send impulses? Of course, how do you move your hand or eye?

Can the brain receive impulses? Well, dump your hand into a pot of boiling water to test!

Can the brain mimic an impulse of the kinds that are received from external organs?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by ernestombayo7

you want me to explain all the arguments for the existence of god?when i tell you that its logic that led me to the belief in god i actually do mean the logical arguments for the existence of god.

Logic means that you have no faith. You're like that story posted elsewhere about King David doing a census: you sin because you need material proof.

[ndigila]

I do not know whether to classify myself as naturalistic or deterministic. In any case, self-classification would be a violation of the spirit of free thought, in which nothing is pre-determined. As I said earlier, de omnibus dubitandum -- Latin for, everything is to be doubted.

Type R, while it is good to offer philosophical arguments and counterarguments, at one point you have combine your philosophical positions and see if they possibly model the real world. Essentially what you're saying now is that I'm not taking any position but the religious people are wrong. If everything is to be doubted, why not also naturalism and determinism?

By the way, you realize that it is impossible to be a free thinker without free will.

Ndigila, if you are specifically looking for someone who officially classifies him/her-self as a naturalist and subscribes to it wholly in a near-religious manner, you have found the wrong person. You seem to be at war against specific ideologies. Personally, I shun "isms" simply because they tend to package concepts together and create religious-like devotions in a intellectual world that should be free and borderless.

It doesn't matter, every idea has consequences. When you deny free will, the existence of the supernatural and the concept of evil you have to explain how humans behave irrationally and not out of their own choice. Denying religious claims just for the sake of it is not free thinking anymore, it's a personal vendetta against religion.

Human thoughts are stored in the brain, whether you like it or not. The brain is a piece of grey fatty matter, consisting of complex neural networks. A simple computer can manipulate its own memory. What is the big deal with the brain manipulating its memory? These are just complex electrical impulses that run along nerves.

Type R, that is exactly what I said before! For your benefit I'm going to quote it.

Originally Posted by ndigila

Just to add on to my previous post. Imagination and creativity are evidence of human ability to manipulate their thoughts. You need to have free will to control your thoughts. If you don't have free will, you're left with two options:
1) You have to (somehow) explain how humans are able to manipulate their thoughts without having free will.
2) Account for imagination and creativity through determinism.

And what did you do? You accused me of separating the human brain from human thoughts and treating human thoughts like some foreign object. What is the difference between what you're doing now with what I did then? You still have to account for imagination and creativity without free will.

Let me vex you even more: to all practical purposes and intents, we are not aware of anything extra-natural (ie non-material). What I have referred to as extra-natural are only mental impressions within varying degrees of error. Non-material substance is a possibility but is by definition - since we are made of matter - inaccessible to our five senses.

Type R, if the extra-natural world is responsible for our creation (as most religions claim), don't you think that it is possible for the creator to communicate with its creation?

And when you say that the extra natural world are mental impressions with degrees of error, what causes the error? And why do majority of humans cling on to the error (not out of choice since they don't have free will)?

If a drug like LSD or crack-cocaine can create images in my mind, or even feelings of elation and contentment, why can't an organ whose job description involves sending (and receiving) impulses to various parts of the body send an impulse to a selected part of itself? What's the big deal Ndigila? If this is not the answer to your question, maybe we ought to call it quits?

The big deal is you denied free will. Its like saying 'If a 10 year old can drive a car, why can't the car drive itself? It has all the essential components.'

I'm going to repeat: Every idea has consequences and denying religious claims just for the sake of it is not free thinking but a personal vendetta against religion.

[ernestombayo7]

Originally Posted by Type R

Logic means that you have no faith. You're like that story posted elsewhere about King David doing a census: you sin because you need material proof.

you have to have faith in your own reasoning and the rules of logic.

just like you have faith that you will be alive tomorrow,but do not have evidence that you will be alive tomorrow

[ATLian]

Ernest,

just take any of those reasons you wrote above and show me the logic through which you concluded it was true. Just one of them.

BTW I can bet that you were always a believer because of blind faith, then you attempted to justify that faith using logic. Is that true?

Finally, I hope you do know that all those so called "evidences of god" have been soundly refuted. Almost all have been proven to be fallacies. e.g.

- cosmological argument says everything has a cause, and that cause is god. Well, what caused god? Nothing! Then that means that not everything has a cause. If you exclude god from having a cause without providing evidence as to why he's excluded, then you have descended from a discussion fit for a scientific forum to one fit for discussing with a group of fellow blindly believing Christians.

- moral argument: There is an objective moral law. This moral law must come from an objective supernatural being. This being therefore must exist. This being is god. Therefore god exists! This argument is so flawed that a primo kid can shred it in seconds. Also, god has some morals that are very immoral in our current society e.g. slavery, genocide, etc.

- etc

I await your one example.

[ernestombayo7]

BTW I can bet that you were always a believer because of blind faith, then you attempted to justify that faith using logic. Is that true?

I was not born believing automatically there is a God.Was i going to church?yes sometimes,did i read the Bible?yes i found the stories interesting.
But i was always a skeptic,asked lots of questions,and in my last term in High school was more of agnostic.I did not like religious dogma.Especially since i attended a Catholic school.Is shifted from theism to agnosticism to theism again.
After high school i read alot of cosmology and astronomy.And i got fascinated by the apparent design of our cosmos,and while in college i started reading philosophy and the more i read the more i became sure that God exists.And as at now am more pursuaded than ever before.


Finally, I hope you do know that all those so called "evidences of god" have been soundly refuted. Almost all have been proven to be fallacies. e.g.

Of course i know there are objections to the theistic arguments for a God.But so far none of the objections are successful.

All the theistic arguemnets for the existence of God are pretty strong.

Well, what caused god? Nothing! Then that means that not everything has a cause

I am surprised that you can ask this.If you were an atheist who is not informed about logic and philosophy,then i would understand.

But for the sake of argument let me address your question.

# Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

key word here is whatever begins to exist.The argument did not say everything has a cause of its existence.just things which began to exist.

We know the the universe began to exist.so no problem with premise 2.
so it follows logically that conclusion 3 is correct.

Time and space came into being with creation of the universe,so anything that was before the universe was outside of time and space.The only THING we know that was outside time and space according to science is,nothing.
and since we know that something cannot come out of nothing then its highly likely that their was something that caused the universe,and this thing that caused the universe was obviously timeless.there was no instance it was not there!it had always been there since time came into effect with the universe.

THe route most atheist take to try to counter the cosmological argument is the multiverse theory.
Maybe our universe is part of a bigger universe.But this only raises more questions.What caused the multiverse.

Others appeal to quantum mechanics to sya that maybe our universe did not have a cause.
But there are three main problems with postulating that the Universe came into being fro quantum tunneling.First scientists are still trying to understand quantum mechanics and most particle scientists are saying that it is not definitive that the particles popped into existence,it might be that they might have come from another space realm which is impossible to measure,this maybe due to the fact that the particles have no weight at all

Secondly,Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible.
So its impossible that our universe was formed this way if time came into existence with the universe.

Thirdly,all the particles annihilated themselves almost immediately they formed.So it follows through that the universe should have ceased to exist immediately it was formed.

[ATLian]

You seem to be missing the flaw in your argument. Let us assume for a second that the universe was caused by something. What makes you then assume that:

1) that cause is god
2) the god in question is Jehovah

That is a very serious flaw in the argument.

Also, you state that the cosmological argument is for things that begun to exist, and therefore doesn't hold for things that had no beginning, like god. Again:

1) how do you know that god had no beginning
2) if god had no beginning, then that is admitting that there are things that had no beginning. What if one of them caused the universe? What if the universe is one of these things that had no beginning? etc

Your argument has been so seriously trashed by logic over and over again that it's almost laughable to utter it as evidence. And so have all the so-called "evidences of god's existence". That is why the religious will always tell you that it's all about 100% faith and 0% evidence.

Finally, you still aren't giving me the logic process you went through to ascertain that there exists a god, and that god is Jehovah.

[grip_daddy]

I know Ernest will provide his answers but let me give my opinions:

1) that cause is god

If there is a cause, then we need to understand what characteristic that cause MUST subscribe to, one of which could be INTELLIGENCE.

2) the god in question is Jehovah

After identifying the characteristics from 1 above, we need to look into nature, history, culture, reason, logic, facts, etc and see if any claims are that such a cause has been identified. We use our identified characteristics to do the elimination.

That is a very serious flaw in the argument.

Hope the twist is bringing some consistency.



1) how do you know that god had no beginning

Because the only cause that must have initiated any kind of space-time bound events must exist outside the space-time boundary; meaning such a cause must not have a begining. This is compatible with theories of cosmology and origins. So one major characteristic of the God must be a claim that He doesn't have a
begining.

2) if god had no beginning, then that is admitting that there are things that had no beginning.

Or admitting that only one thing had no begining. What we need to show is that at least one thing had no begining which MUST have caused all other things to be. So there is no admission that other things too had no begining, but confining ourselves to ONE thing.

What if one of them caused the universe?

It is "if Him"... and not "one of them" because we only need to prove that at least one thing had no begining.

What if the universe is one of these things that had no beginning? etc


The universe, according to the laws it abides by, must have had a begining otherwise we would be in different set of laws altogether. At least here all scientists do agree.

[ernestombayo7]

thank you grip_daddy,

you have basicxally covered all i wanted to say.but let add a few.

Atlian,you do not pronounce that an argument has serious flaws and it has been trashed as if its fact that the argument is that way.There is no successful counter-argument for the cosmological argument to date.

# Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
# The universe began to exist.
# Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

read the argument above and tell me where it mentions God?
nowhere.As long as you have agreed to the 2 premises and the conclusion then the cosmological argument is succesful.
If i wanted to prove that the "cause" is God then i have to add more premises.


Before we continue with the discussion.Which of the premises above do you disagree with?because as far as am concerned the "flaws" you raised have nothing to do with the argum,ent.

What makes you then assume that:
1) that cause is god
2) the god in question is Jehovah

what do the question above have to do with the argument?reread the argument and address the premises or the conclusion.If you agree with both the premises and the conclusion,then the argument is succesful.
it has not proved God,it has not proved jehovah,it has proved a Cause.Our task now is to find out what the property of this casue is.

Also, you state that the cosmological argument is for things that begun to exist, and therefore doesn't hold for things that had no beginning, like god. Again:

1) how do you know that god had no beginning

you still have not addressed the argument.

What if the universe is one of these things that had no beginning?

haha.hilarious.SO scientists are wrong about the universe?it really did not begin 15 billion years with a cosmic explosion in the big bang?matter has existed forever?
that the receding of all the galaxies from each other is not proof of a singularity one time in the past?The noise of the big bang detected at the nasa observation center is a mirage?


Finally, you still aren't giving me the logic process you went through to ascertain that there exists a god, and that god is Jehova

the revised Cosmological argument by william lane craig,plus the life death and resurrection of Jesus did it for me.though the arguments like teleological arguments,the moral arguments also convinced me further.
but i prefer we address the issue at hand first.

try to refute the argument,address the premises or the conclusion.