Any materialists have the support to debate 1:1?

[Phantasman]

How do you KNOW (not believe) that spirits exist? I can't turn off my analytical, rational mind to believe in invisible entities and spirits. I need something more substantial to take such things seriously. There are tons of religions that have and do make claims of the supernatural variety that have the same amount of credible evidence backing them up as yours. So how do you KNOW Christianity is really legit? I do know that the physical world exists. Physical objects can be observed, touched, measured, and so on. I have yet to see any credible evidence to support spirits.

Until you experience it, you just watch others experience it. It is personal. I told you my experience.

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."- Thomas

The orthodox Bible just has Jesus saying "seek and you shall find". I didn't find it in a church, all the times I went to one. It was in a mans den. I didn't find it in the Bible, but in a mans prayer of love. Your spirit within you knows more what it needs than you do. You can shut it up or listen to it. This is the choice.

 

[JustWondering]

Until you experience it, you just watch others experience it. It is personal. I told you my experience.

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."- Thomas

The orthodox Bible just has Jesus saying "seek and you shall find". I didn't find it in a church, all the times I went to one. It was in a mans den. I didn't find it in the Bible, but in a mans prayer of love. Your spirit within you knows more what it needs than you do. You can shut it up or listen to it. This is the choice.

I had a similar experience during a time of depression and stress. I wasn't praying when it happened, it just happened. I was young at the time and the little I knew of religion was of Christianity, so I attributed it to the Christian god. That was the one and only time I had an experience like that. As I got older and wiser it became apparent to me that what happened was my mind coping with severe stress, a temporary chemical imbalance in the brain. If I had been a scientologist, Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhist, or belonged to any other religion I would have attributed it to that religion. It was a calming wave of euphoria that swept my depression and stress away, never felt anything like it before or since. When I was losing my faith no amount of prayers resulted in any signs or revelations to help me keep my faith, just silence. At that point I knew that its all in my head. Humans are wired to see patterns in things whether there is actually a pattern there or not, they've done multiple studies on this. This inclines people towards superstitious beliefs when they encounter things they don't understand or want answers to things that can't be answered. That's why I stick to what I KNOW, try not to make assumptions, don't pretend to know things I don't know. Rushing to attribute things to some invisible divine agency isn't the way to go about seeking out the underlying truths about reality. I've honestly looked for evidence to support Christianity's claims, but I only found evidence that debunked Christianity's claims. If reality supported the claims made in the bible I'd still be a Christian, but like I've said before, I can't turn off the analytical/reasoning part of my mind. If the claims of Christianity don't mesh with the reality I observe around me everyday then I simply can't rely on Christianity to give me honest answers about......anything. So that's how I came to my current beliefs.

 

[Axe Elf]

then how do you distinguish between what comes from fantasy and what should be considered objective even by yourself? you don't. therefore your statements, by definition, are confined to subjectivity and temporary belief, since you lack any criterion of truth. you're not being enlightened or radically skeptic , you're just being hypocritical.

You and I apparently speak a different language. I can get a sense of a few things you're saying, like yes, personal experience is subjective, but I'm not sure what is hypocritical about that. You ask how I distinguish between fantasy and reality, and then say that I don't, and draw some very abstract conclusions from that. I really have no idea how to respond effectively, because I'm just not sure what it is that you're saying.

Maybe I could start where you started, asking how I distinguish between fantasy and reality. Because I have faith that a "real world" exists outside of my own head, and that at least some of my perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality, I have faith that perceptions that are relatively stable and replicable are reflective of reality, while perceptions that are fluid or random are likely to be figments of illusion or artifacts of my senses and processing systems. I also have faith in the testimony of others when their perceptions and sensations generally match up with my own, as evidence of the reality behind my perceptions--or evidence of their illusory nature, to the extent that the perceptions of others do not match my own.

So that pretty much negates everything you said after "you don't." Maybe we can pick it up from there?

 

[Axe Elf]

Pain is directly apprehended, obviously. Pain\Pleasure is not a perception of anything other. They happen to me directly without any intervening intermediary. So are all thoughts, feelings, hopes and fears. Again obviously.

Yes, feelings and emotions can be apprehended directly, but feelings, emotions, hopes, fears and thoughts are not facts. And before you say, "I feel pain" is a fact (when you do indeed feel pain), it's still not a fact about the real world outside of one's own head. Someone made the observation that they don't need to have faith in an outside world to know that when they feel like they are raising a glass of cool water to their lips, they feel like their thirst is quenched--even if it's only happening inside their own heads as a result of stimulation by electrodes on their brains. But my response to that is the same--at that point, one is making statements about their own internal states, and saying nothing about reality.

For anyone else to recognize that "I feel pain" is a fact, they have to have faith that you exist in a "real world" outside of their own heads, and that their perception of your statement generally approximates that reality. Then they have to have faith in your testimony of your pain, since it is not something they can know by personal experience.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, feelings and emotions can be apprehended directly, but feelings, emotions, hopes, fears and thoughts are not facts. And before you say, "I feel pain" is a fact (when you do indeed feel pain), it's still not a fact about the real world outside of one's own head. Someone made the observation that they don't need to have faith in an outside world to know that when they feel like they are raising a glass of cool water to their lips, they feel like their thirst is quenched--even if it's only happening inside their own heads as a result of stimulation by electrodes on their brains. But my response to that is the same--at that point, one is making statements about their own internal states, and saying nothing about reality.

For anyone else to recognize that "I feel pain" is a fact, they have to have faith that you exist in a "real world" outside of their own heads, and that their perception of your statement generally approximates that reality. Then they have to have faith in your testimony of your pain, since it is not something they can know by personal experience.

Once again. Its not my concern at all whether external world, including other humans, really exist or not. The simple fact is the assessment regarding whether assuming they exist delivers more utility to me (in term of feeling less of painful and more of pleasurable experiences) than assuming that they do not. If it turned out that assuming the external world does not exist delivers more utility to me in terms of more pleasant feelings.. I would have accepted that as my hypothesis.

 

[Axe Elf]

Once again. Its not my concern at all whether external world, including other humans, really exist or not. The simple fact is the assessment regarding whether assuming they exist delivers more utility to me (in term of feeling less of painful and more of pleasurable experiences) than assuming that they do not. If it turned out that assuming the external world does not exist delivers more utility to me in terms of more pleasant feelings.. I would have accepted that as my hypothesis.

The reasons why you have faith in one thing over another are irrelevant to me. The point that I've been trying to convey is that the facts you can determine (including the highlighted one above) are based in the faith you end up endorsing.

 

[sayak83]

The reasons why you have faith in one thing over another are irrelevant to me. The point that I've been trying to convey is that the facts you can determine (including the highlighted one above) are based in the faith you end up endorsing.

Once again, its not a matter of faith at all that one set of beliefs cause less experiences of pain and more pleasurable feelings for me than another set. Choosing the set that causes least suffering for me is based on my direct apprehension of these feelings. Where does faith come in this?

See below:-
Belief1: There is a wall
Belief2: There isn't a wall.
Direct experience : Pain experienced by head banging event when Belief2 is adopted.
Conclusion: Adopt Belief1 as it causes less pain experiences.

Where does faith come here?

 

[Axe Elf]

Once again, its not a matter of faith at all that one set of beliefs cause less experiences of pain and more pleasurable feelings for me than another set. Choosing the set that causes least suffering for me is based on my direct apprehension of these feelings. Where does faith come in this?

See below:-
Belief1: There is a wall
Belief2: There isn't a wall.
Direct experience : Pain experienced by head banging event when Belief2 is adopted.
Conclusion: Adopt Belief1 as it causes less pain experiences.

Where does faith come here?

Because of experiencing less pain when you have faith in Belief 1, you choose to have faith in it over having faith in Belief 2.

In other words, you have faith that a "real world" exists outside of your own head, and that at least some of the painful sensations you are experiencing are reflective of that reality.

 

[sayak83]

Because of experiencing less pain when you have faith in Belief 1, you choose to have faith in it over having faith in Belief 2.

Yes obviously. But the choice itself is based on direct experience of the valence of pleasure and pain. Hence the faith is grounded on rational choice from direct experiential qualia.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes obviously. But the choice itself is based on direct experience of the valence of pleasure and pain. Hence the faith is grounded on rational choice from direct experiential qualia.

But again, pleasure and pain, which you CAN experience directly, are not facts. If you just suddenly experienced a sharp pain on top of your head, but you don't remember running into any walls lately, to what "fact" would you attribute that sensation?

The fact of a wall (or anything else) existing in the real world is not experienced directly. It is interpreted from your faith that the sensation of pain you are experiencing is reflective of a reality outside of your own head.

 

[sayak83]

But again, pleasure and pain, which you CAN experience directly, are not facts. If you just suddenly experienced a sharp pain on top of your head, but you don't remember running into any walls lately, to what "fact" would you attribute that sensation?

The fact of a wall (or anything else) existing in the real world is not experienced directly. It is interpreted from your faith that the sensation of pain you are experiencing is reflective of a reality outside of your own head.

The only indubitable facts are personal experiences. The rest are utility guided inferences. Obviously.

 

[Axe Elf]

The only indubitable facts are personal experiences. The rest are utility guided inferences. Obviously.

If that were true, the scientific method would look a lot different. Personal experiences are notoriously UNreliable in establishing fact indubitably. Therefore, one usually goes beyond faith in one's own experience to have faith in the corroborating testimony of trusted others, and where possible, even to faith in the axioms of formal systems of reasoning in order to supplement the often misplaced faith that one's own personal experiences are reflective of reality.

 

[sayak83]

If that were true, the scientific method would look a lot different. Personal experiences are notoriously UNreliable in establishing fact indubitably. Therefore, one usually goes beyond faith in one's own experience to have faith in the corroborating testimony of trusted others, and where possible, even to faith in the axioms of formal systems of reasoning in order to supplement the often misplaced faith that one's own personal experiences are reflective of reality.

Actually it is not. Scientific method is trusted because it creates products (intellectual and material) that enables individuals to more enhanced means of navigating their subjective life experience. Example, how electricity makes my life better.

 

[Axe Elf]

Actually it is not. Scientific method is trusted because it creates products (intellectual and material) that enables individuals to more enhanced means of navigating their subjective life experience. Example, how electricity makes my life better.

Yeah, that's what I said. People have faith in the scientific method to establish facts. All facts are based in faith. Again, the REASONS why people trust in it are irrelevant to my point.

I don't know why you keep saying "No it's not" and then saying exactly the same thing I'm saying in a different way, generally with an emphasis on WHY one might have faith in one thing over another, but continuing to assert that faith is the basis for fact.

We're right! We win! Yay!

 

[qaz]

Maybe I could start where you started, asking how I distinguish between fantasy and reality. Because I have faith that a "real world" exists outside of my own head, and that at least some of my perceptions and sensations are reflective of that reality, I have faith that perceptions that are relatively stable and replicable are reflective of reality, while perceptions that are fluid or random are likely to be figments of illusion or artifacts of my senses and processing systems. I also have faith in the testimony of others when their perceptions and sensations generally match up with my own, as evidence of the reality behind my perceptions--or evidence of their illusory nature, to the extent that the perceptions of others do not match my own.

see, you don't have any method, you don't even get the necessity of having one, you just choose from time to time.
well, i don't expect you to get the objectiveness* of the mathematical criteria , therefore their difference from faith or belief, but you might at least start thinking in terms of hypothesis-verification.
for example, are you a prophet? then write me down what precise clothes i'll wear tomorrow, or what my name is. you can't. on the countrary, if you ask an high school student what speed and position will have a projectile launched at 37 degrees with a speed of 95 m/s after 30 seconds, he will give you a verifiable answer.


*and when i say "objective" - i repeat - i don't mean something belonging to the "noumenon" , about which nobody can say one single word (not even that it "exists"), but i mean something that complies with the only rules we know through which we organize our experience and separate fantasy from reality: mathematics.

 

[Axe Elf]

see, you don't have any method, you don't even get the necessity of having one, you just choose from time to time.
well, i don't expect you to get the objectiveness* of the mathematical criteria , therefore their difference from faith or belief, but you might at least start thinking in terms of hypothesis-verification.
for example, are you a prophet? then write me down what precise clothes i'll wear tomorrow, or what my name is. you can't. on the countrary, if you ask an high school student what speed and position will have a projectile launched at 37 degrees with a speed of 95 m/s after 30 seconds, he will give you a verifiable answer.


*and when i say "objective" - i repeat - i don't mean something belonging to the "noumenon" , about which nobody can say one single word (not even that it "exists"), but i mean something that complies with the only rules we know through which we organize our experience and separate fantasy from reality: mathematics.

I know you said you are only 24 years old, so I'm trying not to hold you to a very high standard here, but seriously... What sense am I supposed to make out of "see, you don't have any method, you don't even get the necessity of having one, you just choose from time to time"? How is that in any way related to what I was talking about?

I think I'm getting a sense for a couple of your thinking errors now, though. First of all, you seem to revere mathematical axioms as being reflective of objective reality, but that's not always the case. For instance, sometimes you may observe a cloud floating across the sky and merging with another cloud to form a new cloud. We observe that 1 plus 1 equals 1. Or maybe we see one raindrop rolling down a window merge with another raindrop rolling down the window to form a new raindrop rolling down the window. Again, we see that 1 plus 1 equals 1. Yet mathematics tells us that 1 plus 1 equals 2. If you break a crumb in half, do you have two half-crumbs? Of course not. You have two new fully-fledged crumbs. So we observe that 1 divided by 2 equals 2--but that's not what mathematics tells us. So mathematics does not always reflect reality.

Your second error here is equating a prophet with a psychic--it's not the same thing. Psychics tell your future or fortune, prophets have the spiritual gift of understanding and interpreting the divine will and purpose; they are inspired teachers and expounders. So if you want to understand spiritual stuff, I can help you with that. If you want tomorrow's Powerball numbers, call Miss Cleo.

Parenthetically, I bet that most high school students would look at you like you had two heads if you asked them to solve your physics problem. Most of them probably wouldn't even understand the question. The ones who understand what you're asking would understand that you haven't given enough information to solve the problem (like the size and aerodynamic properties of the projectile), even if there was nowhere for the projectile to land--but anyone who actually thinks about it for a moment would realize that in the real world, such a projectile would hit the ground and be stationary there well before 30 seconds had elapsed.

I find myself experiencing an almost perverse curiosity regarding the nonsequiturs you're bound to post in response to this... but such is the spice of life. If I was a psychic, I'd probably know what you were going to say already.

 

[qaz]

For instance, sometimes you may observe a cloud floating across the sky and merging with another cloud to form a new cloud. We observe that 1 plus 1 equals 1. Or maybe we see one raindrop rolling down a window merge with another raindrop rolling down the window to form a new raindrop rolling down the window. Again, we see that 1 plus 1 equals 1. Yet mathematics tells us that 1 plus 1 equals 2. If you break a crumb in half, do you have two half-crumbs? Of course not. You have two new fully-fledged crumbs. So we observe that 1 divided by 2 equals 2--but that's not what mathematics tells us. So mathematics does not always reflect reality.

lol, enough said

just for the record, what educational qualification do you possess?

Your second error here is equating a prophet with a psychic--it's not the same thing. Psychics tell your future or fortune, prophets have the spiritual gift of understanding and interpreting the divine will and purpose; they are inspired teachers and expounders. So if you want to understand spiritual stuff, I can help you with that. If you want tomorrow's Powerball numbers, call Miss Cleo.

when you say "spiritual" you actually mean something "vague , autoreferential, and not realted with common experience". "spiritual" is often (not always, but in your case it is) a pompous word used to induce reverence towards the dullest idiocies.

Parenthetically, I bet that most high school students would look at you like you had two heads if you asked them to solve your physics problem. Most of them probably wouldn't even understand the question. The ones who understand what you're asking would understand that you haven't given enough information to solve the problem (like the size and aerodynamic properties of the projectile), even if there was nowhere for the projectile to land--but anyone who actually thinks about it for a moment would realize that in the real world, such a projectile would hit the ground and be stationary there well before 30 seconds had elapsed.

that was just an example to show you how the method of verification works (which you still don't get: verification doesn't apply to "reality" but to the own predicates of a theoretical system). i don't know about the usa but in europe high school students haven't solid mechanics courses. i've posted a classical problem that anyone in the western world with an high school degree has yet encountered during his career. Projectiles Launched at an Angle

 

[Axe Elf]

lol, enough said

I was afraid that might happen.

just for the record, what educational qualification do you possess?

I have a Master's degree (MS) in Psychology, with an emphasis in the perception and sensation aspects of neuropsychology. I also minored in Philosophy. My IQ has to be expressed in scientific notation. I am a former state spelling champion (Kansas 1977; 2nd in 1976), and I was a published author at the age of 12. In various years throughout junior high and high school, I posted the highest scores in Kansas on standardized tests in Science, Mathematics and Spelling.

when you say "spiritual" you actually mean something "vague , autoreferential, and not realted with common experience". "spiritual" is often (not always, but in your case it is) a pompous word used to induce reverence towards the dullest idiocies.

When I say "spiritual" in the context of a "spiritual gift" like prophecy, I mean an ability (I think they're officially called "charisms") resultant from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

When I say "spiritual" in the sense of the "spiritual stuff" that I can help you understand by virtue of my charism, I mean that my spiritual gift allows me to help you understand matters regarding God, by virtue of His own Spirit.

Parenthetically, I do appreciate whatever reverence you can muster, even if it is induced by pomposity.

that was just an example to show you how the method of verification works (which you still don't get: verification doesn't apply to "reality" but to the own predicates of a theoretical system). i don't know about the usa but in europe high school students haven't solid mechanics courses. i've posted a classical problem that anyone in the western world with an high school degree has yet encountered during his career. Projectiles Launched at an Angle

Yes, I understand projectile mechanics. The link you posted concerns basic parabolic calculations "in a vacuum" that ignore the effects of drag and drift, but anyone with any comprehension of the situation you described would understand that the projectile would hit the ground LONG before the 30 seconds was up. Heck, a 9mm bullet fired straight up into the air will hit the ground in just over 30 seconds, and it has a muzzle velocity of at least four times the 95 m/s you described.

I'm still trying to get my head around "verification doesn't apply to 'reality'" though...

 

[qaz]

I was afraid that might happen.

that was not mathematics, but a dull , superficial mimicking of its language. when two clouds merge you have another cloud with different volume and density. that is the diffrence between those two conditions.
it's like saying that if 1 group of people with 100 members merges with another group of people with 10 members , you get only one group, and that should prove that maths is wrong since 1+1=2...
...no matter if the new group counts 110 ****ing members as true maths says (100+10).

I have a Master's degree (MS) in Psychology, with an emphasis in the perception and sensation aspects of neuropsychology. I also minored in Philosophy. My IQ has to be expressed in scientific notation. I am a former state spelling champion (Kansas 1977; 2nd in 1976), and I was a published author at the age of 12. In various years throughout junior high and high school, I posted the highest scores in Kansas on standardized tests in Science, Mathematics and Spelling.

now you're going to learn what verification is: post here your name and the e-mail you use at work.

When I say "spiritual" in the context of a "spiritual gift" like prophecy, I mean an ability (I think they're officially called "charisms") resultant from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

When I say "spiritual" in the sense of the "spiritual stuff" that I can help you understand by virtue of my charism, I mean that my spiritual gift allows me to help you understand matters regarding God, by virtue of His own Spirit.

Parenthetically, I do appreciate whatever reverence you can muster, even if it is induced by pomposity.

i said that it was your intention, not that you succeeded. obviously you did not.

Yes, I understand projectile mechanics.

i don't think so, at all.

The link you posted concerns basic parabolic calculations "in a vacuum" that ignore the effects of drag and drift, but anyone with any comprehension of the situation you described would understand that the projectile would hit the ground LONG before the 30 seconds was up. Heck, a 9mm bullet fired straight up into the air will hit the ground in just over 30 seconds, and it has a muzzle velocity of at least four times the 95 m/s you described.

hitting the ground is a result like another(and obviously i chose casual values). please, can you tell me when it would happen on mars? this is a problem for 14 YO students. feel free to post all the passages.

I'm still trying to get my head around "verification doesn't apply to 'reality'" though...

the verification of a physical hypotesis applies to successive empirical measurements, not to a supposed "reality out of your head" (that is properly called by different cultures "to on" , "noumenon" , "ultimate reality" , "brahman", et cetera). the same doesn't happen with religions or philosophies , they don't lend themselves to any kind of self-verification. why? beacuse when you measure something you're basically reducing it to a mathematical axiomatic description. and that process will always be the same, for everyone , because mathematics individuates some precise laws of thinking you can't reject , so that we call them objective. indeed they don't apply to the "brahaman", but to something which contains the brahman , which is consciousness. AS OPPOSITE TO FAITHS AND PHYLOSOPHIES.

 

[Axe Elf]

that was not mathematics, but a dull , superficial mimicking of its language. when two clouds merge you have another cloud with different volume and density. that is the diffrence between those two conditions.
it's like saying that if 1 group of people with 100 members merges with another group of people with 10 members , you get only one group, and that should prove that maths is wrong since 1+1=2...
...no matter if the new group counts 110 ****ing members as true maths says (100+10).

I'm not going to deal with an awful lot of your nonsense, but I'm kind of hoping I can get you to see the point I'm making here. Which of the following sounds more natural to you?

"Daddy, I just saw a cloud join with another cloud, and together they became one new cloud!"

"Daddy, I just saw 397 moles of water vapor join with 391 moles of water vapor, and together they became 789 moles of water vapor!"

Or, in the case of two groups merging, let's say the "Northeast Chapter" and the "Northwest Chapter" of the Cucamonga Sewing Circle merge--they wouldn't call themselves the "Northeast Chapter and the Northwest Chapter"; they'd just call themselves the "North Chapter."

I was once a member of a church that merged with another local church. We didn't call ourselves "This Church and That Church," we took a new "Our Church" name--and even the church itself wasn't merely the sum of the two individual churches. For instance the church budget wasn't as big as the two budgets added together would have been--we paid one pastor instead of two, we paid one set of utility bills instead of two, and so on. One church merged with one church and became one church.

The real world doesn't always speak the language of mathematics. It doesn't "prove that maths is wrong"--math is internally consistent AF--but it does prove that mathematics doesn't always apply to the real world.

now you're going to learn what verification is: post here your name and the e-mail you use at work.

What, you don't have faith in the testimony of others?

Would you like my Social Security number too? lol

P.S. I'm mostly retired, so I don't have a work email. (nanny nanny boo boo)