Evidence?

[Storm]

Oops, I thought it was a general religious debate and added my thoughts. Is that not allowed then?

It's just that this thread has a narrower focus.

 

[Storm]

Storm, I don't understand why it is unreasonable to expect gods to make their existence known to us in fairly unmistakable ways, if any do indeed exist. There are a great many ways that they could do that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

That depends on whether said Gods want worship. I'm simply not making that assumption in this thread.

I'm not making that assumption, because I wholeheartedly agree that if they did, they could and should make themselves known.

So, in the absence of such direct evidence of their existence, one can infer at least three things:

1) Gods do not exist.
2) Gods exist but are incapable of interacting with us in a way that makes their existence obvious.
3) Gods exist, but they have reasons for not making their existence obvious to us.

My understanding of your beliefs is that you reject (1) and consider (2) or (3) more reasonable inferences. Is that right?

I consider all three logical. I personally believe in God, but I understand why people don't.

1 is rejected only for purposes of this discussion.

 

[Autodidact]

That doesn't make it a physical sense.

A sense that requires physical stuff isn't a physical sense? What's a "non-physical sense" then? I mean, not an example so much as a definition.

 

[Autodidact]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/james/1/5

So you're an IPUist then? Also a Tooth Fairyist? Not to mention a Hindu.

 

[Autodidact]

That depends on whether said Gods want worship. I'm simply not making that assumption in this thread.

I'm not making that assumption, because I wholeheartedly agree that if they did, they could and should make themselves known.

That's why I think the first step is to define God. If we use your definition, a Deist God, then we should not expect or require any evidence.

 

[Storm]

A sense that requires physical stuff isn't a physical sense? What's a "non-physical sense" then? I mean, not an example so much as a definition.

By physical senses, I mean the standard package: sight, etc..

To explain "non-physical sense," let's assume the soul exists. I believe that if it does, the brain is its interface. It could then physically process non-physical input from the soul.

 

[Storm]

That's why I think the first step is to define God. If we use your definition, a Deist God, then we should not expect or require any evidence.

Agreed. However, some seem to disagree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually there is a fourth alternative, that being:

4) God exists and is effectively indifferent to our awareness of It or, in fact, our capacity to be aware of It.​

 

[Autodidact]

Actually there is a fourth alternative, that being:

4) God exists and is effectively indifferent to our awareness of It or, in fact, our capacity to be aware of It.​

Yes, that might be the case with a Deist God, for example.

 

[Copernicus]

By physical senses, I mean the standard package: sight, etc..

To explain "non-physical sense," let's assume the soul exists. I believe that if it does, the brain is its interface. It could then physically process non-physical input from the soul.

You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. To the extent that an immaterial "mind" can be said to exist, it seems most reasonable to assume that it is an effect of the physical medium that appears to control its function, i.e. the physical brain. Apparently, it cannot exist independently of its physical substrate. We certainly have no reasonable evidence that it can. Occam's Razor applies.

 

[Storm]

You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

No, I was using an example to clarify as requested. I don't believe in souls.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually there is a fourth alternative, that being:

4) God exists and is effectively indifferent to our awareness of It or, in fact, our capacity to be aware of It.​

​

I think that (3) adequately covers this supposition. Indifference would count as a reason for not contacting humans.

 

[Copernicus]

No, I was using an example to clarify as requested. I don't believe in souls.

But you do believe in minds, don't you? I avoided the term "soul" because of its vagueness. We all have minds, and a sensorium makes up a large part of what we mean by "mind".

 

[Storm]

But you do believe in minds, don't you?

Yes. I also reject materialism.

We all have minds, and a sensorium makes up a large part of what we mean by "mind".

Granted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[/INDENT]I think that (3) adequately covers this supposition. Indifference would count as a reason for not contacting humans.

Word games ...

 

[Copernicus]

Yes. I also reject materialism.

That is your prerogative, but you do believe in the material world, and you can see the connection between the physical brain and the mind, right? My point was that the simplest inference to draw from evidence of the mind-body connection is that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence. We have no evidence that minds can exist independently of physical brains. We do have evidence that mental functions are directly caused by brain function.

 

[Storm]

That is your prerogative, but you do believe in the material world, and you can see the connection between the physical brain and the mind, right?

Of course.

My point was that the simplest inference to draw from evidence of the mind-body connection is that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence.

The simplest, perhaps, but not the best.

We have no evidence that minds can exist independently of physical brains. We do have evidence that mental functions are directly caused by brain function.

No, we have evidence that they correlate.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...
I propose a different take on the big bang idea.

The singularity that scientists are so fond of is often described as small.
I go one step further....it has no geometry at all.

For the singularity to be truly singular...there can be no other point.
Without a secondary point there can be no line drawn.
No line drawn...no axial line...no rotation...no equilateral plane.
No height ..no width ...no length.
No spinning allowed.

But wait!!!!!

As the bang takes hold....the laws of motion would be there.
As the substance of the universe expands, all of it...I do mean ALL of it.
would proceed equally in all directions.....uniformly.
All you would see in an ever expanding hollow sphere.

But wait again!!!! That's not what we see when we look up.

Go back to the beginning...participate...
As the singularity is about to expand...take it between your finger and thumb, and give it a good hard 'snap'.
As the substance takes off, the rotation you induced will cause the spirals...the orbits....and rotations.

Without the snap of God's fingers the universe would be an ever expanding hollow sphere of energy.
Without His influence there be no kind of nonlinear motion.

I wrote a similar piece under "Snap".

Also at another forum called ControversialForums.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The singularity that scientist are so fond of is often described as small. I go one step further....it has no geometry at all.

Not all opinions are created equal.

 

[Willamena]

My point was that the simplest inference to draw from evidence of the mind-body connection is that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence.

Actually, the introduction of a "connection" means it's not the simplest.