can you proove there isn't a deity?

[AmbiguousGuy]

Believe me I know how bizarre the claim is. It comes from that speculative end of academia that I find so unreliable. The difference is I admitted it and placed it in that context. The article was only mentioned because it came with big time scholarly support. Here is the link: On ‘Known-To-Be-False’ Materialist Philosophies of Mind | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now

Thanks, but I'm not interested in reading bizarre speculation, especially from academia.

 

[1robin]

Thanks, but I'm not interested in reading bizarre speculation, especially from academia.

If I had realized who was it that asked I would not have bothered with the link.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The same way I believe many other faith matters. Revelation and philosophic necessity. The creator of time, space, and matter must be independent of all three.

OK. Revelation and philosophic necessity tell me that there can be no such God as described in the Christian Bible. So I feel you.

You ask me how I know a faith matter and then make a claim to knowledge that you would not have any way to know, even if true. Amazing.

If I can't know that 'beauty' has no referent exterior to us, then you cannot know that the Biblical God exists, much less anything about His will.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not even sure about that, though; "usually"? Was there a poll or survey that showed that? I'd imagine quite a few atheists accept the conclusion that the universe has had a finite duration- but that it was not created by any god.

I admire your powers of reasoning and your arguments in this thread, but this is the second time I've had to point this out to you: I make a distinction between the expression "universe" and "physical reality". The former is not necessarily equivalent to the latter. It is conceivable that there exists more than just the one universe we find ourselves in.

 

[Copernicus]

well no, even in a decapacitated state, the self(consciousness) still watches the blackness. If you go brain dead consciousness will silently witness the absence of thought.

Really? I have never gone "brain dead" (which is a somewhat vague and ambiguous concept), but I have been under general anesthesia several times. I can tell you that my consciousness did not silently witness anything at all. I had no sensation of a passage of time when I regained consciousness. That doesn't mean that my autonomous nervous system ceased to monitor my body, but the nervous system depends on physical nerves in order to operate. There is absolutely no question that consciousness is affected by physical conditions in the brain. It was the certain knowledge of that that allowed my anesthesiologist to sedate me.

In deep sleepwhen the mind is still, consciousness witnesses the silence of deep sleep.

You do realize that sleep is an altered state of consciousness, don't you? Did you know that it can be detected by monitoring the physical condition of the brain? I rather suspect you did know that, but you did not think through its implications for your belief that consciousness is not grounded in physical brain activity.

You are confusing consciousness with being awake. Consciousness is the witness of thought, not thought itself. Lots of these 18th century theories based on cartasian dualism & outdated physics.(which describes a perfectly behaved universe, were nothing goes wrong.anomalies are absent)
That's why people call consciousness the self.

Sorry, but I really can't follow what you are trying to say here. The word "consciousness" can have more than one sense, which any dictionary can tell you. One of its senses is that of a wakeful state. Self-awareness is another. We know for a fact that consciousness is tied in detectable, predictable ways to brain activity. Science has even advanced to the point where it can detect fairly specific thoughts by examining the pattern of blood flow in the brain.

In the fourteenth century scientists beleived, Very reasonably that the earth was flat because we saw a flat surface called land.
Now people use the same logic about consciousness, and say only the aspects of life with organs of expression conscious. What about. Plants or the earth.
It is totally possible that consciousness has nothing to do with a brain, the brain is just an organ.
If only we can look beyond the limitations of the eyeballs and other organs.

People have understood that the mind was connected to the physical brain for thousands of years. After all, brain injuries have been around since before there were even hominids. Science Daily News has a great article on archeological evidence that cranial surgery dates back thousands of years. My position is not a difficult one to defend, but I do think that most people reject it because of the implication it has for personal immortality. Minds depend on physical brains for their existence. Thought does not take place independently of physical brain activity.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

well no, even in a decapacitated state, the self(consciousness) still watches the blackness.

Um... What?

If you go brain dead consciousness will silently witness the absence of thought.

How could anyone possibly know this?

You are confusing consciousness with being awake. Consciousness is the witness of thought, not thought itself. Lots of these 18th century theories based on cartasian dualism & outdated physics.(which describes a perfectly behaved universe, were nothing goes wrong.anomalies are absent)
That's why people call consciousness the self.

Consciousness is comprised both of thought and "witness of thought"- or, to use Sarte's phrase, positional and non-positional awareness; or, put yet another way, our mental representations and our representations of those representations.

Now people use the same logic about consciousness, and say only the aspects of life with organs of expression conscious. What about. Plants or the earth.

We eventually came upon abundant evidence that the Earth was not flat; we are in possession of no evidence suggesting that plants or the earth are conscious. Furthermore, the fact that it appears that the mental supervenes on neural activity suggests that consciousness just is what brains do.

It is totally possible that consciousness has nothing to do with a brain, the brain is just an organ.

Is it possible, as in not contradictory? Sure. But so is me having the power of flight. Is it likely, or supported by any evidence? Nope.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... this is the second time I've had to point this out to you: I make a distinction between the expression "universe" and "physical reality". The former is not necessarily equivalent to the latter. It is conceivable that there exists more than just the one universe we find ourselves in.

Well, but we're still ignoring some options. Do some atheists accept multiverse theories? Sure. But it isn't as if all atheists either accept multiverse theories OR eternal models. I'd imagine some atheists still accept the old BBT picture- of a single universe with a distinct beginning (albeit one NOT caused by any supernatural entities). My point is just that atheism doesn't dictate any specific cosmological commitments (aside from the rejection of theistic creation).

 

[Copernicus]

Well, but we're still ignoring some options. Do some atheists accept multiverse theories? Sure. But it isn't as if all atheists either accept multiverse theories OR eternal models. I'd imagine some atheists still accept the old BBT picture- of a single universe with a distinct beginning (albeit one NOT caused by any supernatural entities). My point is just that atheism doesn't dictate any specific cosmological commitments (aside from the rejection of theistic creation).

I agree, but I was just offering an opinion, based on my experience, that most atheists think of physical existence always existed in some form, not that it sprang into existence from nothing. I'm happy to concede that it is just a subjective impression.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

shrug*

 

[SkepticThinker]

well no, even in a decapacitated state, the self(consciousness) still watches the blackness. If you go brain dead consciousness will silently witness the absence of thought.
In deep sleepwhen the mind is still, consciousness witnesses the silence of deep sleep.

You are confusing consciousness with being awake. Consciousness is the witness of thought, not thought itself. Lots of these 18th century theories based on cartasian dualism & outdated physics.(which describes a perfectly behaved universe, were nothing goes wrong.anomalies are absent)
That's why people call consciousness the self.

In the fourteenth century scientists beleived, Very reasonably that the earth was flat because we saw a flat surface called land.
Now people use the same logic about consciousness, and say only the aspects of life with organs of expression conscious. What about. Plants or the earth.
It is totally possible that consciousness has nothing to do with a brain, the brain is just an organ.
If only we can look beyond the limitations of the eyeballs and other organs.

The mind is not still, in deep sleep. It is actually quite active.

I have yet to see any evidence that indicates that minds are separate from brains. If we damage our brains, we damage our minds.

Also, I think people living in the 14th century were aware that the earth is spherical.

 

[Devoyinator]

But I also don't know whether the universe is a giant urinal, or that nothing exists beyond my mind, or that the amount I eat directly coincides with the population growth of this planet. There's no evidence which proves them absolutely impossible but I don't believe in them. Same with a single, all-powerful all controlling deity.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But I also don't know whether the universe is a giant urinal...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, that isn't quite what I said, but Christianity, as a Hellenic Jewish movement, was heavily influenced by Greek philosophers, especially Plato

And your evidence for this is?

 

[Twilight Hue]

i notice some people who are 100% convinced there can't be any kind of deity. but how can you be so certain? rather than just not be so sure.
what solid proof do you have there is no chance of there being some kind of deity that maybe you are just not aware of?

That last sentence should be the crux. If you are not aware of any deity, then there is no real reason to even think there is one.

 

[1robin]

OK. Revelation and philosophic necessity tell me that there can be no such God as described in the Christian Bible. So I feel you.



If I can't know that 'beauty' has no referent exterior to us, then you cannot know that the Biblical God exists, much less anything about His will.

I have no idea what your saying? Or why?

 

[1robin]

The mind is not still, in deep sleep. It is actually quite active.

I have yet to see any evidence that indicates that minds are separate from brains. If we damage our brains, we damage our minds.

Also, I think people living in the 14th century were aware that the earth is spherical.

Did I not give you this link before? I readily admit it comes from the speculative end of things (something that is never reciprocated) but it comes from a Cambridge journal and includes some heavy weight scholars.

On ‘Known-To-Be-False’ Materialist Philosophies of Mind | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now

 

[1robin]

That last sentence should be the crux. If you are not aware of any deity, then there is no real reason to even think there is one.

That would mean the billions that claim they are aware of a deity makes it true. BTW what is going on in your avatar? I can't quite figure it out. I am one of the billions who claim to be aware (experientially) of God.

 

[1robin]

I've never heard that definition before. Here's the one that's closer to the usage I'm familiar with:


nature - definition of nature by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

That appears to be exactly what I said stated in a different way.

Is God active in the world? Does God produce or control phenomena of the material world?

He can and does but unlike natural law he is not bound by the natural world or a derivative of it. What was the purpose of this question?

 

[1robin]

Yes, do it. I also have no idea what you're trying to refer to- are you talking about an article/book published by Cambridge press? Or something from the Cambridge Philosophical Society? Spit it out man! In any case, you're either referring to a controversial view, or a very outdated one- materialism/physicalism remains alive and well, many philosophers and scientists subscribe to some form of physicalism, because it has many theoretical virtues. In any case, it has never been proven that "mind is primary"- what a naive claim to make.

1. It is a claim that appeared in a journal two months ago. Not outdated.
2. Here is the link. On ‘Known-To-Be-False’ Materialist Philosophies of Mind | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now
3. I do not know whether it is Cambridge press or Cambridge philosophical society nor can I find any reason it would matter, given the scholars cited.
4. What is not controversial? I regard everything in these theoretical areas as controversial however the article is written in a the context of certainty. I will let you decide which it is but that is its context.
5. I have a faith position and unlike most do not make many known to a certainty claims. So I have not failed to meet any standard I have. Your basically saying anything uncertain (which includes almost everything) is meaningless and invalid. Why?
6. Spit out what? What is it you think I am reluctant to supply and why?

 

[Ouroboros]

2. Here is the link. On ‘Known-To-Be-False’ Materialist Philosophies of Mind | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now

It's cool that you're referring to Graham Smetham who consider himself to be a "Quantum Buddhist." Here's a quote from him:

In particular it must be pointed out that in actuality the account
presented rules out a particular picture of God, the picture generally associated with naïve and
fundamentalist views of theistic religion. However there are much less naïve and more
philosophically coherent images of the notion of God which are associated with the mystical
dimensions of theistic religions; this is the notion of God as the infinitely creative source and
sustainer of the universe, a creative dimension of Being that, seemingly with purpose,
fragments an infinite primordial awareness into a vast multitude of experiencing sentient
beings.

Or in other words, his argument does not support the Christian God but more like Tillich "Ground of Being" or Spinoza's God.
(Source: http://www.quantumbuddhism.com/GrandDesigner.pdf)

Is that the view you're arguing?