Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Subduction Zone]

Are you aware that Einstein taught that space and time are the same thing and not different things as it might appear to us in our mammalian relationship to space and time? If space and time are the same thing, and if, as Einstein further stated the case, past and future are stubborn illusions, then some persons in this forum might be too comfortable with the mammalian brain's childish perception of the world to step out into the reality Einstein propounded, a reality that justifies everything Jesus and Paul said long before Einstein co-opted it for fleeting scientific fame and fortune rather than everlasting glory.

The world will be around forever. And you'll be around to observe it. The only question being the prism through which you get to see it? From the mammal mind it will be hell. From the human mind heaven.



John

No, you simply have a poor understanding of space time.

 

[dybmh]

Mine was not an argument for ambivalence about "God" or anything else. It was a response to your comment, "the "only physical things exist" argument against God doesn't work without further elaboration." I provided that elaboration.

Your elobaration was an unanswered question ending in, why should I care. I'm paraphrasing. But that's not elaborating on the argument against God because "only physical things exist". An unanswered question does not add anything to an argument against.

 

[Ostronomos]

The mind is no more than an illusion resulting from brain activity. It is not physical, and so cannot expand or contract.

Alas, I think that God will have to come all the way to me, if he wishes to meet me.

In actuality it is materialism that is the illusion and mind only APPEARS illusory.

 

[Zwing]

In actuality it is materialism that is the illusion and mind only APPEARS illusory.

Well, speaking from the objective standpoint (my comments above were made from the subjective standpoint, which is helpful in normal discourse), my belief is that everything that we perceive is illusiory, both physical objects and non-physical phenomena, but all those illusions have an ultimate basis in a non-perceivable absolute reality. As such they “exist”, but the illusion is in our perception of them, the way that we perceive them is illusiory. The thing about phenomena like “the mind”, though, which are subjective non-physical manifestations of subjectively physical phenomena, is that they represent illusions within illusions, or rather illusions based upon illusions, for they are but manifestations of physical phenomena, and the physical phenomena upon which they are based are illusiory themselves. Point is, something cannot have a greater degree of reality than that of which it is a manifestation. How could it? If the substrate is illusiory, then the manifestation must be illusiory to the same or a greater degree. What do you think of that? Can you think of any possible exceptions thereto?

 

[Heyo]

For myself, I think Divine Hiddenness is probably the best argument. If God exists, cares about us, wants us to know she's there...where the hell is she? Why doesn't she clearly communicate? Etc.

What is the difference between "no evidence" and "divine hiddenness"?

 

[Heyo]

Oh, I see. But God is generally not understood to be physical, so I'm not sure that applies.

Even if a god were non physical, for it to be omnipotent, it would need to be able to exert infinite power in the physical realm. Infinite power can't exist in the physical realm as it would need infinite energy which would fold spacetime into a black hole. Omnipotence is physically (and logically) impossible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Correct but just as a believer sees evidence for a God, i see evidence against a god. Not proof, but evidence. My E=MC2 argument is (to me) one piece of that evidence.

But seemingly not for Einstein, who saw "in the orderly harmony of what exists", evidence for Spinoza's pantheistic God.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The mind is a physical process involving both matter & energy (chemical & electrical).

While the mind may be dependent on, or emergent from, electro-chemical activity in the brain, it self-evidently cannot be reduced to those things, without something (indeed, perhaps everything) significant being lost. The experience of being conscious and aware is a phenomenon in itself; a phenomenon of almost infinite complexity and depth. Further, it is only in the mind that activity in the central nervous system can be observed at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

While the mind may be dependent on, or emergent from, electro-chemical activity in the brain, it self-evidently cannot be reduced to those things, without something (indeed, perhaps everything) significant being lost. The experience of being conscious and aware is a phenomenon in itself; a phenomenon of almost infinite complexity and depth. Further, it is only in the mind that activity in the central nervous system can be observed at all.

This continues to be a vague 'arguing from ignorance' which is a common approach of those that argue that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of a physical process. The argument from the perspective of unanswered questions and the apparent complexity of consciousness is not a meaningful argument. The argument from the perspective of 'complexity' resembles the argument by 'Intelligent Design' which advocates for the necessity of God, and the necessity of 'Dualism' to explain consciousness;

The bold above is problematic. At present the present knowledge of science has an adequate explanation for the origin of consciousness despite the unanswered questions and apparent complexity.

There is no other alternative explanation for consciousness that fits the current knowledge of science.

 

[Revoltingest]

While the mind may be dependent on, or emergent from, electro-chemical activity in the brain, it self-evidently cannot be reduced to those things, without something (indeed, perhaps everything) significant being lost. The experience of being conscious and aware is a phenomenon in itself; a phenomenon of almost infinite complexity and depth. Further, it is only in the mind that activity in the central nervous system can be observed at all.

The brain has a very complex structure with
many billions of neurons & connections.
So it's reasonable to see that such complexity
could host human thought.
When certain parts are damaged, we can observe
that certain elements of the mind are damaged too.
This correspondence points to the brain as the
origin of thought.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the difference between "no evidence" and "divine hiddenness"?

Divine Hiddenness is a common argument for the apparent lack of involvement of the Biblical 'Hands on' Biblical God in today's world, and the basis for 'Intelligent Design' arguing that the complexity of life and consciousness is an argument for the necessity of God and the 'Dualism' of the physical brain and consciousness.

In terms of consciousness the claim of 'no evidence' translates into the fact that, yes there are unanswered questions and complexity, and therefore the assertion is science cannot explain consciousness.

Science has the foundation knowledge of the origin of consciousness from the physical brain throughout the animal kingdom with an organized nervous system and brain,

 

[shunyadragon]

But seemingly not for Einstein, who saw "in the orderly harmony of what exists", evidence for Spinoza's pantheistic God.

Seemingly?!?!? Spinoza's pantheistic God is just another version of simply a natural existence based on Natural Laws. Einstein specifically rejected the existence of a supernatural God.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This continues to be a vague 'arguing from ignorance' which is a common approach of those that argue that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of a physical process. The argument from the perspective of unanswered questions and the apparent complexity of consciousness is not a meaningful argument. The argument from the perspective of 'complexity' resembles the argument by 'Intelligent Design' which advocates for the necessity of God, and the necessity of 'Dualism' to explain consciousness;

The bold above is problematic. At present the present knowledge of science has an adequate explanation for the origin of consciousness despite the unanswered questions and apparent complexity.

There is no other alternative explanation for consciousness that fits the current knowledge of science.

The brain has a very complex structure with
many billions of neurons & connections.
So it's reasonable to see that such complexity
could host human thought.
When certain parts are damaged, we can observe
that certain elements of the mind are damaged too.
This correspondence points to the brain as the
origin of thought.

You both miss the point about reductionism. If you analyse a phenomenon examining only it’s constituent parts, you miss the significance of the whole. A painting is more than an arrangement of pigment on paper.

 

[Revoltingest]

You both miss the point about reductionism.

I didn't miss it.
I just find it irrelevant because it doesn't
recognize that emergent properties of
complex systems are more than just the
sum of parts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I didn't miss it.
I just find it irrelevant because it doesn't
recognize that emergent properties of
complex systems are more than just the
sum of parts.

That’s precisely what you miss when you suggest that consciousness can be understood entirely as a function of electro chemical activity in the brain.

 

[John D. Brey]

The great skeptic Karl Popper showed why we should be skeptical of skepticism if we're true skeptics. When he became skeptical of skepticism is when he began to veer dangerously close to justifying theological faith. It's quite remarkable and sad how little anyone has understood or remarked on Popper's inadvertent justification of theological faith and revelation as found in his Conjectures and Refutations.

Have you ever practiced true skepticism by being skeptical of skepticism?

Irrationalism is logically superior to uncritical rationalism . . . critical rationalism . . . recognizes the fact that the fundamental rationalists attitude results from an act of faith - faith in reason.​

​

Karl Popper, The Defense of Rationalism (1945).​

John

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s precisely what you miss when you suggest that consciousness can be understood entirely as a function of electro chemical activity in the brain.

There is no testable alternative explanation.
And the bio-electro-chemical model is
testable, & has yielded fascinating results.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There is no testable alternative explanation.
And the bio-electro-chemical model is
testable, & has yielded fascinating results.

I’m not suggesting an alternative model. I’m saying that a purely physical explanation of the mind is by definition incomplete. You cannot reduce that which is mental entirely to the physical, without losing something vital - the experience of being aware, of looking out from within, at a world we perceive in our minds.

The reverse is also true btw. While we cannot even conceive of the existence of the brain and it’s functions independently of the mind (because it is in the mind, and only in the mind, that conceptions are manifested), to reduce the physical to the mental, as idealists do, is to completely abandon external, mind-independent reality. Thus we slip into the intolerable despair of solipsism.

So we arrive at the point where mind and body, consciousness and objective physical reality, are interdependent. But these two cannot ever be entirely reconciled, nor can the thinking person ever be at ease in the material world, without developing a conscious awareness of the spirit.

 

[Zwing]

You cannot reduce that which is mental entirely to the physical, without losing something vital - the experience of being aware, of looking out from within, at a world we perceive in our minds.

I think that we can. Being aware is merely the result of sensation, as is the awareness of “ looking out from within”. We perceive reality subjectively because of the limitations of our sensory organs, and the fact that we perceive a subjective version of the universe, which we call “the world”, lends support to the thesis that the mind is merely the result of physiological processes. If we each possessed within us an incorporeal entity called “my mind”, and that entity was capable of perceiving things separate from the anatomy and physiology of our bodies, then surely that perception would not be limited by the physiological insufficiencies of our bodies, and we would each have a much more objective view of reality. In essence, the subjective “world” would much more closely resemble the objective “universe”. The fact that there is a huge gulf between the subjective world and the objective universe would seem to mean that our minds are purely the product of the perceptions of our sensory organs and the analysis performed upon those perceptions by our brains.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m not suggesting an alternative model. I’m saying that a purely physical explanation of the mind is by definition incomplete.

By what definition from whom?

You cannot reduce that which is mental entirely to the physical, without losing something vital - the experience of being aware, of looking out from within, at a world we perceive in our minds.

If I read you correctly, a question....
Who says a system is no more than the sum of its components?
What's the basis for this?

The reverse is also true btw. While we cannot even conceive of the existence of the brain and it’s functions independently of the mind....

I disagree that this is a problem.
It's not been demonstrated.

(because it is in the mind, and only in the mind, that conceptions are manifested), to reduce the physical to the mental, as idealists do, is to completely abandon external, mind-independent reality. Thus we slip into the intolerable despair of solipsism.

I don't understand this.

So we arrive at the point where mind and body, consciousness and objective physical reality, are interdependent. But these two cannot ever be entirely reconciled, nor can the thinking person ever be at ease in the material world, without developing a conscious awareness of the spirit.

Or this.