Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 10:13 PM
395 online now:
DrJones*, jar, nwr, Riggamortis (4 members, 391 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,380 Year: 16,986/21,208 Month: 2,875/3,593 Week: 342/646 Day: 105/115 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 82 (698847)
05-10-2013 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-09-2013 6:35 PM


No need for invisible men..
The problem here is that you have traded in one invisible man hypothesis for another.

You deride theists for advocating an invisible man in the sky. Yet your "pantheism" involves multiple invisible men (AKA "souls") as the ethereal consciousness that is each of us. Why you think your brand of invisible man hypothesis is any less worthy of derision than any other remains unclear.

As long as you are invoking an invisible man hypothesis (whatever it's particular form) you are going to get short shrift from the likes of Dawkins and Dennett who are advocating that such un-evidenced notions be discarded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-09-2013 6:35 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-11-2013 8:59 PM Straggler has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 994 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 32 of 82 (698966)
05-11-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
05-09-2013 10:34 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
You will call it a principle of philosophy. I call it an unnecessary intrusion by your incredulity and emotional-based wishful thinking. Such a person is not basing their philosophy, their personal decisions or their decisions in regard to others on reason by objective reality alone. Further, given this shallow level of critical thinking, such a person, given the right emotional stimulus, might be brought to believe in any number of other questionable ideas.

In my view your expression of belief belongs with the other classifications of theism.

Ok let me take this point by point

1. Argument of incredulity
The argument of incredulity is as follows

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

The general form of the argument is as follows.

Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

Conclusion: Not-P.

It is true that I could argue that I can not imagine that I do not have a soul therefore I must have one and it is also true I could argue that I can not imagine a Universe that was not God ...But I have never made either argument for Pantheism

Ironically many Atheist do argue from incredulity because they can't see how the Universe could possibly be conscious so that proves it isn't and the same argument is made in relation to souls.

Yet Atheist have all the facts on their side . WYSIWYG meaning you observe a Universe made up of parts that follow physical laws of causation so they do not seem to need conscious intent in order to explain how the Universe exist in the way that it does.

But if this is the case ...

and if all the laws of observation and theories of science exist independently of any need for the Universe to have any deeper reality...

... then why do Atheist feel the need to emphasize their incredulity of any theory that isn't pure materialism?

Some Atheist take it so far as to do deny that Quantum Physics has any Metaphysical implications even though even Quantum Physicist admit that their are Metaphysical implications.

To quote Shakespeare "Me thinks thou protest too much"

In other words Atheists seem to need to make their own protest of incredulity even when the facts are supposedly on their side. And at the same time Atheist seem to revel in the fact that Theist argue incredulity as proof for Theism.

Atheist may not use their incredulity at anything spiritual being real as proof of materialism ...but they have no shame in using incredulity as an emotional attack or as an attack of character on anyone arguing against their case.

2. Wishful thinking

As for wishful thinking. That is a big assumption on your part. Again you lump all theism together with Pantheism . Most theist want a daddy to protect them a king to deal out justice and a guaranteed happy after life for those that believe what they do.

In no way does Pantheism match any of this criteria for wishful thinking. Pantheism in no way guarantees an afterlife and in no way describes a daddy protector or king of everything dishing out justice. I do think I have a soul and I do believe reincarnation is real . But the theory of reincarnation in no way promises me a heaven in exchange for anything .

As a Buddhist there is no way for me to go to any heaven. By choosing to be Buddhist I am denying heaven as a possibility and I am denying what most consider to be God . If there is a God I will be in Hell with all the Atheist.

So I get nothing out of my beliefs ideas theories etc that could emotionally fulfill any wishful thinking .

I got to what I understand about the nature of reality the same way all of you Atheist do, ...by observation and experience and using my ability to perceive and reason.

I am not a Theologian and I do not respect Theology . I am a philosopher through and through.

I use all the same methods of perception and reasoning any objective person would and I have experienced and studied the nature of reality and I simply draw a different conclusion.

I have been an Atheist all my life.That is I never believed in any Religion or God Concepts. This is what attracted me to Buddhism in the first place. Buddhism is very Atheist friendly and does not encourage wishful thinking.

It is true you can quote Einstein all day proving he was not a Theist. But that is because Pantheist are not by nature Christian/Jewish or even Monotheist. So nothing Einstein says will support Religion. Spinoza was rejected by Monotheist. Einstein was both attracted by Spinoza and Buddhism.

Since I have studied both Spinoza and Buddhism I can say that there is no room for Monotheism. The assumption that there is no such thing as true Pantheist thought in either Spinoza or Einstein based on a rejection of Monotheism is a non sequitar based on the assumption that Pantheism equates somehow to Theology or Religion.

3. One of the main principles of Philosophy is establishing a consistent Metaphysics. So asking what the relation of the observer is to reality is not an intrusion but a necessary Metaphysical question. And I have already covered this on my last thread in the original God Hypothesis. Please do not make me repeat all the points I made in that thread about QM and the relation to Metaphysics.

( I started this thread to clarify things I think were left unsaid or unexplained in that thread. Not to rehash everything said point by point all over again.)

But the nature of reality is deeper then WYSIWYG of Naive Realism.

Realism and quantum physics

Realism in physics refers to the fact that any physical system must have definite properties whether measured/observed or not. Physics up to the 19th century was always implicitly and sometimes explicitly taken to be based on philosophical realism.

Scientific realism in classical physics has remained compatible with the naïve realism of everyday thinking on the whole but there is no known, consistent way to visualize the world underlying quantum theory in terms of ideas of the everyday world. "The general conclusion is that in quantum theory naïve realism, although necessary at the level of observations, fails at the microscopic level."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 10:34 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 10:35 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 994 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 33 of 82 (698967)
05-11-2013 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Straggler
05-10-2013 5:36 AM


Re: No need for invisible men..
The problem here is that you have traded in one invisible man hypothesis for another.

You deride theists for advocating an invisible man in the sky. Yet your "pantheism" involves multiple invisible men (AKA "souls") as the ethereal consciousness that is each of us. Why you think your brand of invisible man hypothesis is any less worthy of derision than any other remains unclear.

As long as you are invoking an invisible man hypothesis (whatever it's particular form) you are going to get short shrift from the likes of Dawkins and Dennett who are advocating that such un-evidenced notions be discarded.

Please you can not equate George Carlin on the Invisible Man in the sky with The Ghost in The machine.

This is why even as an Atheist I have distanced myself from other Atheist.

Using your argument nothing not visible to the human eye or not easily understood can actually exist .

1. God is invisible
2. The Wind is invisible
3. Souls are invisible
4. Quanta are invisible
5. God does not exist
Therefore the soul the wind and quanta are all imaginary

It just doesn't work.

God in Theology is just a Mythological Construct mixed with Plato Idealism. There is no evidence of the Invisible man in the sky except religion. And religion simply steals other peoples myths and tries to pass them off as historical events like Flood myths and Creation Myths . Theological God Concepts are completely based on abstract principles like Perfect Beings and the idea of Good and Evil etc

There is no comparison in the mind body problem and the observer problem in QM .

We have no evidence of a God as a person.

But we do have evidence of our own minds and that awareness creates the hard problem of consciousness. You know that awareness is real but you only recognize one aspect of awareness. That of consciousness and only consciousness that can be reduced the Neuro-Chemistry of the Brain.

But Awareness is something more than Neurons firing and affecting the behavior of an organism.

All real philosophers acknowledge the hard problem of consciousness. Dennetts book Consciousness Explained was an attempt to explain where the hard problem comes from and how to resolve it.

If there wasn't a problem he would not have felt the need to write the book. His Multiple Drafts Theory is a recipe for insanity. There is no way a human being could be consistently aware and maintain an identity in relation to being aware if MDT is accepted. Also he is assuming that all conscious experience can be reduced to thoughts and emotions and sensory experiences which is a function of memory and cognitive abilities.

But my awareness exist independent of any thoughts or emotions. Thoughts come and go but I am not my thoughts. Emotions can affect my behavior but I can also act independently of them or even modify them. Also there is not just one state of mind with emotions being too much of this chemical or too little of that chemical.

So again this topic goes way deeper then invisible men.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2013 5:36 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 05-13-2013 7:15 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 34 of 82 (698975)
05-11-2013 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-11-2013 8:15 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
... then why do Atheist feel the need to emphasize their incredulity of any theory that isn't pure materialism?

That is not incredulity. That is a lack of evidence.

I may be a staunch materialist but evidence is the key.

Quantum Theory has no lack of evidence, observation (direct and indirect) for all the strange, seemingly inexplicable actions it entails from superposition, tunneling, to entanglement. Spooky action at a distance. It may defy common sense in a strictly classical materialistic way, but the evidence is there and cannot be dismissed.

What equal quality of evidence do you have for your soul? Can you take some measure of it? Is there any discernible repeatable effect of the soul on anything in this world? Is there some attribute of energy/light/force movement/mass/time that manifests when a soul is present and absent when one is not? You know quantum field theory? What is the force particle of soul? What are the quantum values for this boson? What is its spin value?

Is there any separate discernible repeatable evidence at all that shows a realistic possibility that such a thing as soul can exist?

This is not incredulity. This is a total, glaring, lack of the most simple standards of evidence.

In your mind you hold your philosophy as "evidence"? In your mind you hold the logic of your training as "evidence"? Your philosophy, training, logic tells you there must be a soul?

Incredulity. Wishful thinking. Supernatural bullshit. Rejected.

Go stand in the corner with the theists.

But the nature of reality is deeper then WYSIWYG of Naive Realism.

And your evidence for this is ...

Remember, the S "seeing" takes many forms direct and indirect, aided and unaided. The one thing that "seeing" is not is that which is strictly in your, or your guru's, head.

Atheist may not use their incredulity at anything spiritual being real as proof of materialism ...but they have no shame in using incredulity as an emotional attack or as an attack of character on anyone arguing against their case.

No, Spiritual Anarchist, no incredulity. Such a glaring lack of the most basic simple forms of evidence is all that is needed to reject bullshit.

Edited by AZPaul3, : I wanted to.

Edited by AZPaul3, : goof

Edited by AZPaul3, : Covering up one of my most glaring and egregious errors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-11-2013 8:15 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-12-2013 1:31 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 994 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 35 of 82 (698984)
05-12-2013 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AZPaul3
05-11-2013 10:35 PM


Self Evident
The fact that I am aware is self evident. But your question on evidence borders on self congratulatory arrogance. There were already links posted on QM correlations to Consciousness and the links I provided to Noetic Science Research.

Further research to QM effects to the brain and hard problems of consciousness can be found at The Center for Consciousness studies.
Your no evidence idea is starting to sound like the Intelligent Design argument that there is no evidence for Evolution. Also Behe claimed that there was no evidence that the flagellum could exist functioning without all of its parts. Again he was proven wrong about a lack of evidence. This is because this has been refuted using examples such as The Type -III Secretory Apparatus which looks like the flagellum with a few missing parts.

The Type -III Secretory Apparatus
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" – tiny microscopic bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and many are beneficial – even essential – to human life. Nonetheless, there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Büttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact – the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

I bring this up because apparently Atheist also believe there is no evidence that consciousness or the hard problem can be resolved in relation to QM or that there is room for a soul or freewill.

Yet the research in this area is also being done . Just as Intelligent Design proponents choose to ignore any research that challenges their theories ..Atheist also seem to choose to ignore research being done by the Noetic Science Institute or The Center for Consciousness Studies. Both Intelligent Design and the Atheist movement make the same claim that there is no evidence or relevant research to prove even the possibility they might be wrong.

An example of this research may be found on the website of The Center for Consciousness Studies.

How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will.

Abstract

Conscious "free will" is problematic because (1) brain mechanisms causing consciousness are unknown, (2) measurable brain activity correlating with conscious perception apparently occurs too late for real-time conscious response, consciousness thus being considered "epiphenomenal illusion," and (3) determinism, i.e., our actions and the world around us seem algorithmic and inevitable. The Penrose-Hameroff theory of "orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR)" identifies discrete conscious moments with quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons, e.g., 40/s in concert with gamma synchrony EEG. Microtubules organize neuronal interiors and regulate synapses. In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons. Quantum computations in entangled microtubules terminate by Penrose "objective reduction (OR)," a proposal for quantum state reduction and conscious moments linked to fundamental spacetime geometry. Each OR reduction selects microtubule states which can trigger axonal firings, and control behavior. The quantum computations are "orchestrated" by synaptic inputs and memory (thus "Orch OR"). If correct, Orch OR can account for conscious causal agency, resolving problem 1. Regarding problem 2, Orch OR can cause temporal non-locality, sending quantum information backward in classical time, enabling conscious control of behavior. Three lines of evidence for brain backward time effects are presented. Regarding problem 3, Penrose OR (and Orch OR) invokes non-computable influences from information embedded in spacetime geometry, potentially avoiding algorithmic determinism. In summary, Orch OR can account for real-time conscious causal agency, avoiding the need for consciousness to be seen as epiphenomenal illusion. Orch OR can rescue conscious free will.

The full article can be found here .
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3470100/


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 10:35 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 994 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 36 of 82 (698986)
05-12-2013 2:39 PM


Wishful Thinking?
I am beginning to wonder if anyone is actually reading my post in their entirety. Although I have not proven the Soul exist I have proven my motives are not wishful thinking or theologically motivated. That is I do not belong in the corner with other Theist .

If I could prove with all the necessary evidence that the soul in fact does exist I would win the Noble Prize.

I never claimed to have this proof. If you look at my OP my argument was not that I had proof of the soul or God but that Atheist and Theist had delusions of grandeur believing that the case has already been decided in favor of one side or the other.

My point was that confirmation bias was operating so that Atheist and Theist believe that all the issues related to materialism have already been fully resolved. According to this idea the Theist are just waiting for science to catch up with Irreducible Complexity and the Atheist are just waiting for the Theist to throw in the towel and admit that that the research has already tipped well beyond sufficient evidence for natural selection to be the only theory necessary to explain life.

Who ever is right will win the debate. No other views are allowed in. This will sell a lot of books on Darwin's Black Box or Consciousness being explained away. The debates will go on between science and religion and the books will keep coming out definitively defeating the opponents of one side or the other.

But Atheist do not want to pursue the inconvenient truth of the Metaphysics implication of QM or that the Hard Problem of Consciousness still stands. And the Intelligent Design Advocates do not want to Teach the Controversy surrounding their political agenda to push conservatism.And they ignore the Controversy of Mythological Constructs being passed off as a Theological justification for Christian Ethics shrouded in Pseudo Science.

Because this whole debate between Materialism and Theology is an exercise in political agendas of The Union of Concerned Scientist and The Discovery Institute and wishful thinking of Moral Nihilist and Religious Absolutist .

So far this whole debate on my original post has been an exercise in wishful thinking on the part of Atheist and the Theist in this debate have been conveniently absent. You would think if I was so obviously a Theist according to the most recent post on here I would have a Theist crowd cheering me on and supporting me. But this is not the case because it is obvious that I am not on their side and do not hold any views in common.

So could we please drop the wishful thinking arguments and arguments of super naturalism ? There are no Christians here or even Monotheist. So if you do not want to debate imaginary beings I suggest you drop the argument that I bear any resemblance to a Theist.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 05-12-2013 3:05 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 4:16 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4782
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 37 of 82 (698987)
05-12-2013 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-12-2013 2:39 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
SA writes:

I am beginning to wonder if anyone is actually reading my post in their entirety.

Probably, like me, they're waiting for you to actually say something.

Reduce the word count and introduce some evidence. No one reading your stuff believes that we've even started to understand anything about consciousness


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-12-2013 2:39 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 38 of 82 (698990)
05-12-2013 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-12-2013 2:39 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
So could we please drop the wishful thinking arguments and arguments of super naturalism ?

Much, much too late for that.

As I recently told another poster I do not go into these things unarmed. I know about your silly Noetic Boondoggle Institute and Hameroff’s Center for Consciousness Woo-Woo. I live here in Arizona. I was researching the buzz on Penrose-Hameroff back in the 90’s. And I’m not at all surprised to find that there is still no evidence of this quantum consciousness.

If anything ever comes of it I will convert but with all the major problems with Orch OR I’m not surprised it’s now in the hands of woo specialists and cranks. Hell, even Hameroff’s own list of predictions for Orch OR have fallen one-by-one. Are there any left yet to salvage? Probably, but the damage to the hypothesis has been done.

If you’re waiting for Noetic or Hameroff to definitively announce the evidence of the discovery of real consciousness then I wouldn’t hold my breath. And even if by some magic of serendipitous karma they should happen to find something approximating a consciousness mechanism that still will not evidence your soul.

Two entire word-salad-woo-filled tomes, complete with a biology lessen that proves my point about the need and efficacy of evidence, and a plea that you have some efficacy and yet, in sum, you still have nothing to show.

I bring this up because apparently Atheist also believe there is no evidence that consciousness or the hard problem can be resolved in relation to QM or that there is room for a soul or freewill.

Please pay attention, SA. No one said consciousness cannot be resolved by invoking the mechanisms of QFT. It appears doubtful at this point, but the issue on the table is that it has not been done. And it would take many additional steps to get from there to something approximating the mechanism of a soul.

[crux]

And yet you run around here preaching the gospel of QM Consciousness and a supernatural Universal Transcendent Soul like they were real entities to be embraced by all of science and society. These are products of your want/need that they haveta/must be. Incredulity. Wishful thinking. Superstition. Bullshit.

[/crux]

Because this whole debate between Materialism and Theology is an exercise in political agendas of The Union of Concerned Scientist and The Discovery Institute and wishful thinking of Moral Nihilist and Religious Absolutist .

Excellent. Now we have the conspiricy theory like the religionists.

You are lumped in with the theists because you act and think as they do, believing without, not just adequate, but, any damn evidence at all. This is precisely the irrational dangerous ineffective thought process Dennent and Dawkins were talking about. This type of thinking will not solve our real major problems, will deepen those problems even more and must be abandoned.

Despite what you may believe about yourself, your thinking is part of the problem, not the solution.

So, yes, go back to your corner with the theists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-12-2013 2:39 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:16 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 82 (699004)
05-13-2013 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-11-2013 8:59 PM


Re: No need for invisible men..
As long as you are invoking the invisible man hypothesis in one form or another you belong over with the theists.

SA writes:

Using your argument nothing not visible to the human eye or not easily understood can actually exist.

Idiotically wrong.

SA writes:

1. God is invisible

It depends of course which god we are talking about. But most modern notions of God conform to the archetype of the invisible man of the invisible man hypothesis.

SA writes:

2. The Wind is invisible

No it's not. Pressure fronts and air. No invisible men need apply.

SA writes:

3. Souls are invisible

Souls are indeed an example of the invisible man hypothesis. The form of said hypothesis where it is presumed by the advocate that they themselves are an invisible man.

SA writes:

4. Quanta are invisible

Wrong again. Various quanta have been scientifically detected. Photons most obviously of all can hardly be decribed as "invisible". Again - No need for invisible men.

SA writes:

5. God does not exist

I am still baffled as to why you are happy to deride one invisible man hypothesis whilst advocating another.

SA writes:

Therefore the soul the wind and quanta are all imaginary.

The soul is an example of the invisible man hypothesis. Wind and quanta obviously are not....

SA writes:

But my awareness exist independent of any thoughts or emotions. Thoughts come and go but I am not my thoughts. Emotions can affect my behavior but I can also act independently of them or even modify them. Also there is not just one state of mind with emotions being too much of this chemical or too little of that chemical.

If I plunge a screwdriver through your brain such that all brain activity ceases - Where is this "you", this awareness you speak of then?

Does it still exist? How? Where? What indictaions are there of any such disembodied consciousnesses?

SA writes:

All real philosophers acknowledge the hard problem of consciousness.

Sure. But the question remains as to why anyone thinks yet another invisble man hypothesis provides any more answer to this problem than any other questions humanity has erroneously deployed similar invisible man answers to in the past.

As long as you are invoking the invisible man hypothesis in one form or another you belong over with the theists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-11-2013 8:59 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 994 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 40 of 82 (699088)
05-14-2013 12:05 PM


Atheism of The Gaps?
I give you Noetic Science and The Center for Concsciousness and your response is that the research hasn't definitely settled the questtions relating to the hard problems of consciousness then that some how invalidates all their research? That's your argument? Sounds familiar Sounds like the God of the gaps argument. Since you are arguing that gaps in conscious research into qm correlations proves there is no correlation maybe atheist here should go sit in the corner with the theist. Both of you seem to like refuting theories with the gaps argument.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo


Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2013 1:28 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11446
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 82 (699090)
05-14-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by AZPaul3
05-12-2013 4:16 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
So, yes, go back to your corner with the theists.

Fuuuck... what's next? Do we have to sit in the back of the bus?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2013 4:16 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2013 12:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2013 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 82 (699093)
05-14-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
05-14-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
CS writes:

Fuuuck... what's next? Do we have to sit in the back of the bus?

Who even let you on the bus? STOP the bus.

All theists off the bus now please. This bus is for those with a one way ticket to the promised land of rationality and reason. No return trips. No passengers without a signed copy of the 'God Delusion' upon their person.

I said - Get off the bus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:29 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11446
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 43 of 82 (699094)
05-14-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Straggler
05-14-2013 12:26 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
You bigots have delusions of grandeur.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2013 12:26 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Panda, posted 05-14-2013 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 05-14-2013 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 44 of 82 (699095)
05-14-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
05-14-2013 12:29 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
CS writes:

You bigots have delusions of grandeur.


Well, if you are going to have a delusion, you might as well make it a good one.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 45 of 82 (699099)
05-14-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
05-14-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
Fuuuck... what's next? Do we have to sit in the back of the bus?

Of course. Haven't you been back there for the last 150+-years already? You didn't sneak up front again did you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017