Consciousness = Soul

[Bush]

It is your choice to believe that there is no such thing as the semantic/propositional argument. To believe in a truth is to believe in God.

Look, I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say in the first place. I didn't say anything at all about what I believe.

 

[EcK]

Look, I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say in the first place. I didn't say anything at all about what I believe.

OK FINE. I was lazy but I'll translate. gimme a minute

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION] here u go
The argument is not fully coherent .. but that should be a bit of an easier read.

I have an apologetic argument that I believe disproofs the atheistic position. I hope that the atheists and the theists find something they can do with it, rather it is to use it in argument or to find the contradictions:

pretty streamlined so far.

In neurology, if we are to take the reductionist approach there is no such thing as truth, rational or irrational

In neurology (and alot of other sciences too, by the way, thank you for letting us know you've just read an article..) one can use a reductionist approach, ie: reducing complex phenomena to its constituant particles, for example neurons firing, etc. If you see the mind as the brain and the brain as an agglomeration of cells, chemical and electrical impulses then concepts such 'truth, rational or irrational' don't apply (of course they don't apply, they are emergent properties/higher level phenomena/different fields depending on how you look at it)

only the interesting and boring

well no.. if you say one concept/mental tool doesn't apply these none apply and you simply shouldn't be talking in these terms

in the sense of the syntactic (the survival of a species)

in the sense of an utilitarian/objective view of the human species, we are what we do, and what we do is maintain homeostasis(staying alive), reproduce

the semantic can't exist along with cause and effect, therefore we would have to take it as illusory as all that exists in the syntax.

meaning can't coexist with cause and effect (yes it can, actually, these are different things altogether), therefore both our evolutionary drives and our higher selves are illusory (uh..no. It doesn't follow)

Which is an absurd idea in that we have a longing for it

YES?! As the argument is nonsensical at this point I'm not sure what to say to that. Essentially he is saying it's absurd to think that both our evolutionary drives and our higher selves are illusory as these are things that drive us and therefore have an amount of 'reality' to us.

(look at the thought pattern of the four horsemen).

read: too much beer for lunch

It is the equivalent of taking the approach that I took as a teenager, that of absurdity. Everything is absurd and meaningless and there is no self, thought process was algorithmic-ally done in a homologous paradigm. Yet I couldn't escape the sense that ones own thoughts are not absurd otherwise the entire argument would collapse.

This is all equivalent to his approach in youth. When he considered all to be meaningless and doubted the self/self awareness(?). But considering everything absurd creates a contradiction where the very thought process leading to this conclusion could be considered as absurd, negating the argument

This whole thing of course, goes noway near showing that the atheist view is naive. It does kind of refute itself though.
So far he managed to make an "argumentum ad absurdum" and say he also used to think that way as a teenager. About midway the argument 'broke' though, due to a set of self referential structural flaws.

for comedic effect, picture a building crashing down.

 

[OptoGypsy]

[MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION] here u go
The argument is not fully coherent .. but that should be a bit of an easier read.

pretty streamlined so far.

In neurology (and alot of other sciences too, by the way, thank you for letting us know you've just read an article..) one can use a reductionist approach, ie: reducing complex phenomena to its constituant particles, for example neurons firing, etc. If you see the mind as the brain and the brain as an agglomeration of cells, chemical and electrical impulses then concepts such 'truth, rational or irrational' don't apply (of course they don't apply, they are emergent properties/higher level phenomena/different fields depending on how you look at it)

well no.. if you say one concept/mental tool doesn't apply these none apply and you simply shouldn't be talking in these terms

in the sense of an utilitarian/objective view of the human species, we are what we do, and what we do is maintain homeostasis(staying alive), reproduce

meaning can't coexist with cause and effect (yes it can, actually, these are different things altogether), therefore both our evolutionary drives and our higher selves are illusory (uh..no. It doesn't follow)

YES?! As the argument is nonsensical at this point I'm not sure what to say to that. Essentially he is saying it's absurd to think that both our evolutionary drives and our higher selves are illusory as these are things that drive us and therefore have an amount of 'reality' to us.

read: too much beer for lunch

This is all equivalent to his approach in youth. When he considered all to be meaningless and doubted the self/self awareness(?). But considering everything absurd creates a contradiction where the very thought process leading to this conclusion could be considered as absurd, negating the argument

This whole thing of course, goes noway near showing that the atheist view is naive. It does kind of refute itself though.
So far he managed to make an "argumentum ad absurdum" and say he also used to think that way as a teenager. About midway the argument 'broke' though, due to a set of self referential structural flaws.

for comedic effect, picture a building crashing down.

Just to be clear what exactly is it that you think my argument is... put it in your own words

 

[miss fortune]

I'd really prefer it if it were presented as a flow chart or had pictures or maybe had a few arrows or bullet points *pouts*

I don't buy it though... a lack of meaning just means that we can give our own meanings to things. Some chose religion and others do not. Either choice does not necessarily mean that one has chosen to be a good or bad person, it simply means that they have decided to believe in a particular facet of meaning that they cannot see

 

[Passacaglia]

Hey, [MENTION=20474]OptoGypsy[/MENTION]! I don't understand your posts very well, so I'm just going to leave you a link to an interesting Ted talk:

Jonathan Haidt: Religion, Evolution, and the Ecstasy of Self-Transcendence

It's only 18 minutes long, and I think it relates to your life experiences and thoughts about god!

 

[EcK]

Just to be clear what exactly is it that you think my argument is... put it in your own words

A poor one. Or as you would put it: it makes for third rate philosophy.

I'd really prefer it if it were presented as a flow chart or had pictures or maybe had a few arrows or bullet points *pouts*

I don't buy it though... a lack of meaning just means that we can give our own meanings to things. Some chose religion and others do not. Either choice does not necessarily mean that one has chosen to be a good or bad person, it simply means that they have decided to believe in a particular facet of meaning that they cannot see

the visualization you're looking for would require coherence/meaningful data in the source material

at the moment it looks kinda like this

 

[geedoenfj]

Consciousness = God

The fact that the human mind seeks out truth signifies that they are looking for truth goes against the biological mechanism of the brain, this works in the same way that the God gap does. when one hears a piece a piece by Chopin, reads a book by George Bernard Shaw or sees a painting by Van Gogh or experience the sight of Gods creation (nature) in awe as a moment of the romantic enters them. Signifying that there has to be something greater out there as the feeling didn't come from the product but within and the more one experiences this the more they want it. The more someone ponders for the truth the more they want it, rather it is the truth or something they in turn worship: people and probability. If we are to take a reductionist approach to the brain, seeking for the truth will not only be nonsensical it would also not be possible.

You probably mean the more people are fascinated by some ideas the more they will tend to build their belief system based on them, which makes the utter truth just a delusion that many people are building their entire life based on it..
Nevertheless that is healthy because it diverse the society and make it more integral..
As from my point of view, I don't see there is a problem in that unless people think there's no God and religions are nonsense because without knowing it they're leading us to the point where right and wrong, good or bad, sins, morals, values etc. subject to some opinions that was made by another human being who could be as wrong or right as they are.. And justify the approach of some people who subject actions or crimes to logic or vagary rather than morals.. Which doesn't work for me at all..

 

[INTP]

Its actually the unconsciousness, not the consciousness. Or well, one could argue its both based on the argument that free will is just an illusion(=consciousness is just an observer and nothing more), that there is fate and god is all.
I mean dreams is which angels talk through and intuition is the language of the holy/sacred knowledge.

 

[OptoGypsy]

Its actually the unconsciousness, not the consciousness. Or well, one could argue its both based on the argument that free will is just an illusion(=consciousness is just an observer and nothing more), that there is fate and god is all.
I mean dreams is which angels talk through and intuition is the language of the holy/sacred knowledge.

The unconscious in our heart, where our emotions and intuitions span from, the consciousness is what we use to reason out propositions. I agree with you, the moral heart is written in each persons heart, religion is not to be used to brainwash people to do good by doctrine and fear of hell... this approach only leads God to be as ridiculous as Santa Claus and instead of needing God what we would need is more pigs infested into our cities. Every moral compass is the mark of God rather the person wants to admit it or not, one does not need to believe in God to be a good person. Unconsciousness is our DNA makeup and the conscious is what people refer to as the soul.

 

[OptoGypsy]

A poor one. Or as you would put it: it makes for third rate philosophy.



the visualization you're looking for would require coherence/meaningful data in the source material

at the moment it looks kinda like this

Once again I'm not claiming that there can't be purpose or meaning without a God, what I'm claiming is that such ideas wouldn't be able to appear into our consciousness if we are to take the reductionist approach, that of cause and effect. To make sense out of our use of semantics one would have to take in the idea of dualism. Now if you will please give me a coherent argument to why this is wrong, instead of beating around the bush.

 

[chubber]

So if you have a consciousness, you're playing God?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

My turn to Christianity has to do with an anecdote, the propositions always existed but I was blind to their validity not because of probability in them being true but because I didn't want them to be true

That's interesting but I still don't see any evidence here.

 

[OptoGypsy]

So if you have a consciousness, you're playing God?

Christian : little Christ

 

[OptoGypsy]

That's interesting but I still don't see any evidence here.

I'm not sure what you want, I gave you some great Christian philosophers, the evidence for my argument is the fact that we are capable of thinking critically, if you're interested in my own particular journey, say so...

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I'm not sure what you want, I gave you some great Christian philosophers, the evidence for my argument is the fact that we are capable of thinking critically, if you're interested in my own particular journey, say so...

?

I want to know what evidence have you've seen confirming god's existence.
Either you're not understanding my question or you're confusing arguments for evidence.

It's like if you went on here claiming you're a billionaire and someone asking you if you can show us some evidence of that. Rather than showing us your name as the CEO of a fortune 500 company or some kind of material confirmation you're simply producing an argument trying to redefine "billionaire" and its meaning. I'm not interested in your faith journey, I'm interested in evidence you have for your god's existence. So far, I've seen you try to perform mental gymnastics around it but no actual evidence. I'm not interested in Christian ( or secular) philosophers, I'm interested in evidence. I'll be more than happy to talk about the evidence and all its philosophical implications after the evidence has been introduced, not before.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

the evidence for my argument is the fact that we are capable of thinking critically

So the fact that humans can think critically is evidence of god? Are you saying critical thinking must require a supernatural explanation (god) rather than a naturalistic one such as the fact humans have a highly developed prefrontal cortex which is directly related to critical thinking?

That's your evidence?

 

[OptoGypsy]

So the fact that humans can think critically is evidence of god? Are you saying critical thinking must require a supernatural explanation (god) rather than a naturalistic one such as the fact humans have a highly developed prefrontal cortex which is directly related to critical thinking?

That's your evidence?

I claim Dualism for it... outside of that the best my choice for becoming a christian is that I was once a druggie and a big time player in the party game and depressed. The implications of the christian faith was the only thing that was able to bring me joy(not happiness, there is a big difference between the two) I still struggle with the faith (I'm not going to go into detail but the questions I have concerning it is a mix of Ivan Fyodorovich and Lenny Bruce.) Yet I can't help but declare that he is lord... I'm not claiming 100% certitude but what I will say is that even if it isn't true I will claim that Christianity isn't a theory of the past and future of the soul, it is something we experience on a daily basis that is why no matter how sophisticated the rebuttal against Christianity is, the world will continue producing men like Ravi Zacharias, it may not be true in the cosmological sense but it is true in the emotional spectrum and it is the greatest tool in giving the troubled soul peace. The message of grace > work, and the wanting to become a slave to righteousness is a powerful one. In all honesty I didn't want to become a Christian for the longest time I stood my ground that even if the papa smurf bullshit is true I would rather go to hell because that's where all my friends at (I lost my best friend, some comrades and girlfriend to drugs,) and hated the idea of Christ love as I perceived it to be unjust, it told me to love those that torture their children, when I'd rather pull the trigger and blow their fucking brains. Yet the love of Christ overpowered my own stone heart. I was the type of person that would happily claim that according to Science not only is Marques de Sade is the equal to Jesus of Nazareth, and if I was to consult my subjectivness I would easily claim that he was even more righteous than the pathological liar from the desert.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I claim Dualism for it... outside of that the best my choice for becoming a christian is that I was once a druggie and a big time player in the party game and depressed. The implications of the christian faith was the only thing that was able to bring me joy(not happiness, there is a big difference between the two) I still struggle with the faith (I'm not going to go into detail but the questions I have concerning it is a mix of Ivan Fyodorovich and Lenny Bruce.) Yet I can't help but declare that he is lord... I'm not claiming 100% certitude but what I will say is that even if it isn't true I will claim that Christianity isn't a theory of the past and future of the soul, it is something we experience on a daily basis that is why no matter how sophisticated the rebuttal against Christianity is, the world will continue producing men like Ravi Zacharias, it may not be true in the cosmological sense but it is true in the emotional spectrum and it is the greatest tool in giving the troubled soul peace. The message of grace > work, and the wanting to become a slave to righteousness is a powerful one.

Ok, now we get to some truth here. Thanks for being honest. So your conversion wasn't based on any real rationality or evidence but rather a place to go for better emotional health. If it works for you then that's great. I'm glad you feel more joyous in your life but what does that have to do with the provocative topic? How does your personal experience with faith = atheism is naïve? What you did was expand out of your personal sphere of joy due to your faith in the Lord and make a universal claim that " If my life is joyous because of my belief in the Lord then atheism is naïve" If Christianity helped turn you away from drugs and partying then do you believe atheists are druggies and party animals? Is this the dualism that exists in your mind?

And I hate to sound like a Buzz Killington but just because your faith brings you joy doesn't make god's existence empirically true which is what the skepticism of atheism/agnosticism is about.

 

[OptoGypsy]

That doesn't change the fact that the probability of Gods existence is higher than his non existence, if you want to prove me wrong let's play a game of mental gymnastics otherwise you are trying to appeal to my emotions which if something I expect from a feeler not an entp