Evidence

[sonofdad]

The analogy demonstrated it. If the mind is a product of the brain then in order for you to retain your thoughts in the body of the dog, your brain would have to follow.

You have not really transfered my thoughts to a dog, you do realize that, right?
How does this have any relevance to the actual world?

If the kalam cosmological argument is true then I have good reasons to believe such. If you think it is false, explain why.

This is what we call a circular argument.

1. Apples grow on trees
2. A willow is a kind of tree
Therefor
3. Apples grow on willows

We don't know if the universe had a cause (by your definition, the universe being the whole of physical reality), we don't know if it had a beginning. We don't even know if there's anything beyond this particular cluster of galaxies. If it had a cause, which I'm not saying it did because I don't know either way, the cause of it is not necessarily what you call GOD.

The only question that really makes my head hurt is the question of "How can God just exist". How can God be eternal? How can God not have a cause for his existence?

I think you should start with "does God exist?", then you can move on to the follow up questions if that applies.

lmao that was kind of funny

I guess your definition of knowledge is different from mine. Appears to me that you think one can gain actual knowledge of the physical world by just thinking about it really hard.

 

[McBell]

Appears to me that you think one can gain actual knowledge of the physical world by just thinking about it really hard.

Personally, I would not call that thinking...

 

[sonofdad]

Personally, I would not call that thinking...

I was more referring to the philosophers and theologians he's copying, I'm sure they do a lot of thinking.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have not really transfered my thoughts to a dog, you do realize that, right?

Who said anything about me transferring anything besides you?

How does this have any relevance to the actual world?

The brain cannot be used to explain the origin of the mind.

This is what we call a circular argument.

1. Apples grow on trees
2. A willow is a kind of tree
Therefor
3. Apples grow on willows

That is a circular argument....however, in reference to the kalam, since the conclusion logically follows from the premises, that makes it a valid argument unlike whatever you was trying to prove above.

We don't know if the universe had a cause (by your definition, the universe being the whole of physical reality), we don't know if it had a beginning.

Actually we do. We have two philosophical arguments against an infinity, both which applies to any cosmic model than you or any physicists can think of. We also have the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem which proves that any universe that has been expanding throughout its history must have had a beginning and also the thermodynamic problem, not to mention the argument from contingency. These are issues you have to deal with.

We don't even know if there's anything beyond this particular cluster of galaxies. If it had a cause, which I'm not saying it did because I don't know either way, the cause of it is not necessarily what you call GOD.

The problem of infinity would apply to any naturalistic explanation you can think of. It just doesn't do the naturalist any service to postulate a pre-big bang model. That doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes the question of origins back one step further.

I think you should start with "does God exist?", then you can move on to the follow up questions if that applies.

The Ontological Argument does just that.

I guess your definition of knowledge is different from mine. Appears to me that you think one can gain actual knowledge of the physical world by just thinking about it really hard.

The only thing I need science for is to support the second premise of the kalam: The Universe Began to Exist. That's it. From there I draw my own conclusions.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I was more referring to the philosophers and theologians he's copying, I'm sure they do a lot of thinking.

Well so far you've done a poor job of refuting the arguments that I "copied". So as long as that is true I will continue to "copy".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As far as I can tell, none of my arguments have been successfully refuted.

That was my point. I have offered you many answers (but as it is against forum rules to take posts from another thread I cannot show you this without your permission).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That was my point. I have offered you many answers (but as it is against forum rules to take posts from another thread I cannot show you this without your permission).

You have my permission.

 

[sonofdad]

Who said anything about me transferring anything besides you?

Then I have no idea what your point is.

The brain cannot be used to explain the origin of the mind.

Why not?

That is a circular argument....however, in reference to the kalam, since the conclusion logically follows from the premises, that makes it a valid argument unlike whatever you was trying to prove above.

You're right, it was a bad example.
Lets try another one.

1. All people from India have 3 eyes
2. Rajiv is from India
3. Therefor Rajiv has 3 eyes

See how it logically follows the premise?

But if we a do a little research we find out that the premise is actually false, which makes the argument invalid.

Now in the case of the Kalam argument we don't know if the premise is true or false, which doesn't necessarily make the argument invalid, but it makes it pointless.
Clear enough?

Actually we do. We have two philosophical arguments against an infinity, both which applies to any cosmic model than you or any physicists can think of.

Do those arguments against infinites not apply to God?

We also have the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem which proves that any universe that has been expanding throughout its history must have had a beginning and also the thermodynamic problem, not to mention the argument from contingency. These are issues you have to deal with.

1. It proves that at some point the universe wasn't expanding. We can't see beyond the singularity right now, all we know with some amount of certainty is that about 13 billion years ago all the matter and energy in the universe was condensed into hot lump of universe, which has been expanding till this day.
We don't know what form it was in before that or whether it existed at all.

2. You are ignoring the first law of thermodynamics: energy is never created or destroyed, it only changes forms.

It just doesn't do the naturalist any service to postulate a pre-big bang model. That doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes the question of origins back one step further.

Putting God at the end of scientific knowledge doesn't solve anything either. You might as well just say "it was magic", or pixies with superpowers. It's meaningless.

The Ontological Argument does just that.

The ontological argument defines god into existence. You can do that with anything, all you have to do is make "it necessarily exists" a part of its definition.

The only thing I need science for is to support the second premise of the kalam: The Universe Began to Exist. That's it. From there I draw my own conclusions.

Then you should accept that science has yet to answyer the question of whether the universe began to exist.

 

[idav]

An irreducible and emergent property of neural activity in many parts of the brain.



When was the last time you saw functional imaging of someone's conscious thoughts?


I'm not arguing against free will. I'm arguing for a version of it that requires a level of familiarity with complex systems that I don't think will mean anything to you.



Clearly, then, I'm in a really bad movie probably starring Rob Schneider or Tim Allen.


Not unless we're writing a bad screenplay.


That's the best you can come up with? Not the "what if we downloaded your brain onto a computer, and then put it in a body that looked exactly like you. Which would be the real you?"

Have you heard the one about the guy who had a railroad spike through his skull? Guy's working on the railroad, all the live long day, when all of the sudden he turns into one of the most famous case studies in neuroscience, beyond clive wearing or HM. And when you can explain to me how any metaphysical explanation of you have can explain why his personality changed the way it did thanks to brain damage to particular areas, while damage to other areas has changed other people in different ways, and how lesions or other similar damage can result in different types of aphasia, all including the soul and how it works with these processes, then talk get back to me.

If found this discussion interesting between you and Call of the wild. I've had similar discussions with both of you. I say it is reducible to the brain because that is the source. Problem is some like Call say the source is not the brain, and even if you pointed to the exact chemical and neurons that did something it will be said that the nuerons source is external of the body. For brain damage, for example, the brain is just a receiver so a damaged reciever loses it's memories.

I find a similar issue with trying to prove god is or isn't involved in everything that happens in the world. Mysticism and spirituality can always resort to an invisible puppet master regardless of what the evidence shows.

That is why I say it is reducible to the brain, there is nowhere else to go unless your going to invoke causes external to the body and possibly external to reality itself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're right, it was a bad example.
Lets try another one.

1. All people from India have 3 eyes
2. Rajiv is from India
3. Therefor Rajiv has 3 eyes

See how it logically follows the premise?

Yup.

But if we a do a little research we find out that the premise is actually false, which makes the argument invalid.

Ok

Now in the case of the Kalam argument we don't know if the premise is true or false, which doesn't necessarily make the argument invalid, but it makes it pointless.
Clear enough?

No, its not clear enough. False, actually. The kalam is…

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (things don’t come in to existence from a state of nothingness)
2. The Universe began to exist (which can be found in any textbook on cosmology)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (if 1 and 2 are correct, then 3 follows logically)

Do those arguments against infinites not apply to God?

They would if the argument is that God existed infinitely in time...but since that isn't the argument, the argument remains coherent.

1. It proves that at some point the universe wasn't expanding. We can't see beyond the singularity right now, all we know with some amount of certainty is that about 13 billion years ago all the matter and energy in the universe was condensed into hot lump of universe, which has been expanding till this day.
We don't know what form it was in before that or whether it existed at all.

The Bord/Guth/Vilenkin theorem proves that ANY universe that has been expanding throughout its history must have had a beginning. This theorem is so powerful that it holds true regardless of our limited knowledge of what was before “Planck” time. Second, as I said before, positing a naturalistic cause of the universe doesn’t help the cause at all, because you still have to deal with the philosophical arguments against infinity.

2. You are ignoring the first law of thermodynamics: energy is never created or destroyed, it only changes forms.

The first law only comes in to effect after the universe began to exist.

Putting God at the end of scientific knowledge doesn't solve anything either. You might as well just say "it was magic", or pixies with superpowers. It's meaningless.

I am not putting God at the end of scientific knowledge. The question of origins is not even a scientific question. Science cannot be used to explain the origins of itself. Based on the argument from contingency, an external cause is necessary.

The ontological argument defines god into existence. You can do that with anything, all you have to do is make "it necessarily exists" a part of its definition.

No it doesn’t. The ontological argument gives the traditional definition of God at which either such a being exists necessarily, or doesn’t exist necessarily. If it is possible for such a being to exist necessarily, then such a being must in fact exist necessarily.

Then you should accept that science has yet to answyer the question of whether the universe began to exist.

Thermodynamics, entropy, impossibility of infinity, modern cosmology, argument from contingency…all of these points to a finite universe. I understand that you don’t like the implications of a finite universe (most non-believers don’t), but that doesn’t change the fact that this is where all evidence is pointing, like it or not.

 

[Me Myself]

Yup.




Ok




No, its not clear enough. False, actually. The kalam is…

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (things don’t come in to existence from a state of nothingness)
2. The Universe began to exist (which can be found in any textbook on cosmology)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (if 1 and 2 are correct, then 3 follows logically)




They would if the argument is that God existed infinitely in time...but since that isn't the argument, the argument remains coherent.




The Bord/Guth/Vilenkin theorem proves that ANY universe that has been expanding throughout its history must have had a beginning. This theorem is so powerful that it holds true regardless of our limited knowledge of what was before “Planck” time. Second, as I said before, positing a naturalistic cause of the universe doesn’t help the cause at all, because you still have to deal with the philosophical arguments against infinity.



The first law only comes in to effect after the universe began to exist.



I am not putting God at the end of scientific knowledge. The question of origins is not even a scientific question. Science cannot be used to explain the origins of itself. Based on the argument from contingency, an external cause is necessary.



No it doesn’t. The ontological argument gives the traditional definition of God at which either such a being exists necessarily, or doesn’t exist necessarily. If it is possible for such a being to exist necessarily, then such a being must in fact exist necessarily.




Thermodynamics, entropy, impossibility of infinity, modern cosmology, argument from contingency…all of these points to a finite universe. I understand that you don’t like the implications of a finite universe (most non-believers don’t), but that doesn’t change the fact that this is where all evidence is pointing, like it or not.

Everything that begins has a material cause
The universe began
The universe most have a material cause.

Given this, we must assume the universe either does not have e same characteristics for its begining than the stuff in it has had since we have observed them or both God and big bang must be wrong.

 

[Sculelos]

Everything that begins has a material cause
The universe began
The universe most have a material cause.

Given this, we must assume the universe either does not have e same characteristics for its begining than the stuff in it has had since we have observed them or both God and big bang must be wrong.

God is infinite, we are finite. Problem solved:shout

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If found this discussion interesting between you and Call of the wild. I've had similar discussions with both of you. I say it is reducible to the brain because that is the source. That is why I say it is reducible to the brain, there is nowhere else to go unless your going to invoke causes external to the body and possibly external to reality itself.

So when you are sad, are you sad…or is your brain sad? Or better yet, how about another analogy. If you found out your best friend was wanted for a series of serial killings, and you woke up one day, looked in the mirror, and found yourself in your best friends body, yet you still retained your own thoughts, memories, etc….are you now wanted for murder??? You didn’t do the killing…your friend did, but does the fact that you are in his body, occupying his brain but retaining your own thoughts……does that make you a serial killer?

I would really like an answer to this because you answer yes, I will ask you how are you a serial killer if you didn’t actually kill anyone…..and if the answer is no, then what is true of your brain is not true of your mind, and therefore the mind cannot be reducible to the brain.

 

[idav]

So when you are sad, are you sad…or is your brain sad? Or better yet, how about another analogy. If you found out your best friend was wanted for a series of serial killings, and you woke up one day, looked in the mirror, and found yourself in your best friends body, yet you still retained your own thoughts, memories, etc….are you now wanted for murder??? You didn’t do the killing…your friend did, but does the fact that you are in his body, occupying his brain but retaining your own thoughts……does that make you a serial killer?

I would really like an answer to this because you answer yes, I will ask you how are you a serial killer if you didn’t actually kill anyone…..and if the answer is no, then what is true of your brain is not true of your mind, and therefore the mind cannot be reducible to the brain.

In my way of thinking this analogy is impossible (not because it is too sci fi or whatever). I saw your similar analogy to the dog. If you woke up in your dogs body you wouldn't think as a human any more. You would act like a dog having dog intuitions and doggy memories.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So when you are sad, are you sad…or is your brain sad? Or better yet, how about another analogy. If you found out your best friend was wanted for a series of serial killings, and you woke up one day, looked in the mirror, and found yourself in your best friends body, yet you still retained your own thoughts, memories, etc….are you now wanted for murder??? You didn’t do the killing…your friend did, but does the fact that you are in his body, occupying his brain but retaining your own thoughts……does that make you a serial killer?

I would really like an answer to this because you answer yes, I will ask you how are you a serial killer if you didn’t actually kill anyone…..and if the answer is no, then what is true of your brain is not true of your mind, and therefore the mind cannot be reducible to the brain.

Bad analogy. Its an impossibility. What science tells us is that the only way do what you are describing is to have actually done a brain transplant.

So in this situation either you really are your best friend and have suffered from some insanity issues where you have somehow dreamed the other version of your self such as dissociative identity disorder, or hallucinations or ext. Or you really did do a brain transplant.

Brain is the core of everything we are in terms of knowledge, personality, memories and reason. The brain is the "soul" biologically. I don't believe in souls myself but what you call a "soul" would be the brain.

 

[Sculelos]

Bad analogy. Its an impossibility. What science tells us is that the only way do what you are describing is to have actually done a brain transplant.

So in this situation either you really are your best friend and have suffered from some insanity issues where you have somehow dreamed the other version of your self such as dissociative identity disorder, or hallucinations or ext. Or you really did do a brain transplant.

Brain is the core of everything we are in terms of knowledge, personality, memories and reason. The brain is the "soul" biologically. I don't believe in souls myself but what you call a "soul" would be the brain.

I don't really think we are souls but we are spirits.

Soul: Spread of a single point.
Spirit: Singular point injected directly with the life from the life giver

Calling us a soul might as well be calling us a rock, or a tree, or a plant or a house. I mean all those could be called souls but we are directly injected with life from the life giver.

Edit: We do have souls but our souls are our body's which is why we are called living souls. If we die our soul dies too.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't really think we are souls but we are spirits.

Soul: Spread of a single point.
Spirit: Singular point injected directly with the life from the life giver

Calling us a soul might as well be calling us a rock, or a tree, or a plant or a house. I mean all those could be called souls but we are directly injected with life from the life giver.

I mean in his terms. what he means when he says soul is his "essence". what really defines who "you" are. Imagining that he woke up in someone else's body would incline that his "soul" or whatever had been transferred. But in reality the only way to have these experiences would be to transplant the brain. The brain is the focal point of who we are when talking about our personality and such. Beyond what we are physically so to speak.

 

[Sculelos]

I mean in his terms. what he means when he says soul is his "essence". what really defines who "you" are. Imagining that he woke up in someone else's body would incline that his "soul" or whatever had been transferred. But in reality the only way to have these experiences would be to transplant the brain. The brain is the focal point of who we are when talking about our personality and such. Beyond what we are physically so to speak.

Indeed. Soul is the point that is us or our physical bodies. Spirit is what makes us alive. We can die and our soul dies and our spirit returns to God. Whatever happens past that is up to the life giver.

 

[idav]

Indeed. Soul is the point that is us or our physical bodies. Spirit is what makes us alive. We can die and our soul dies and our spirit returns to God. Whatever happens past that is up to the life giver.

You say it as if our soul is our batteries. I think Call was implying that bodies are meat puppets and our soul pulls the strings by use of the brain.

 

[idav]

Thermodynamics, entropy, impossibility of infinity, modern cosmology, argument from contingency…all of these points to a finite universe. I understand that you don’t like the implications of a finite universe (most non-believers don’t), but that doesn’t change the fact that this is where all evidence is pointing, like it or not.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Evidence suggests that the big bang started with something. Evidence does not suggest where that something came from. You talk as though the universe is a balloon and that time and existence only exists as part of the balloon. Fine but what happens when you deflate this balloon, what is left of it and where did time and existence suddenly go. Of course the universe could just as easily have existed outside of time before time was even an issue. Time is only an issue for us, not an issue for the something that existed without change. Saying god did it doesn't solve the issue. In order for god to be timeless then god couldn't change either. The act of creating would have to be simultaneous with the act of existing and existing means time is in effect whether your god or the universe.