Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

[1137]

Holy crap you have evidence that deities exist, with examples? Wonderful, lets have it. Billions are waiting, with baited breath.

And SSE doesn't even comprehend the difference between a hypothetical and a claim. SSE when I respond to you it makes me feel like my time doesn't matter to me, like arguing with someone who's never read more than a Wikipedia page. I'm going to ignore you, but good luck in your spooky endeavours!

 

[atanu]

Ok, go check out a sleeping person, or a cadaver. Your turn.

I have done that. It was when my father died on my hands that I realised that the "I awareness" and the body are not same.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

@1137

Copout. My argument is solid, and damning.

You have made claims you simply can't support, to do so you simply need one single example of disembodied mind. (Or to support your latter claim about many examples of spirits/deities existing)

We both know what you are doing here amounts to wishful thinking, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Up to it?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I have done that. It was when my father died on my hands that I realised that the "I awareness" and the body are not same.

Of course they aren't, just like light is not a lightbulb. One is an emergent property of the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Seems like a boatload of unsupported premises, frankly.

 

[First Baseman]

The OP presents a pretty decent argument. Not bad at all.

 

[1AOA1]

Ok, go check out a sleeping person, or a cadaver. Your turn.

Check them out with theism or with materialism?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Check them out with theism or with materialism?

Lol. Your choice. You could actually confirm they have a brain with an ekg(or a skillsaw I guess), or you could mutter some incantations to an imaginary friend and wait for an answer.

Your call, but I'm not certain the two methods would be equally effective.

 

[atanu]

Of course they aren't, just like light is not a lightbulb. One is an emergent property of the other.

So then. What is that electricity that lights up the brain?

Or should I believe that, like in case of a few other posters, your awareness too is created and constrained fully by brain processes, such as a character of a novel is constrained by its author?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So then. What is that electricity that lights up the brain?

Or should I believe that, like in case of a few other posters, your awareness too is created and constrained fully by brain processes, such as a character of a novel is constrained by its author?

The electricity is.. electricity

Google neural net pathway.

 

[atanu]

The electricity is.. electricity

Google neural net pathway.

Ha. Ha. Google is the lifeline.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

From a physics standpoint the argument fails at fails at the ned of the 2nd premise and fully in the 3rd. the IU doesn't exist by any miserable means and is only conceptualized through the EU

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ha. Ha. Google is the lifeline.

Yes, it's 2016. You could always hit up a library or university instead I guess, if it tickles your fancy, but even they are probably online too.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

This whole argument is based on the huge assumption that your internal perspective is a real and valid thing that exists external of the "EU". From that vantage point, I can follow your arguments. But they're still logically flawed, as you'll see. I'm not surprised that this argument only works for the people who have already presupposed god's existence.


1. I'll just accept this one and go from there...

2. I don't think you realize that, right off the bat, you've just argued that God is a creation of the mind...

3. Nope.

4. False premise

5. False premise

6. False premise

7. Those same laws created the physical aspects of the supposed IU that you're referring to, didn't they? Why is it not just as reasonable to argue that the "IU" is simply a manifestation of the EU?

8. But, the IU did arise within the EU. Please tell me how there can exist and IU without an EU.

9. #8 is flawed - Also, no it doesn't.

10. That's a similar description, yes. It also fails several logical tests and is a view of existence that has never been proven by anyone ever...

 

[McBell]

And you are saying that for brain to exhibit symptoms of intelligence, it requires a fuel. Do we know what that fuel is?

Basic biology 101

 

[sayak83]

So you agree that immaterial ideology causes change to the body. Guess our discussion is complete.

What immaterial ideology? Beliefs and ideologies exist as material configurations of neural states, just as a song exists as a material configuration in a computer hardware. Such things are types of information, and information is completely physical, governed by laws of physics etc.

 

[sayak83]

If that is the case then try feeding glucose and oxygen to Revive a dead body.

Try restarting a burnt and broken car engine by putting in more gas.

 

[1137]

From a physics standpoint the argument fails at fails at the ned of the 2nd premise and fully in the 3rd. the IU doesn't exist by any miserable means and is only conceptualized through the EU

Actually, the EU is only conceptualized through the IU.

This whole argument is based on the huge assumption that your internal perspective is a real and valid thing that exists external of the "EU". From that vantage point, I can follow your arguments. But they're still logically flawed, as you'll see. I'm not surprised that this argument only works for the people who have already presupposed god's existence.


1. I'll just accept this one and go from there...

2. I don't think you realize that, right off the bat, you've just argued that God is a creation of the mind...

No I have not.

3. Nope.

4. False premise

5. False premise

6. False premise

Thank you for the well illustrated refutations.

7. Those same laws created the physical aspects of the supposed IU that you're referring to, didn't they? Why is it not just as reasonable to argue that the "IU" is simply a manifestation of the EU?

As the argument suggests, the IU did not arise from the physical EU.

8. But, the IU did arise within the EU. Please tell me how there can exist and IU without an EU.

This assumes that materialism is the answer and then fills in the premises. Unless the solution to the mind-body problem can be shown to be materialism, we have no reason to jump to the assumption that the physical processes are creating the mind. If anything, it's a leap in the first place to assume that premise #1 is real, but I currently accept the existence of an objective universe on faith.

What immaterial ideology? Beliefs and ideologies exist as material configurations of neural states, just as a song exists as a material configuration in a computer hardware. Such things are types of information, and information is completely physical, governed by laws of physics etc.

Until you show how the mind arises from physiological processes then this is all just begging the question. You're assuming materialism and going from their which is a logical fallacy. Placebos, by their very definition, do not cause physiological changes. The belief itself is the catalyst for change which then, in some cases, leads to physiological changes. Nothing about this suggests that the belief is arising from the brain, in fact is explicitly is not because placebos cause no physiological change.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Placebos work by the mind causing physiological changes through belief. No material or physical substance, no chemical changes induced. If the mind was purely depended on the brain, we would expect medication to work but not cognitive techniques like placebo use. And before you object that the placebo is somehow physical, this already assumes reductionism and argues for it, and you must show how.

Doesn't have to be chemical stimuli. Can also be electrical, magnetic, or just social.

And you are saying that for brain to exhibit symptoms of intelligence, it requires a fuel. Do we know what that fuel is?

Oxygen and various nutrients. Without them, you die.

I already said that if intelligence was created in brain, then a brain in a dead body would say "I exist".

Not if the neurons are no longer functional. If the power goes off to your alarm clock, are you going to wake up on time?

So you agree that immaterial ideology causes change to the body. Guess our discussion is complete.

As thoughts are also electrochemical signals, encouraging the thinking of certain thoughts IS changing the physical.

If that is the case then try feeding glucose and oxygen to Revive a dead body.

If you can get them circulated to all the cells, it might just work. Also helps if you put the person on ice first, as the oxygen and nutrient demands are slowed waaaay down. However, as cells tend to explode

Ha. Ha. Google is the lifeline.

An informative 4 minutes

 

[Segev Moran]

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

Although the physical laws on the Quantum level are different than those of the Atomic an above...
Also, There are stage things in the universe that contradict a lot of our understanding of the physical laws, things we are yet to learn and understand.

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.

Assuming there is one (IU). But for the sake of the post, I'll agree.

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

Ok

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

Assuming the second is real and not some kind of an illusion, still, it doesn't mean that there is not reliability between the two.
The fact is that if the brain stops functioning.. we don't really know if the mind is still active or not.
For that matter, People who have brain abnormalities (Like autism and such) experience difficulties in things like emotions, feelings and such and a lot of times their mind works in a whole different level... This actually proves a direct connection between the first and the last.

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

See above...
Also, There is a direct connection between the two (Again, assuming there really is an IU), thus they are indeed very much reliant on one another.

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.

Nope.. See above

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

As we don't really know what conscious really is, You can't state that as a fact.
Until not long ago, (And sadly, even today) people believe that animals are not conscious, which is of course.. BS...

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

How do you know?
Maybe it did rise by chance?
But anyway, Evolution is not a "game of chance"...
The creation process of the universe is not a game of chance..
randomness is a factor, but it is not the only factor.

The development of our brain was and is a very slow process.. if you'll "look back" to the beginning of our evolution, it is not a question of whether we will evolve, rather a question of when..
The brain we have was bound to happen...
other animals have brains!!!
other animals have self awareness..
other animals have compassion and love
other animals have the ability to understand and integrate in their environment...

the only explanation (if you ask me ) to having such a variety of species and kinds, is the fact that life were not "Designed" to be as they are, rather evolved and "manipulated" itself to the form that we know today.

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.

Why is this the only conclusion????
Let's assume there is an intelligent creator...
What if we are just a mistake of it?
What if it intended to do something else?
What if we got out of control?
What if we are nothing but a computer code? or a game?
What if we are nothing but a dream?

There are endless possibilities other than "Humans are the designed creation of a super intelligent being that intended for us to be exactly how we are".

What if this intelligent isn't really intelligent?? maybe it created everything wrong and we were meant to be entirely something else?
A Lot of amazing discoveries were a mere chance and luck rather than intelligent design....

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.

Wrong...
The easiest thing to say is that you can't prove something because it is un-provable.. therefore it exist!
Think of it...
The claim is that GOD is not part of our physical universe.. therefore there will never be a proof of it...how comfortable...

Now, based on theists, GOD controls the physical.. therefore, the physical is not really bound to laws rather to GOD's wishes..
This means that GOD controls the physical and the physical relies on the Non-Physical (Your 5th statement goes bye bye )
If the physical relies on the non-physical, this means the physical is not real, rather an illusion made by the non-physical
And i can go on and on and have a great mind confusing statement, that non of them is actually true or can be proven...

[/QUOTE]
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.

See above

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.

As we don't really know what the mind, or consciousness, or feelings, or love, or whatever things that are "non-physical" ..
we can't really claim that they are non-physical...

The fact is, that changes in the physical affect the non-physical and vice versa..
So maybe they are just the same... ???