Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

[1137]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

6. Based on #1-5, the IU must be explained by something immaterial and not bound by physical laws. Further, there must be a logical explanation as to how the EU and IU became mixed as seen in human beings.

7. The EU shows no sign of conscious thought, as it is eternally bound to its laws.

8. Because of #3-6, the IU cannot rise within the EU, it does not arise by chance.

9. #8 implies that the mixing of IU and EU was intentionally caused by something (as per #6) immaterial and not bound to physical laws.

10. A conscious thing that willfully interacts with the material world to create humanity as we know it, which is immaterial and not bound to physical laws, is a very common description of gods from every single tradition.

Therefore, what people call god(s) must exist to explain the mixing of EU and IU, as neither can arise from the other and are separate substances.

Below is the original argument.

1. Something that can go against the mechanistic flow of nature is unnatural.

2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.

3. So, the human mind – even if just an aspect of it – must be unnatural.

4. For nature to create something unnatural would be a logical contradiction.

Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

 

[Sutekh]

Below is the original argument.



2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.


Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

I have a question, when you imply the human mind going against the mechanistic flow of nature. Would it still be hard to go against the flow of nature if you are part of the herd. I've known some people such as my father who tends to flock with nature itself, where's my intentions are to destroy nature. When you imply nature being separate from the human mind, would nature still control ones mind if they let it control them?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

6. Based on #1-5, the IU must be explained by something immaterial and not bound by physical laws. Further, there must be a logical explanation as to how the EU and IU became mixed as seen in human beings.

7. The EU shows no sign of conscious thought, as it is eternally bound to its laws.

8. Because of #3-6, the IU cannot rise within the EU, it does not arise by chance.

9. #8 implies that the mixing of IU and EU was intentionally caused by something (as per #6) immaterial and not bound to physical laws.

10. A conscious thing that willfully interacts with the material world to create humanity as we know it, which is immaterial and not bound to physical laws, is a very common description of gods from every single tradition.

Therefore, what people call god(s) must exist to explain the mixing of EU and IU, as neither can arise from the other and are separate substances.

Below is the original argument.

1. Something that can go against the mechanistic flow of nature is unnatural.

2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.

3. So, the human mind – even if just an aspect of it – must be unnatural.

4. For nature to create something unnatural would be a logical contradiction.

Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

You had my head turned back and forth while understanding what you are saying.

In nature there are things that are unnatural and things that are natural. It's the spontaneous way that the physical nature runs. For example, it is natural that our neurons flow through our veins and do it's thing. It's "seen" as unnatural when it goes off it's course and cause a seizure. However, the neurons are still doing what it is supposed to do whether they are on track or not. So seizures are natural, the result is not.

So the external universe and internal universe are interconnected. Both have what we call "unnatural" aspects to it. It's perfect natural for how the body handles depression. It's not natural of the results of depression that doesn't mirror the symptoms themselves. Then they call it a "chemical imbalance".

Do we need something outside the external world to explain the internal world? No. We learn the internal world by ourselves, from others, from our environment, and again, from ourselves. Our external reactions, our thoughts and feelings, what we call "spiritual", etc, we notice the "symptoms" and address their causes and either live by or try to alleviate the results.

Say we do have an outside agent whether it be Set or God. What can they tell you that you do not have the knowledge to gain for yourself? What is "supernaturally" preventing you from understanding yourself without their help? Is it dependency? You can't handle the unnatural results of the human mind (thus behaviors of self and people) alone? Does it calm you?

These reasons and more are fine, but if we leave Set and God out of it, you will still be where you are today. Everything we do comes from how we perceive things in our mind. If we understand the mind without outside agents, then we won't fall dependent of them. That, and because they do not come with us when we pass away (unless we die with the hope and faith they do), what would happen if all of the sudden you didn't have that object or person of faith anymore?

A lot of people would be walking around like zombies not knowing what to do because they have depended on outside agents to define themselves that I don't know if they thought about it the other way around-looking at our internal universe to define our external one. If we do that, why do we need another external agent when everything-natural or not-starts with us?

What in nature can you find that connects to Set or God that is not influenced by upbringing, knowledge, external influence, or internal (say a need for somehing or gut feeling), or psychological?

Can you define Set or God outside our own perception of him (and those who have of him in the past)?

I honestly don't feel anyone can. We have to learn to live with our internal universe and see how that affects and influences how we define the internal universe.

Why do we need another outside/external agent to define our internal universe to then live within the external universe and thus satisfy our external self?

Why not be satisfied with what we have-our mind, body, and spirit-and use these things to find relationship with others without needing a "spirit" or outside agent?

What's wrong with living within an natural and unnatural world?


If I got your point or OP all wrong, I apologize. Hope this helps?

 

[George-ananda]

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

But since the advent of quantum mechanics, consciousness plays a role in the EU.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

A materialist (which I am not) could argue all these things are reducible to electron flows and neurons following natural law and are part of the EU.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

6. Based on #1-5, the IU must be explained by something immaterial and not bound by physical laws. Further, there must be a logical explanation as to how the EU and IU became mixed as seen in human beings.

7. The EU shows no sign of conscious thought, as it is eternally bound to its laws.

8. Because of #3-6, the IU cannot rise within the EU, it does not arise by chance.

9. #8 implies that the mixing of IU and EU was intentionally caused by something (as per #6) immaterial and not bound to physical laws.

10. A conscious thing that willfully interacts with the material world to create humanity as we know it, which is immaterial and not bound to physical laws, is a very common description of gods from every single tradition.

Therefore, what people call god(s) must exist to explain the mixing of EU and IU, as neither can arise from the other and are separate substances.

Below is the original argument.

1. Something that can go against the mechanistic flow of nature is unnatural.

2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.

3. So, the human mind – even if just an aspect of it – must be unnatural.

4. For nature to create something unnatural would be a logical contradiction.

Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

I'd say you pretty much nailed it the first time.

I usually look at this concept a slightly different way- that nature by definition had to be created by something that transcends it, i.e. something unnatural by necessity-

But you are right this way also, the human mind transcends nature by it's creative intelligence, a unique phenomena that can do, create, what nature alone never can..

I think both point to the same implication, the creator of nature and humanity had a similar capability of creative intelligence, it's the only way to solve the paradox of infinite regression, an endless procession of automated cause and effect mechanisms, each relying on yet another to account for it, with no capacity to ever truly create anything

 

[Kent856]

I agree with your outcome that a God of some sort must exist. You explained yourself very well, so thank you. I find your reasoning to be sound, and if the IU is Indeed separate from the EU then a sound case is made for the existence of God as you described.

However I myself don't see any indication that the mind follows any special rules or is built upon a framework which is different to that of the universe around us.

 

[1137]

I have a question, when you imply the human mind going against the mechanistic flow of nature. Would it still be hard to go against the flow of nature if you are part of the herd. I've known some people such as my father who tends to flock with nature itself, where's my intentions are to destroy nature. When you imply nature being separate from the human mind, would nature still control ones mind if they let it control them?

I think most religions and philosophies actively attempt to allow nature to control the mind. This is what becoming One with the All is, or the dissolution of Ego, things of that nature. Being able to go against the "flow of nature" requires insane dedication, practice, trial and error, success and crushing failure. This is the process of "magic", separating oneself from the "flow of nature", and why it can be both dangerous and only used successfully by a select few.

I agree with your outcome that a God of some sort must exist. You explained yourself very well, so thank you. I find your reasoning to be sound, and if the IU is Indeed separate from the EU then a sound case is made for the existence of God as you described.

However I myself don't see any indication that the mind follows any special rules or is built upon a framework which is different to that of the universe around us.

I think imagination and dreams are the best ways to illustrate the separation. Within your own mind, anything you can conceive of can be played out. Right this second you may turn into a turtle, and it does not matter how much sense it makes. Yet this is not true of the real you, right now, sitting at your computer. You cannot turn into a turtle, or if you did there would be a discoverable reason as to why.

 

[Milton Platt]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

6. Based on #1-5, the IU must be explained by something immaterial and not bound by physical laws. Further, there must be a logical explanation as to how the EU and IU became mixed as seen in human beings.

7. The EU shows no sign of conscious thought, as it is eternally bound to its laws.

8. Because of #3-6, the IU cannot rise within the EU, it does not arise by chance.

9. #8 implies that the mixing of IU and EU was intentionally caused by something (as per #6) immaterial and not bound to physical laws.

10. A conscious thing that willfully interacts with the material world to create humanity as we know it, which is immaterial and not bound to physical laws, is a very common description of gods from every single tradition.

Therefore, what people call god(s) must exist to explain the mixing of EU and IU, as neither can arise from the other and are separate substances.

Below is the original argument.

1. Something that can go against the mechanistic flow of nature is unnatural.

2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.

3. So, the human mind – even if just an aspect of it – must be unnatural.

4. For nature to create something unnatural would be a logical contradiction.

Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

1. True, so far as we have been able to ascertain.

2. These things are concepts, or human constructs. If there were no physical brains, there would be no mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc. In other words, in so far as we can determine to date, without the physical in the first place, the abstract would not exist, because there would be no brains to conceive of it. They are not independent of the physical. If you can demonstrate otherwise, it would be an interesting topic.

3. Yes, the results of brains are distinct from the brains, but they rely upon it.

4. Don't really understand this statement. can you restate it or provide an explanation?

5. Again, I do not understand statement #4. But minds,imagination, abstract thought depend on the physical brain. So they do indeed "rely" on the physical world.This is demonstrable.

Your arguement fails here......dead end.

 

[sayak83]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

6. Based on #1-5, the IU must be explained by something immaterial and not bound by physical laws. Further, there must be a logical explanation as to how the EU and IU became mixed as seen in human beings.

7. The EU shows no sign of conscious thought, as it is eternally bound to its laws.

8. Because of #3-6, the IU cannot rise within the EU, it does not arise by chance.

9. #8 implies that the mixing of IU and EU was intentionally caused by something (as per #6) immaterial and not bound to physical laws.

10. A conscious thing that willfully interacts with the material world to create humanity as we know it, which is immaterial and not bound to physical laws, is a very common description of gods from every single tradition.

Therefore, what people call god(s) must exist to explain the mixing of EU and IU, as neither can arise from the other and are separate substances.

Below is the original argument.

1. Something that can go against the mechanistic flow of nature is unnatural.

2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.

3. So, the human mind – even if just an aspect of it – must be unnatural.

4. For nature to create something unnatural would be a logical contradiction.

Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

Proposition (2) can easily be false. Thoughts could simply be group properties of firing neurons and hence could be as much a property of certain arrangements of matter-energy as wetness and solidity are.

 

[1137]

Proposition (2) can easily be false. Thoughts could simply be group properties of firing neurons and hence could be as much a property of certain arrangements of matter-energy as wetness and solidity are.

Firing neurons is categorically different than emotions.

 

[McBell]

Firing neurons is categorically different than emotions.

how so?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/19/4445684/brain--scan-fmri-identify-emotion

 

[atanu]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

6. Based on #1-5, the IU must be explained by something immaterial and not bound by physical laws. Further, there must be a logical explanation as to how the EU and IU became mixed as seen in human beings.

7. The EU shows no sign of conscious thought, as it is eternally bound to its laws.

8. Because of #3-6, the IU cannot rise within the EU, it does not arise by chance.

9. #8 implies that the mixing of IU and EU was intentionally caused by something (as per #6) immaterial and not bound to physical laws.

10. A conscious thing that willfully interacts with the material world to create humanity as we know it, which is immaterial and not bound to physical laws, is a very common description of gods from every single tradition.

Therefore, what people call god(s) must exist to explain the mixing of EU and IU, as neither can arise from the other and are separate substances.

Below is the original argument.

1. Something that can go against the mechanistic flow of nature is unnatural.

2. The human mind can – to varying degrees – go against the mechanistic flow of nature.

3. So, the human mind – even if just an aspect of it – must be unnatural.

4. For nature to create something unnatural would be a logical contradiction.

Therefore, the must be something separate from nature to explain the human mind.

I agree with your outcome that a God of some sort must exist. You explained yourself very well, so thank you. I find your reasoning to be sound, and if the IU is Indeed separate from the EU then a sound case is made for the existence of God as you described.

However I myself don't see any indication that the mind follows any special rules or is built upon a framework which is different to that of the universe around us.

How the IU (or its owner, if there is one) effects modifications in EU? IMO, this question remains.

 

[Sutekh]

How the IU (or its owner, if there is one) effects modifications in EU? IMO, this question remains.

I consider this a key course in Setian thought, magically speaking let's say if you do a rite, you are casting your IU to the EU.

 

[atanu]

I consider this a key course in Setian thought, magically speaking let's say if you do a rite, you are casting your IU to the EU.

Thanks, Sutekh. I did not however mean that. If EU is material and IU immaterial then how there will be any contact/communication?

 

[Adramelek]

This was original presented as a 4 premise argument entitled the Argument for Set. I think you'll find this version much more flushed out.

1. The external universe (EU) is made of physical material and bound by physical laws.

2. The internal universe (IU), such as the mind, imagination, abstract thought, etc, is not made of physical matter and not bound to by physical laws of the EU.

3. So, the properties of the EU and IU must be different.

4. As the properties of the EU and IU are different, one cannot be reduced into the other.

5. Due to #4, the EU and IU must be separate things not reliant on each other.

As 1137 knows, for years on this forum I have been making the argument that just because something exists within nature like the human mind and its abilities of imagination and abstract thought forms, does not necessarily mean it is of natural origin. But rather it has become a non-natural part of our nature as human beings. Some of the worlds religions, all of which have been created by the non-natural imagination and abstract thought form functioning of the human mind, talk about returning to a state of oneness with "God" or nature. In their teachings they preach the righteousness of the suppression and denial of and total submission of the individual mind, will, and self to that of some other higher being. In fact willfulness and the individual self are considered "evil" and should be purged. These are exercises in futility, the awareness of self, the independence of mind and will are infused within our very human DNA and as such can never be recalled. In my philosophy and religion they are embraced, nurtured, and are held to be the most sacred of all things.

 

[McBell]

As 1137 knows, for years on this forum I have been making the argument that just because something exists within nature like the human mind and its abilities of imagination and abstract thought forms, does not necessarily mean it is of natural origin. But rather it has become a non-natural part of our nature as human beings. Some of the worlds religions, all of which have been created by the non-natural imagination and abstract thought form functioning of the human mind, talk about returning to a state of oneness with "God" or nature. In their teachings they preach the righteousness of the suppression and denial of and total submission of the individual mind, will, and self to that of some other higher being. In fact willfulness and the individual self are considered "evil" and should be purged. These are exercises in futility, the awareness of self, the independence of mind and will are infused within our very human DNA and as such can never be recalled. In my philosophy and religion they are embraced, nurtured, and are held to be the most sacred of all things.

define "natural"

I ask because I fail to see how imagination is "non-natural"

 

[1137]

Thanks, Sutekh. I did not however mean that. If EU is material and IU immaterial then how there will be any contact/communication?

It seems god/Set is the solution.

 

[Adramelek]

define "natural"

I ask because I fail to see how imagination is "non-natural"

"Natural" = all things physical and biological, being in accordance with or determined by natural law. Without the powers of intellect, reason, or understanding. Ingenuous, naïve, unsophisticated, artless. Free from pretension or conscious calculation.

 

[sayak83]

Firing neurons is categorically different than emotions.

how so?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/19/4445684/brain--scan-fmri-identify-emotion

What Mestemia said.

 

[atanu]

Firing neurons is categorically different than emotions.

how so?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/19/4445684/brain--scan-fmri-identify-emotion

Lust in mind may correlate with a pattern in brain just as it may correlate with an aroused organ. That does not mean that the aroused organ produces lust.