The PC proves Kant was right about God!

[lilithu]

I wanted to respond to your answer, but I couldnt even prove that your answer exists, much less trust your sesne data.

lol!

solipsism proves only one thing, avoidance of the subject. And using solipsism to prove god (not that Im suggesting that is what you are doing) doesnt work.

No, not doing that. Actually I don't understand how solipsism could prove God or even appear to do so. (And even tho I am an unapologetic theist, I do not believe that there is any possible proof of God.)

All knowledge of all "known" human gods and goddesses was received through your senses from other peoples senses. In other words, atheism and materialism is THE default position of life.

No. I would agree that materialism and possibly even atheism may be the most logical positions on life. Define default. Define atheism. Are we talking weak or strong here? And why do so many people believe in God?

Trust me, I am not trying to "prove" that God exists by arguing that lots of people believe in God. That is a ridiculously weak argument. I am taking issue only with your statement that it's the "default" position of life, and wondering what that means. What implications does it have? What agenda does it further? Not that I expect you to answer that last one.

Its quite simple actually. And if a solipsist actually beleived his philosophy, he would not argue it...because he would not trust his, or anybody elses sense data.:banghead3

Too true! So what is the point of this argument? If either one of us is a solipsist, at least one of us would not be typing, and if neither one of us is, then the argument is irrelevant.

(The internet does not give tone of voice, so I hope that you know that I quite enjoyed your post!)

 

[linwood]

I am taking issue only with your statement that it's the "default" position of life, and wondering what that means.

I think the good Reverend is saying that all animals/humans are born without a belief or even knowledge of an deity.

Therefore atheism is the "default" position.

Again, I could be wrong.

I`m not actually going to join this discussion I`ll just translate instead.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

lol!(And even tho I am an unapologetic theist, I do not believe that there is any possible proof of God.)

Dosent that make you an atheist, sometimes this whole supernatural/god talk is VERY confussing to me. If there is no proof for your gods existence, then why do you think it exists? Because you were trained to beleive it without question? This is what I mean by atheism being a default position. Theism MUST be taught in order for its philosophy to thrive...atheism is natural, automatic, instinctive, and genetic. Theism... through fear, politics, and tradition..has managed to demonize this rational and natural outlook with un-natural (i.e. supernatural) talk that has no materialistic basis in the real world.

No. I would agree that materialism and possibly even atheism may be the most logical positions on life. Define default. Define atheism. Are we talking weak or strong here? And why do so many people believe in God?

Materialism IS atheism to me. Atheism is the reaction of the materialist towards theism. I dont break up atheism into the weak and strong.I see no point in doing so. Atheism is a reaction to me. If there are no theists around, then I am just a materialist

Trust me, I am not trying to "prove" that God exists by arguing that lots of people believe in God. That is a ridiculously weak argument. I am taking issue only with your statement that it's the "default" position of life, and wondering what that means. What implications does it have? What agenda does it further? Not that I expect you to answer that last one. Too true! So what is the point of this argument? If either one of us is a solipsist, at least one of us would not be typing, and if neither one of us is, then the argument is irrelevant. (The internet does not give tone of voice, so I hope that you know that I quite enjoyed your post!)

an argument that lots of people beleive in gods (and goddesses) are one of atheisms biggest proofs that all theism is bunk. How many gods and goddesses do the hindu's worship? millions! How many of them do you beleive in? how many of them have evidence that they exist? yet, if you dont beleive in any of those gods and goddesses for that reason, then why do you beleive in your god? This is what Im getting at with the default argument. ALL biological life is born atheistic/materialistic. Yet, only humans are the ones that we know of to break this natural cycle. If you were born in India, the chances of you being forced into being a hinud is far greater than you being forced into being a Hindu in North America. In North America, parents force their children to beleive that Yahweh is real, and the Hindu gods are not real. In India, parents force their children to beleive that the Hindu pantheon is real, and that the Christian mythology is not real. The agenda it has, and the implications that it furthers is what you make of it. The materialistic aproach to life is quite simple. The meaning of life is the meaning that you give to life. I woulod normally say survival because this is one of the strongest instincts in biological matter.

I also agree with the meaning of argueing solipsism; "whats the point?"..LOL, sometimes I come across the argument, and I have my self a good ole time joking it like I did above.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

I am taking issue only with your statement that it's the "default" position of life, and wondering what that means.

I think the good Reverend is saying that all animals/humans are born without a belief or even knowledge of an deity.

Therefore atheism is the "default" position.

Again, I could be wrong.

I`m not actually going to join this discussion I`ll just translate instead.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean by default position. You hit the nail right on the head.

A= without
theism= belief in divinity (such as gods, goddesses, invisible allpowerful unicorns)

Therefore, all humans are born atheist...the default position!

 

[martha]

Ok Sondadareas, I am going to try to grasp this whole concept.Mind you now, I am not an educated person and I think I will have to defer to my brother's and sister's posts on this topic. In any event, please allow someone who is basically dumb as a stump to try to figure your theory out. By the way I am a catholic christian who totally believes in God and His awesome power to create. On the other hand I am open to discussion of other people's views, knowledge and wisdom. In the end, I seek the truth. I can understand your joy at what you perceive to be your answer. It is a very special moment when we think we "have it". Here goes.

You say the OW triggers the experience, yes? It is the only reality we can experience since there is no definitive proof of God. In other words, down through the ages since the beginning of the written word and perhaps before, we have tried to explain our existance. Unfortunately the only evidence is of our own making due to the OW, yes? I present this for your consideration: where did the original thoughts of the OW come from? Are you following me? Where was the first spark of questioning? In other words , who was the first being to say to himself, " Why am I here?" " Why do I exist?"
If we create our own reality, why would we, (or learned minds) even consider a creator? Why isn't it that we wouldn't have followed a path of thinking that we are the absolute? You are saying that this vessel, (our body) that holds our reality is purely subjective to the OW? How did the OW evolve? Where is the Outside World's beginning. Do you really think that all of the great thinkers of the universe down throught the ages were stupid?, or making these feelings up? I've got a feeling that you are going to say Yes.
In my humble opinion there are a great many enlightened ones who have experienced existance in this life and who have come to some astounding conclusions. I cannot discount their wisdom. As for myself, I have experienced the tangible touch of God in my life, it was totally unexpected and not something I sought after. I know what I know, within my experience. I truly do not believe it was directed by the OW.
Gosh I feel as though I have babbled on a wee bit. The bottom line is, I understand your theory about the OW and the PC, but the PC does not have a soul, I believe we do. A PC cannot comprehend it's existance,no matter how much data is input from the OW, it cannot question the meaning of it's life. We can.

Respectfully yours,
Martha
P.S. Have patience with me Sondadareas and all of my lovely brothers and sisters, I was only trying to understand this thread.

 

[BUDDY]

You got it! The PC think it's God!

Then the printer thinks it's jesus and the modem is the holy spirit? Are the function keys the twelve apostles? Wait a minute....I think we got something here.

 

[sondadareas]

Hi to ALL!

WOW!!!! I'm overwhelm! Why are you replying like this? Someone wrote a book titled 'Homo Religiosus' & his idea was homosapiens=homo-religiosus
which means we are religious whether we are theist or atheist!

OK, I'll try again...but it's really best if you learn how to build your own PC & program it TO KNOW THE WORLD!

OK..this is my last explanation & post! Because I believe in Spinoza. He wrote that, whether we are a theist or atheist we live within God!
Before, I believed that God is within everyone but now I believe that
WE ARE IN GOD! ( Unlike a PC, I have a soft brain - I'm changeable!)

MY LAST TRY AS A PHILOSOPHER (!) :

Imagine that you are 3 feet from a red apple. However, 20 feet away is an extremely sexy person; your gaze is immediately drawn to this wonderful creation. But you are extremely hungry, so you avert your staring, & look at the apple for 5 seconds.
Now imagine you only have one eye! That means you have only one optic nerve working, & that's adequate for our scenario. Now, this nerve has
100,000,000 wires going to your visual cortex, your part of the brain dealing with vision.
During those 5 seconds you look at the apple, photons of light streamed off the apple & entered your eye. In response, your eye produced electrical pulses & these pulses are the input to your visual cortex,
not those photons. Let's call this 5-seconds pulses, AP.
When AP was received by your visual cortex it synthesized it into a red apple in your mind's eye! It's a miracle! This is year 2005 yet nobody knows how the brain turns electrical pulses into a vision of a red apple!

Now the last part!

Take away that apple! Take away your eye surgically for half an hour!
Then connect those 100,000,000 cables to a machine that can mimic those pulses, AP. So, what happens when your visual cortex gets the very same AP for 5 seconds? It has no choice except to synthesize AP into a vision of the red apple!!

 

[lilithu]

Dosent that make you an atheist, sometimes this whole supernatural/god talk is VERY confussing to me. If there is no proof for your gods existence, then why do you think it exists?

There are many things that humans believe without proof. As Hume pointed out, there is no logical reason to believe that the sun will continue to "rise" each morning, and yet we do. Often times, we believe what we believe and then justify it with "proof" after the fact, rather than the other way around.

Because you were trained to beleive it without question?

Nah, there was a time in my life when I did not believe. I did not take the philosophical position that there is no God; I was simply as you say, a materialist. God was not an issue. And this was after I had questioned and rejected what I had been taught as a child. I believe that God exists because I believe that I have experienced God. I don't say that as any type of proof. It is not proof. A materialist would look for another explanation. Perhaps I've been delusional, or its some type of wish fulfillment, or whatever. I can accept that you might think this. It's perfectly reasonable. But I personally chose to believe that it is God rather than to believe that I am occasionally delusional, etc.

This is what I mean by atheism being a default position. Theism MUST be taught in order for its philosophy to thrive...atheism is natural, automatic, instinctive, and genetic. Theism... through fear, politics, and tradition.. has managed to demonize this rational and natural outlook with un-natural (i.e. supernatural) talk that has no materialistic basis in the real world.

This is where I disagree with you. It is true that the dogmas of theism must be taught. The trinity of Christianity. The unity of Islam. The Atman of Hinduism. The Anatman of Buddhism. (ok, anatman isn't really theistic but it is still an unsubstantiated truth assertion) These things must be taught. But the feeling that there is god, or something more than this material world, something mysterious and transcendent - that feeling does not need to be taught. That feeling is the impetus for religion before it gets formalized into religion. I experienced that feeling as a child before I was taught anything about religion. Again, I am not offering this as proof of God. It could be that we're hard-wired for this religiosity. Perhaps it is biologically adaptive. I'm simply questioning the idea that atheism is the "default" position. If you mean that newborn infants are all non-theists, I would probably have to concede that point. But I think that theism (in a very general sense) arises naturally in humans. (That of course does not make it true.)

Materialism IS atheism to me. Atheism is the reaction of the materialist towards theism. I dont break up atheism into the weak and strong.I see no point in doing so. Atheism is a reaction to me. If there are no theists around, then I am just a materialist

OK.

an argument that lots of people beleive in gods (and goddesses) are one of atheisms biggest proofs that all theism is bunk. How many gods and goddesses do the hindu's worship? millions! How many of them do you beleive in? how many of them have evidence that they exist? yet, if you dont beleive in any of those gods and goddesses for that reason, then why do you beleive in your god? This is what Im getting at with the default argument. ALL biological life is born atheistic/materialistic. Yet, only humans are the ones that we know of to break this natural cycle. If you were born in India, the chances of you being forced into being a hinud is far greater than you being forced into being a Hindu in North America. In North America, parents force their children to beleive that Yahweh is real, and the Hindu gods are not real. In India, parents force their children to believe that the Hindu pantheon is real, and that the Christian mythology is not real. The agenda it has, and the implications that it furthers is what you make of it.

Yes, I agree with you. The way that we view God is culturally dependent. Whether we believe in a thousand devas or one transcendent nameless One. (Tho I hope you realize that Hinduism, while it has many devas - gods with a little "g" - it still believes in the one Param-Atman or Brahman - God with a big "G" - that is the source of all.) However, the fact that theists can't agree on the nature of God is not proof that God does not exist. It does strongly suggest that we ought to be circumspect about claiming to know the "truth."

The theist-atheist dichotomy artificially makes it sound like there are two camps, like the Dems and the Republicans and one of them is in disarray. Instead, I believe that there are many ways to view reality from one god to no gods to two gods to many gods, etc. Have you seen how the Pagans talk about the Christians and vice versa? Do you think that they really think that they have more in common with each other than with you? Your worldview is just one of many possible worldviews to me, and I don't see your worldview as being more different from mine than say George Bush's just because he and I both choose to identify as "theists." Rather, the biggest distinction that I see is between people who can accept that there are differences and people who need to prove that their beliefs are right.

The materialistic aproach to life is quite simple. The meaning of life is the meaning that you give to life.

Yeah, sure. I have no problem with that. In addition to being a theist, I am an existentialist, so of course I believe that one must appropriate one's own meaning for oneself. But even for a materialist life is not necessarily simple (and for a theist, life is not necessarily complex). If it is up to you to give your life meaning, some atheists take that responsibility very seriously. And many theists don't take their own faiths very seriously. So there.

 

[michel]

Hi to ALL!

WOW!!!! I'm overwhelm! Why are you replying like this? Someone wrote a book titled 'Homo Religiosus' & his idea was homosapiens=homo-religiosus
which means we are religious whether we are theist or atheist!

OK, I'll try again...but it's really best if you learn how to build your own PC & program it TO KNOW THE WORLD!

OK..this is my last explanation & post! Because I believe in Spinoza. He wrote that, whether we are a theist or atheist we live within God!
Before, I believed that God is within everyone but now I believe that
WE ARE IN GOD! ( Unlike a PC, I have a soft brain - I'm changeable!)

MY LAST TRY AS A PHILOSOPHER (!) :

Imagine that you are 3 feet from a red apple. However, 20 feet away is an extremely sexy person; your gaze is immediately drawn to this wonderful creation. But you are extremely hungry, so you avert your staring, & look at the apple for 5 seconds.
Now imagine you only have one eye! That means you have only one optic nerve working, & that's adequate for our scenario. Now, this nerve has
100,000,000 wires going to your visual cortex, your part of the brain dealing with vision.
During those 5 seconds you look at the apple, photons of light streamed off the apple & entered your eye. In response, your eye produced electrical pulses & these pulses are the input to your visual cortex,
not those photons. Let's call this 5-seconds pulses, AP.
When AP was received by your visual cortex it synthesized it into a red apple in your mind's eye! It's a miracle! This is year 2005 yet nobody knows how the brain turns electrical pulses into a vision of a red apple!

Now the last part!

Take away that apple! Take away your eye surgically for half an hour!
Then connect those 100,000,000 cables to a machine that can mimic those pulses, AP. So, what happens when your visual cortex gets the very same AP for 5 seconds? It has no choice except to synthesize AP into a vision of the red apple!!

I disagree; I'm not into 'apples' and five second's worth of looking at the apple would be time 'illspent' for me; I'd concentrate on the extremely sexy person.
I have disproved your theory.Q.E.D
:jiggy:

 

[ness]

Then the printer thinks it's jesus and the modem is the holy spirit? Are the function keys the twelve apostles?

rotf

:jiggy:

 

[ness]

( Unlike a PC, I have a soft brain - I'm changeable!)

I can change my computer, I went from win me to win xp

I disagree; I'm not into 'apples' and five second's worth of looking at the apple would be time 'illspent' for me; I'd concentrate on the extremely sexy person.

I'm with michel on this one.. apples do nothing for me.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Hi to ALL!

WOW!!!! I'm overwhelm! Why are you replying like this? Someone wrote a book titled 'Homo Religiosus' & his idea was homosapiens=homo-religiosus
which means we are religious whether we are theist or atheist!

so somebody wrote a book to make himself feel better in the presence of atheist and theists who beleive in other forms of divinity than he does. Im not suprised at all. If you want to call atheism a religion, then you might as well call bald a hair color as well.

OK, I'll try again...but it's really best if you learn how to build your own PC & program it TO KNOW THE WORLD!!
OK..this is my last explanation & post! Because I believe in Spinoza. He wrote that, whether we are a theist or atheist we live within God!
Before, I believed that God is within everyone but now I believe that
WE ARE IN GOD! ( Unlike a PC, I have a soft brain - I'm changeable!)

I not only know how to build my own computer, but I also build and install robots, programmable logic controls, and high voltage installations for commercial and millitary contracts. Seen the new Ford f series truck yet? I helped install the new robotic production line for it. I took 5 years of electrical/logic/communications, and fiber optics classes in trade school. You are trying to tell me that there is a ghost in the machine, I disagree. and if Spinoza said what he said, it makes about as much sense as saying whether we are a theist or atheist we live within Goddess...or whether we are a theist or atheist we live within the invisible pink unicorn...or whether we are a theist or atheist we live within satan. There never will be ANY logical reason to believe in divinity just the same as their is no logical reason to beleive in imaginary friends when you are a child. Gods are anthropomorphic extensions to help comfort us in the midst of our own ignorance and fear of the unknown. I accept reality as is...so I need no immaginary friend to hold my hand during times of strife.

MY LAST TRY AS A PHILOSOPHER (!) :Imagine that you are 3 feet from a red apple. However, 20 feet away is an extremely sexy person; your gaze is immediately drawn to this wonderful creation. But you are extremely hungry, so you avert your staring, & look at the apple for 5 seconds.
Now imagine you only have one eye! That means you have only one optic nerve working, & that's adequate for our scenario. Now, this nerve has
100,000,000 wires going to your visual cortex, your part of the brain dealing with vision.
During those 5 seconds you look at the apple, photons of light streamed off the apple & entered your eye. In response, your eye produced electrical pulses & these pulses are the input to your visual cortex,
not those photons. Let's call this 5-seconds pulses, AP.
When AP was received by your visual cortex it synthesized it into a red apple in your mind's eye! It's a miracle! This is year 2005 yet nobody knows how the brain turns electrical pulses into a vision of a red apple!Now the last part!Take away that apple! Take away your eye surgically for half an hour!
Then connect those 100,000,000 cables to a machine that can mimic those pulses, AP. So, what happens when your visual cortex gets the very same AP for 5 seconds? It has no choice except to synthesize AP into a vision of the red apple!!

Its far, FAR from a miracle. A miracle is something that isnt supposed to naturally happen..yet you describe a natural occurance such as seeing an apple and title it as an super-natural occurance:tsk: . You also, without any evidence, suggest that the apple is created...created by whom? Biological evidence points toward apples evolving from simple elements through natural selection. And what does all of your technical talk prove anyways? That a single male, heterosexual divinity exists? How does one come to that conclusion and not to the single female, lesbian divinity without ANY materialistic evidence. What you described above is ultimately the strong anthropic/Idealistic argument, and it doesnt hold water at all! If you TRULY beleive that all of reality is just a synthesis in your brain matter, then lets test it...make the war in Iraq stop! Sense we are all just synthetic beings inside of you mind, stopping the war would be just as simple as changing your mind. I of course expect you to run from your own argument now...or claim that I misinterpretted it even though you CLEARLY stated that you brain has no choice but to synthesize reality. And ultimately, using your own words, you argue that the divinity that you beleive to exist is only a synthesis in your mind. Solipsism is a VERY slippery slope...slide on down it now.:banghead3

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

There are many things that humans believe without proof. As Hume pointed out, there is no logical reason to believe that the sun will continue to "rise" each morning, and yet we do. Often times, we believe what we believe and then justify it with "proof" after the fact, rather than the other way around.

Even though I wont get into the riseing and setting words, I will mention this. There is a VERY logical reason to beleive that the sun will "rise" every day..its called natural sciences, which will work regardless of belief. Belief is defined as assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses...So once you have facts, you no longer require belief. The fact is that the earth rotates around the sun regardless of belief.

Nah, there was a time in my life when I did not believe. I did not take the philosophical position that there is no God; I was simply as you say, a materialist. God was not an issue. And this was after I had questioned and rejected what I had been taught as a child. I believe that God exists because I believe that I have experienced God. I don't say that as any type of proof. It is not proof. A materialist would look for another explanation. Perhaps I've been delusional, or its some type of wish fulfillment, or whatever. I can accept that you might think this. It's perfectly reasonable. But I personally chose to believe that it is God rather than to believe that I am occasionally delusional, etc.

.

That still does not change anything regarding facts and evidences. How many other gods and goddesses do you NOT believe in?out of all of the gods and goddesses in the world, I am 100% atheist..you are 99% atheist..the only difference is one god. You make me laugh by saying my way is perfectly reasonable, but you still choose to beleive in your dillusions..LOL..you said it, not me..we will call it a freudian slip.

This is where I disagree with you. It is true that the dogmas of theism must be taught. The trinity of Christianity. The unity of Islam. The Atman of Hinduism. The Anatman of Buddhism. (ok, anatman isn't really theistic but it is still an unsubstantiated truth assertion) These things must be taught. But the feeling that there is god, or something more than this material world, something mysterious and transcendent - that feeling does not need to be taught. That feeling is the impetus for religion before it gets formalized into religion. I experienced that feeling as a child before I was taught anything about religion. Again, I am not offering this as proof of God. It could be that we're hard-wired for this religiosity. Perhaps it is biologically adaptive. I'm simply questioning the idea that atheism is the "default" position. If you mean that newborn infants are all non-theists, I would probably have to concede that point. But I think that theism (in a very general sense) arises naturally in humans. (That of course does not make it true.)

the feeling of Mystery is a natural feeling when confronted with the unknown..coming to the conclusion that their is an all powerful human god behind it all isnt. For the last three years of my sons life, I have yet to see one shred of god or goddess belief in him. Where your parents believers? There are no believers in THIS household, just as there is no inner feeling that there is a "god" behind the things we dont know...LOL..you havent even described what this god entity is other than something that you cannot know i.e. you are using words that admit non-knowledge to prove your knowledge of this "god" being..LOL. "He's mysterious"..LOL...that means you will never know what he is, but you are convinced that you know it. I dont see too many OTHER animals running around making up gods and goddesses..in fact, we are the only ones to do it. And each description of one persons god is far different from another persons god or goddess. not to mention that there are those who can see the divinity thing for what it is...wishful thinking...surely you can see this. I regard the "evidence" for the god question the same way I regard the evidence for the werewolf question..DO YOU?

Yes, I agree with you. The way that we view God is culturally dependent. Whether we believe in a thousand devas or one transcendent nameless One. (Tho I hope you realize that Hinduism, while it has many devas - gods with a little "g" - it still believes in the one Param-Atman or Brahman - God with a big "G" - that is the source of all.) However, the fact that theists can't agree on the nature of God is not proof that God does not exist. It does strongly suggest that we ought to be circumspect about claiming to know the "truth."The theist-atheist dichotomy artificially makes it sound like there are two camps, like the Dems and the Republicans and one of them is in disarray. Instead, I believe that there are many ways to view reality from one god to no gods to two gods to many gods, etc. Have you seen how the Pagans talk about the Christians and vice versa? Do you think that they really think that they have more in common with each other than with you? Your worldview is just one of many possible worldviews to me, and I don't see your worldview as being more different from mine than say George Bush's just because he and I both choose to identify as "theists." Rather, the biggest distinction that I see is between people who can accept that there are differences and people who need to prove that their beliefs are right.

I request that you go back and look up the definition of "false dichotomy", you will realize that it is not what you described it as. It is not a false dichotomy to compare theism to atheism, because if one is right-the other must logically be wrong. And If you truly believe in this universal god theory..then why do you never refer to this divinity as "goddess", or "it"..it is just more proof of you being programmed with the specific diety created from Judaic monotheism. If you HONESTLY believe that this divinity is universally known at birth, then lets test it..call your diety a "goddess" for the next week. When you post in this forum, be sure to type "goddess" instead of "god". Little "g" and big"G" is a petty part of the argument. If you beleive in the universal diety (dieties), then it is not a sin to do so..in fact, why not use the goddess terminology in your next reply to me and show me you believe that divinity is natural, instead of artificially taught. In fact, why not use the "natural" hindu divinity and say "Goddesses" or "Gods". If you cant do it, I understand, because it is contrary to the way you were taught to believe.

Yeah, sure. I have no problem with that. In addition to being a theist, I am an existentialist, so of course I believe that one must appropriate one's own meaning for oneself. But even for a materialist life is not necessarily simple (and for a theist, life is not necessarily complex). If it is up to you to give your life meaning, some atheists take that responsibility very seriously. And many theists don't take their own faiths very seriously. So there.

I agree

 

[sondadareas]

Hi solipsistic brothers & sisters!


Didn't I post, '...my brain is soft...so it's changeable() ?' I'm like this because of the totality of my hardware/ software nature, HSN! ( I just
love 'em abbreviations!)

So I'm posting again because I read people misunderstood my 'solipsism' which I should have defined but I didn't!

This is my meaning: (1) Each person, each animal, & each PC, can't help but 'look' or 'deal' with the OW from its Point of View, POV!
A person, an animal, a plant, or a PC are what I call CPT, Cpu (the brain!),
Program, & Transducer ( examples: keyboard in PC & tongues, in animals!)
(2) Each CPT has a personal space, PS! A CPT has no choice but to 'think'
that its PS is equal to the OW!
For instance, I could assign 20,000 bytes of memory to my robot & make this its PS. Now from the POV of an Outside Observer, OO this robot could intelligently maneuver inside, say, a 10' by' 10' terrain. But from the POV of
ASO, All Seeing Observer, the Cpu is merely bouncing binary patterns inside its electronics guts!

I hope, you sisters & brothers understand this: that you have no choice but to look at the OW from your POV. Whatever you love, think about...
anything...it's because of your total SHN!
If your SHN is such that your transducer responds to ultrasonics & you're brain is equiped with the proper software then most probably....you're a bat!

This philosophy, TS - Theistic Solipsism, has a humungous significance!
This means that if you're a theist, that's because of your total HSN
( Hey...let's make that THSN = Total Hardware/Software Nature! Yeees!)

& if you're an atheist - that's because of your THSN!

Now think, can you go against your THSN? Of course, not!

But this is what we are already seeing in this sorry world of ours, SWOO!

In this SWOO, one can be a Mother Teresa, picking up filthy dying people in the gutters of Calcutta, & washing their bodies before they die off!
Or in this FSWOO one can be a HITLER - killing & gassing millions of people!

The choice is yours - or in TS terms, you are You because You=THSN!

So, it doesn't really matters if you're an atheist or a theist; blame your THSN! Be humble & think... you could be a bat! or if your Cpu is really messed up, you could be 'deluded' & really believe in your heart you're...BATMAN!

Peace,
sondadareas

Don't you think I should start learning how to use these smileys? My posts
sorely need these smiles because TS explains why CPT+(humans!) smiles!

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Hi solipsistic brothers & sisters!Didn't I post, '...my brain is soft...so it's changeable() ?' I'm like this because of the totality of my hardware/ software nature, HSN! ( I just love 'em abbreviations!) So I'm posting again because I read people misunderstood my 'solipsism' which I should have defined but I didn't!
This is my meaning: (1) Each person, each animal, & each PC, can't help but 'look' or 'deal' with the OW from its Point of View, POV!A person, an animal, a plant, or a PC are what I call CPT, Cpu (the brain!),Program, & Transducer ( examples: keyboard in PC & tongues, in animals!) (2) Each CPT has a personal space, PS! A CPT has no choice but to 'think'that its PS is equal to the OW!For instance, I could assign 20,000 bytes of memory to my robot & make this its PS. Now from the POV of an Outside Observer, OO this robot could intelligently maneuver inside, say, a 10' by' 10' terrain. But from the POV of
ASO, All Seeing Observer, the Cpu is merely bouncing binary patterns inside its electronics guts!!

I have already stated my oppinion over this, and I will agree with you up to the point that you say (if you say) our sense are untrustworthy.

I hope, you sisters & brothers understand this: that you have no choice but to look at the OW from your POV. Whatever you love, think about...
anything...it's because of your total SHN!If your SHN is such that your transducer responds to ultrasonics & you're brain is equiped with the proper software then most probably....you're a bat!

I will agree with you that some small amounts of memory are genetic..sometimes refered to as instinctive...LOL...and Im pretty sure Im not a bat , thanks for helping out with that one..LOL.

This philosophy, TS - Theistic Solipsism, has a humungous significance!This means that if you're a theist, that's because of your total HSN
( Hey...let's make that THSN = Total Hardware/Software Nature! Yeees!)& if you're an atheist - that's because of your THSN!Now think, can you go against your THSN? Of course, not!!

Here is where you completely loose your argument, because I was once a VERY hard core beleiver in Christianity (until I read the entire bible and compared it to science, then I became an atheist)...according to your "theory", that should have never happen. Then again, according to your theory, sense the natural state of biological life is atheism, then people would not make up religions like Christianity of Hinduism with their millions of gods and goddesses if their "THSN" was hard wired. Furthermore, if you do beleive in theism..then you must also beleive in creationism 9or intelligent design). Which now begs the question...in your above quote, you basically say that beleivers and nonbeleivers are "created" that way. so what good is evangelism? What good is religious books like the bible, its supposed to be hard wired right? What good is trying to convince non-beleivers of your god if we are hardwired by your god not to beleive in your god? And if your god has an eternal punishment for us non-beleivers, then he created us to specifically be punished for eternity...something we never had choice, nor option to change about us? And what about other gods and goddesses? They all have their versions of heaven and hell..how do you know that the version of god "hard wired" in your brain is the right god, or that you have been hard wired to follow a false god. See, your argument is full of false dichotomies now, and is problematic at best. Do you not now see why the non-solipsistic philosophy of atheism/materialism is the only rational approach to this problem...all gods are imaginary..and all biological life is default atheistic...it is only the human ego, inspired by fear and ignorance that creates divinity.

But this is what we are already seeing in this sorry world of ours, SWOO!In this SWOO, one can be a Mother Teresa, picking up filthy dying people in the gutters of Calcutta, & washing their bodies before they die off!Or in this FSWOO one can be a HITLER - killing & gassing millions of people!The choice is yours - or in TS terms, you are You because You=THSN!So, it doesn't really matters if you're an atheist or a theist; blame your THSN! Be humble & think... you could be a bat! or if your Cpu is really messed up, you could be 'deluded' & really believe in your heart you're...BATMAN!
Peace,
sondadareas!!

There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was a catholic, in fact I have devoted a webpage on my site to this (http://www.reverendjeremiah.com/antisemitism.htm ) Sense for some reason, Christians want to blame the atrocities of their fellow Christians on us atheists. Hitler was of the same religion as mother Teresa as well.Was mother Teresa opposed to birthcontrol? Yes..did she use her political influence to stop the access of condoms? Yes! How many people got infected with aids because she fought against their right to protect themselves from disease? How many children became pragnant because of the catholics church personal vendeta against choice? I personally dont like Hitler OR Mother Terresa, I can also find good and bad things that both of them have done. Hitler pulled Germany out of the brink of bankruptcy to almost conquer the entirety of europe. Theists always seem to have a problem with duality when they are speaking..everything has to be black or white..when in reality, there are MANY shades of whits, black, AND gray!

Now, to your argument, why do you say one is bad and the other is good? Your creator which gave us our "TSHN" is all knowing and perfect! He programmed Hitler to kill off all of those Jews, Homosexuals and atheists in the gas chambers.So why do you try to make Hitler look bad...or the whole world in that matter...according to your own words..and I quote..

can you go against your THSN? Of course, not!

So..not only do you think that everybody is created to be the way that the creator wants them to be, but that the world is in a sorry condition because of it!...:sarcastic This argument of yours is just plain SILLY!..how can a perfect being create anything OTHER than perfection? Why would millions of gods and goddesses create the ...oh yeah, you dont beleive that there are millions of gods and goddesse like the hindu's because YOUR god programmed their "THSN" that way..???...This is just a modern version of the argument of predestination..which is so full of holes that theists tend to stay away from it. Look above your quotes, look how easily I picked apart your argument to show it what it really is.. a product of your imagination. I expect that you will run away from my good question, even though I answered all of yours. in fact, I expect you to abandon this entire thread like they did over at the "firmament of genesis" thread. The christians started it, but were unable to finish it with contradicting themselves.

 

[Faust]

The computer was created to be an extension of our brain. It has become an extension of our senses. Even using my computer, I can not logically accept God, nor can I sense one.

Faust.

 

[sondadareas]

Hi to all!


Martha's questions deserve a deeper treatment because they really focus on the issues:

1. If the OW merely triggers the inner subjective states within the PC or biological organisms, HOW & from WHERE those subjective states came to exist in the first place?

2. Why do we, as humans, ask, Why I am here?

3. What about those ancient religious sages who claimed to have been enlightened?

4. Why did she, Martha had her own conversion or mystical awakening?

ANSWERS:

1. In the PC those inner states have been programmed to trigger in a very precise way ( a tiny bit of hardware or software bug is enough to crash the system!). By whom? By PC designers & programmers, of course!
In organisms, including humans, those inner realities have been put their by creation or evolution - take your pick!
For instance, when I & my dog look at an uncooked red steak the concept RED is triggered within my CONS ( consciousness) then I project it out into the OW (which is, anyway, my own creation), but in my dog this isn't triggered! He, like all dogs, doesn't have the THSN ( Total Harware/software nature!) dealing with colors. His eyes lack cones. These cells are sensitive to different light frequencies, not colors. When they are stimulated by lights they respond by sending electrical pulses into the visual cortex, where these pulses are turn into colors, only within CONS.,
that is.

It is extremely hard for us to really understand it, & it took me years! When it's bright sunlit day the OW is not bright! Out there is just lots of photons flying around! When it's dark, like night, out there - it's merely fewer photons flying! A bright colorful world or a dark world are images we create in our minds, which we then project 'out there!'

This is the reason why, after decades of research - we cannot decipher the languages of apes, dolphins, & whales, despite them having large brains & they're 'talkative' to one another, inta-species, I mean. The plain reason is that they think differently, not anthropically!

2. We humans ask, Why are we here? - & that's because Somebody put that question in our CONS! The best analogy, is why each of us is eternally looking for our soulmate? The answer is, a person is not complete until she/he communes with her/his other half. Then, it's not even perfect because we will still feel incomplete because we yearn for the final communion with our SOURCE!

3. Those ancients weren't deluded, Martha - they saw the LIGHT , within them!

4. Martha had a conversion experience or a mystical awakening. This is really the whole point here. There's a saying, ' The Spirit Blows Where She
Wills !' If the God-spot in your brain gets stirred up you'll feel mystical,
if not, you'll feel atheistic. Or in TS terms your THSN makes you!

Peace,

sondadareas

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Some of your answer I agree with, some are loaded.

#1 is quite silly actually, Why not as "how am I here?" or "Who am I here?"..a question is a question. period. The existence of a question is not proof of solipsism or divinity...only lack of current knowledge. And your answer is even more silly..
#2 soulmate?! LOL! What is a soul? What does it look like? Where is it located on or in your body? How much does it weigh? I just really think you are trying hard to load these answers..LOL...for example, You make it a point to state that humans ask why are we here. But when you get to your supernatural explanation (soul mates), you dont even question that. And sense this "programmer" that you speak of (who has obviously done some shoddy programming I might add) is a "mysterious" enigma to you..then how do you know that your soulmate isnt the dog you were speaking of in question #1...LOL. What if my soulmate is a rock?..lol, Native Americans believe that a spirit resides in everything...then it should be possible according to your supernatural answers..LOL.
Thats about the strangest excuse for intelligent design I have ever heard. When I program robots and logic controls..I dont program QUESTIONS, I program KNOWLEDGE in their "brains". #2 is just your attempt at a thinnly veiled excuse to explain why all humans dont agree on the same imaginary "intelligent designer" as the other. And dont even get me started on your mention of the source..LOL.
#3- I agree, and #4 will tell you why I agree..
#4- That is where some modern research is pointing..to a certain "god spot" in your brain that helps your immagination to make otherwise impossible qualities seem possible to you..and they jokingly call it the god spot. It send endorphins throughout your brain when activated, so you can honestly say that "god" is an addiction, spread through memes, that needs to be cured.

 

[lilithu]

Even though I wont get into the riseing and setting words, I will mention this. There is a VERY logical reason to beleive that the sun will "rise" every day..its called natural sciences, which will work regardless of belief. Belief is defined as assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses...So once you have facts, you no longer require belief. The fact is that the earth rotates around the sun regardless of belief.

Hume was not disputing matters of natural science. He fully understood that the earth rotates around the sun, which is not, btw, the reason why the sun appears to rise and set each day. The sun's apparent motion across the earth is due to the earth's rotation on its own axis. Anyway, Hume's point is that built into our belief that the sun will continue to rise each morning is the assumption that natural law will continue to operate the way that it has in the past. You may argue that that's a perfectly reasonable assumption. I for one use that assumption every day. But Hume argued that there was no logical way to conclude that things will be the way they are in the future just because they've always been the way they are in the past.

And my original point is still this, we humans believe a helluvalot of things that we can't prove. Hume's argument was only meant to be an example.

That still does not change anything regarding facts and evidences. How many other gods and goddesses do you NOT believe in?out of all of the gods and goddesses in the world, I am 100% atheist..you are 99% atheist..the only difference is one god.

If I believe in one god and you believe in no gods and someone else believes in one hundred gods, as you say the difference between you and me is one god and the difference between me and the third person is 99 gods. It seems to me that you are arguing here against yourself below. If a theist can be "99% atheist," it seems to me that you are arguing against the importance of the theist-atheist dichotomy.

You make me laugh by saying my way is perfectly reasonable, but you still choose to beleive in your dillusions..LOL..you said it, not me..we will call it a freudian slip.

No, I said that it was perfectly reasonable for you to consider my beliefs to be delusions. I do not consider my own beliefs to be delusional.

the feeling of Mystery is a natural feeling when confronted with the unknown..coming to the conclusion that their is an all powerful human god behind it all isnt. For the last three years of my sons life, I have yet to see one shred of god or goddess belief in him. Where your parents believers? There are no believers in THIS household, just as there is no inner feeling that there is a "god" behind the things we dont know...LOL..you havent even described what this god entity is other than something that you cannot know i.e. you are using words that admit non-knowledge to prove your knowledge of this "god" being..LOL. "He's mysterious"..LOL...that means you will never know what he is, but you are convinced that you know it. I dont see too many OTHER animals running around making up gods and goddesses..in fact, we are the only ones to do it. And each description of one persons god is far different from another persons god or goddess. not to mention that there are those who can see the divinity thing for what it is...wishful thinking...surely you can see this. I regard the "evidence" for the god question the same way I regard the evidence for the werewolf question..DO YOU?

I've already stated that my parents were not and are not believers. As for the rest of the above paragraph...

I request that you go back and look up the definition of "false dichotomy",

Reverend, I thought that you would be fun to talk to because you seemed to have a sense of humour about the argument. You seem to be losing that, and now laughing at someone who views the world differently from the way that you do. I must confess that I have little patience for that. And I have even less patience for being talked down to.

It is not a false dichotomy to compare theism to atheism, because if one is right-the other must logically be wrong.

That is exactly why I consider it to be a false dichotomy. In my view, neither are wrong; they are different ways to describe the world.

And If you truly believe in this universal god theory..then why do you never refer to this divinity as "goddess", or "it"..it is just more proof of you being programmed with the specific diety created from Judaic monotheism. If you HONESTLY believe that this divinity is universally known at birth, then lets test it..call your diety a "goddess" for the next week. When you post in this forum, be sure to type "goddess" instead of "god". Little "g" and big"G" is a petty part of the argument. If you beleive in the universal diety (dieties), then it is not a sin to do so..in fact, why not use the goddess terminology in your next reply to me and show me you believe that divinity is natural, instead of artificially taught. In fact, why not use the "natural" hindu divinity and say "Goddesses" or "Gods". If you cant do it, I understand, because it is contrary to the way you were taught to believe.

You do make a lot of assumptions about my beliefs. I say "God" rather than "goddess" because my concept of god is gender neutral and "god" does not necessarily imply the masculine gender to me unless it's in the context of "goddesses." You clearly did not understand the g/G distinction if you think it more petty than the god/goddess distinction.

You assume that I believe in an anthropomorphic "all powerful human god." I do not. You assume that I am Christian, which I am not (tho I have a great deal of respect for Christianity). You assume that I find the Hindu devas to be foreign and alienating, which I do not. I am actually more Hindu in my beliefs than Christian. You assume that just because my beliefs are different from yours that I have not examined them and arrived at them after careful consideration. You seem to assume that anyone who has thought about these things would be an atheist and therefore theism is proof that they haven't. In fact, you seem to believe in a great number of things without any proof.

 

[Faust]

Dear Sondadareas,

Have you considered that all the wonderful similarities you sight might be due to the fact that the human mind produced the computer?
Faust.