|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 25, 2010 13:27:21 GMT -5
Am I the only Agnostic around here that trusts my own mind? You might have a good foundation of trust in your own mind but you may not be sure of the basis of this trust. Maybe it was not clear that I meant God (uncreated) when I was talking about our intelligent creator? Seems to me we either have to accept the uncreated or accept an infinite regress and put all certainty into the trash can. Are there any more than these two options? Either (1) you accept the uncreated, or (2) you can never be wrong about anything ever again. Who said you can only be smart if your parents are smart? It was meant to be a silly question. Saying that the uncreated needs a creator is silly. It also reminded me of perpetual motion machines or some kind of marijuana-induced question that didn't make any sense. I didn't actually assume that Molly uses drugs. I don't understand. I probably write in wrong ways all the time. I don't think it's that big of a deal. "If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? Maybe it's just a glitch that you should ignore."" Secondly, "If a loving and intelligent creator did not design your mind then how can you trust it when it tells you that you are an agnostic? " Well, if a loving and intelligent creator did not design my loving and intelligent creator, how can I believe he who created me to be loving and intelligent? What I meant by that is that his argument suggests that you can't trust anything that was not created by a loving and intelligent creator, which means that I cannot trust God because he has "always existed" and was not created by a loving and intelligent creator--- basically that benjoseph's entire argument there is bogus. Molly, I assumed you understood me to mean God when I was talking about a loving and intelligent creator. So, if there was an infinite regress of creators of creators of creators etc., then how could you be certain of anything?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 27, 2010 15:36:31 GMT -5
]You might have a good foundation of trust in your own mind but you may not be sure of the basis of this trust. If I can't have trust in my mind then what else can I have faith in? My mind is the only thing that I can use to perceive my existence and if I question that, then I have nothing to use as reliable data. As long as I don't start receiving large amounts of contradicting data, then I have no reason to question my mind, and even if my mind was gone and untrustworthy I probably wouldn't even know or care. Why try to eliminate your only asset? Seems defeatist to me. Maybe it was not clear that I meant God (uncreated) when I was talking about our intelligent creator? Seems to me we either have to accept the uncreated or accept an infinite regress and put all certainty into the trash can. Are there any more than these two options? Either (1) you accept the uncreated, or (2) you can never be wrong about anything ever again. The number one argument that God exists is that if something is there it must have a creator, but that leads to an infinite amount of creators, unless we accept that the creator is magical and uncreated and always existed. Unless we say that the universe also always existed and then we no longer need a creator since no one created the universe or the elements within it, and from the mass of matter everything was formed. Anyway, how do I have to accept anything or never be wrong about anything ever again? I'm not saying I have the answers for everything but I'm saying that I don't believe in your timeless magical creator. Most likely there is a much better explanation that neither of us are aware of and just because we don't know it doesn't mean I have to accept your belief on the matter. Who said you can only be smart if your parents are smart? I was only trying to derive what meaning I could from molly's statement. It didn't make sense to me either. It was meant to be a silly question. Saying that the uncreated needs a creator is silly. It also reminded me of perpetual motion machines or some kind of marijuana-induced question that didn't make any sense. I didn't actually assume that Molly uses drugs. a perpetual motion machine huh? I can think of something pretty close to that. How about Earth? The Earth is in perpetual motion spinning around it's axis and revolving around the sun. Now I'll admit it won't last forever, but it'll definitely do it for a while yet and I'd say that's a pretty good perpetual motion machine, but that's just marijuana-induced sillyness right? Now if you want something made by man, you can look at many other satellites out there for other examples. Now on the surface of Earth with gravity and air resistance and many other forces in act, perpetual motion because alot more difficult to the point of impossibility. I don't understand. I probably write in wrong ways all the time. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't think it's a big deal either, that was exactly my point. The rest isn't directed to me so, yeah..though.. So, if there was an infinite regress of creators of creators of creators etc., then how could you be certain of anything? what does an infinite amount of creators have to do with being certain of anything? I'd assume they'd be independent of each other?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 28, 2010 0:22:34 GMT -5
]You might have a good foundation of trust in your own mind but you may not be sure of the basis of this trust. If I can't have trust in my mind then what else can I have faith in? I believe you can trust your mind to be reliable if you trust God - but how could you be sure you believe or know anything if you could not trust God who made your mind? I agree. How is the concern for reliable data relevant unless there is some initial reliability? For example, how would you know there's any such thing as reliable data in the first place? Why couldn't your mind seem consistent and still be completely unreliable? If it's possible that your mind is untrustworthy, then is it possible that you aren't actually agnostic or whatever? What asset? How could your mind be an asset unless God made it trustworthy? Wouldn't the argument be more like "if something finite is there it must have a creator"? Seems that would either lead to infinite finite creator/creatures or God. I think, for God, 'uncreated' and 'always existed' go hand in hand. How is magic a relevant idea? So, in this view, the universe is kind of like God except it's unintelligent and lacking self control? So we would just be shrapnel in an unintelligent cosmic explosion? Well you could never be right about anything either. Why do you keep saying magical? I heard an atheist use that word about God before. Is that a line from a comic book or something? How much better can you get than God loves us and made us to be happy with him forever? But how can you judge what is likely or unlikely if God didn't make your mind reliable? I don't see what's stopping you from trusting in God. It's possible for God because he can prevent outside interference. As for man-made stuff, I was thinking more along the lines of free energy machines I guess. There's usually some inherent contradiction in the design that cancels out the intended action. I thought the objection (to the necessity of theism regarding mental reliability), that an infinite regress leaves us without reliable minds, doesn't work because, besides being logically unnecessary and irrelevant with God, it comes from a world-unview that lacks any mental reliability to begin with. In order for the objection to have any meaning there must be some mental reliability assumed to begin with. How is this possible without God? It seems like accepting the premise in order to object but assuming something contrary to the premise in order to validate the objection. As Molly pointed out, an infinite regress leaves us with the same question - how do you know your mind is reliable?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 28, 2010 10:23:14 GMT -5
I believe you can trust your mind to be reliable if you trust God - but how could you be sure you believe or know anything if you could not trust God who made your mind? You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Either my mind is trustworthy, or it's not. God is not part of this equation. If God exists you could argue that he could give a more solid backing to your claim of trustworthiness, but his lack of existence would not give any evidence to it's inability to be trusted. How is the concern for reliable data relevant unless there is some initial reliability? For example, how would you know there's any such thing as reliable data in the first place? Why couldn't your mind seem consistent and still be completely unreliable? When you are checking for unreliability in hardware you run tests to see if the data you are receiving is consistent and makes sense. If you are constantly getting bad data, then something is wrong. Your brain is also hardware, if you are getting bad data, then you probably can not trust your brain. Now if hardware isn't working, it's very unlikely that you will still get good data just by chance, but it's very improbable. If it's possible that your mind is untrustworthy, then is it possible that you aren't actually agnostic or whatever? I suppose if my mind isn't trustworthy then it's possible that I'm actually a butterfly, but as I said before it's defeatist to start questioning your mind for no reason, you have yet to prove my mind is actually untrustworthy. You can't just win a debate by saying, hey maybe everything you perceive is wrong. Are you trying to tell me that you believe that you can't trust your mind? Of course you aren't because you believe God affirms your mind. Now are you saying that your mind is trustworthy because you believe in God and mine isn't because I don't believe in God? Then that's silly, either both of our minds are trustworthy or neither of our minds are trustworthy, God isn't part of the picture. Oh or we are both dragons flying through space. What asset? How could your mind be an asset unless God made it trustworthy? The source of my mind doesn't determine if it is an asset or not. That's like saying Toyota cars are not assets because they are made in Japan, though I can guarantee you that many people find them to be assets. Wouldn't the argument be more like "if something finite is there it must have a creator"? Seems that would either lead to infinite finite creator/creatures or God. If the first statement is true, then yes. We do not know if the first statement is true though. I think, for God, 'uncreated' and 'always existed' go hand in hand. How is magic a relevant idea? Do you know what magic is? Magic is simply something that we can't explain, something coming from a super natural source. What is more magic than a divine being? After all, religion is a good way to explain everything magically. So, in this view, the universe is kind of like God except it's unintelligent and lacking self control? I suppose you could say that the universe forming itself beginning as a large mass of hydrogen reacting and forming other matter could be seen as a God with absolutely no intelligence. So we would just be shrapnel in an unintelligent cosmic explosion? Does equating your life to shrapnel make you unpleased? Does the fact it's unpleasing make it less possible? Well you could never be right about anything either. Or maybe I'll be sometimes right and sometimes wrong, or maybe I'll be mostly right and almost never wrong, or maybe I'll be mostly wrong and almost never right. Or.. Oh wait, theres ALOT of possibilities here that we aren't talking about and listing them all would be silly. Especially since you like to focus on the ones involving me being right or wrong instead of what we were actually talking about. Why do you keep saying magical? I heard an atheist use that word about God before. Is that a line from a comic book or something? I say magical as explained above. Is insinuating that I read comic books supposed to be an insult? No I don't read comic books, at least I haven't in a long time. I guess maybe one of them might have said the word magical or magic, they are common words. Perhaps you don't like that word being equated to your religion because you don't believe in magic? How much better can you get than God loves us and made us to be happy with him forever? So God will give me a nice big hug and everything will be great if I believe in him? Just need to take your word for it, devote my life to him, with absolutely no confirmation from God himself and everything will be great? No thanks. But how can you judge what is likely or unlikely if God didn't make your mind reliable? Again, my mind can be reliable without God. How can I trust my mind without God? Why shouldn't I? You've yet to tell me why I MUST have God to believe in my mind. I don't see what's stopping you from trusting in God. I don't see whats stopping you from not trusting in God. It's possible for God because he can prevent outside interference. Oh and man too since we made working satellites as well and all. As for man-made stuff, I was thinking more along the lines of free energy machines I guess. There's usually some inherent contradiction in the design that cancels out the intended action. Yes, free energy machines are pointless as you can never get more energy back than you put in. That's actually a scientific law. I thought the objection (to the necessity of theism regarding mental reliability), that an infinite regress leaves us without reliable minds, doesn't work because, besides being logically unnecessary and irrelevant with God, it comes from a world-unview that lacks any mental reliability to begin with. In order for the objection to have any meaning there must be some mental reliability assumed to begin with. How is this possible without God? It seems like accepting the premise in order to object but assuming something contrary to the premise in order to validate the objection. If you need God to confirm your mental reliability, then good for you, believe in your God. I may not be able to prove my mental reliability but that doesn't mean I have to doubt it either. You have faith in God, I have faith in myself. You may say that you are betting on the stronger candidate, but I might argue that I'm more reliable than your imaginary super friend, as I can prove my existence. As Molly pointed out, an infinite regress leaves us with the same question - how do you know your mind is reliable? I have faith in myself. There is no point in questioning my own mind, even if it was flawed, the questioning would be flawed and I'd be back to where I started. If I can't trust in my mind, then you can't trust in your mind, or you don't even exist. Then why am I talking to you? Whats the point of this line of reasoning? I accept that my mind is reliable as it is my only real resource.
|
|
|
Post by Melmoth on Apr 28, 2010 16:07:19 GMT -5
Kureji, I'm going to be a bit inconsiderate and jump in the middle of your debate to muddy the philosophical waters a bit and ask you to go down a completely pointless line of thought that I find interesting nevertheless. Please excuse or ignore me. I can prove my existence. Get to it.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 28, 2010 22:59:27 GMT -5
assuming my mind is reliable, and your mind is reliable I can prove my existence, is that better for you?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 30, 2010 10:53:28 GMT -5
You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Why not? Doesn't this assume some initial knowledge of how things ought to run? If you don't know what the hardware is designed to do then how do you know if the output “makes sense”? I've been asking how you can trust your mind in the context of your unbelief. It seems like your response is: 'who cares, why not.' I can trust that you're not a butterfly because I can trust that my mind is reliable. You believe you're not a butterfly because whatever who cares. I'm not trying to assert you're a butterfly Kureji. I'm only noticing that you don't seem to have any reason to believe anything. If they trust their minds then they can know whether Toyota's are beneficial or not. But I don't know anyone who relies solely on a Toyota for their perception of reality. So when you say God is 'magical' you just mean he has 'seemingly supernatural qualities or powers.'? An uncreated, eternal, unintelligent, chaotic gas. I take your answer to mean “Yes we are just shrapnel in an uncreated unintelligent eternal explosion.” - am I misunderstanding you? I've been asking you how you can be right about anything. Of course. You don't think the lack of mental reliability in any alternative world-view is confirmation in itself? That seems like the strongest confirmation possible. If you accepted that evidence and trusted at least that much I think God would then be able to confirm himself to you in other ways to build your faith but, as long as you reject the initial evidence, how could you trust any confirmation wasn't just a mental glitch? It seems God couldn't even prove himself to you as long as you deny that he made your mind reliable because you might conclude the confirmation was an illusion or hallucination. You don't even seem willing to consider the possibility of there being no mental reliability in any other world-view. The way you turn some of my questions around makes it seem like you have some kind of bias that prevents you from being too inquisitive about your beliefs or lack thereof. See? It just seems you don't have any rational justification for trusting your mind if God didn't make it. The impossibility of an alternative seems convincing to me. I'm just asking if you have any alternative. It seems all you have is who cares why not whatever. Initially the belief that nothing else is trustworthy apart from God. Then hearing the gospel about Jesus dying for me and that my sins could be forgiven. Then reading the new testament, especially the words of Jesus. There was another experience which I remember thinking was like an internal confirmation to me but I think I had already accepted the fact that nothing made sense apart from God nor did I deny the truth of the gospel or anything like that. But I don't see how any of this could mean anything to you except for the first one. You could prove your existence to someone who believes in God but, if you were posing in front of an agnostic, how could they trust what they were seeing? A. "You" are part of an eternal gas cloud. B. So am "I". C. Therefore Kureji is real. What does that mean? It just seems that's the best an anti-theist can do when it comes to questioning his or her perception or knowledge. I've only asked you how you can trust your mind and you don't seem to have an answer. Sounds like you're begging the question there. I don't really see what else you can do though since you don't want to believe that God made your mind.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on Apr 30, 2010 11:10:43 GMT -5
You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Why not? That's a silly question. Put it this way: you would not be able to perceive or understand any of the "evidence" that has lead you to believe in the God you do; the Bible, "miracles", "intelligent design" , whatever, if your mind was not reliable. So first and foremost, you have to assume your mind is reliable before you can deduce any sort of God. Think about it this way: perhaps you are actually just a brain in a vat. Everything you "experience" is actually just an impulse orchestrated by scientists and you really don't have a body, you are not free to move about, etc. How do you "know" that its not true? because your mind, your experiences, what senses you are able to derive information from, are assumed to be reliable BEFORE you were ever introduced to religion.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 30, 2010 12:37:00 GMT -5
You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Why not? Why don't I believe it? Because I have yet to be convinced that the only way you can have a reliable mind is if God made it. Why shouldn't you assume the only way that your mind can be trusted if God made it? As I said earlier, the introduction of God to the mind being reliable or not does not immediately prove one or the other. It may give support towards reliability of your mind, but his absence does not immediately discredit it either. God's existence is an independent event when discussing the reliability of the brain. Doesn't this assume some initial knowledge of how things ought to run? If you don't know what the hardware is designed to do then how do you know if the output “makes sense”? Are you telling me you don't know what your eyes, hands, ears, tongue and other body parts are supposed to do? If so, I won't mind sitting down with you and explaining for you. I've been asking how you can trust your mind in the context of your unbelief. It seems like your response is: 'who cares, why not.' I can trust that you're not a butterfly because I can trust that my mind is reliable. You believe you're not a butterfly because whatever who cares. I'm not trying to assert you're a butterfly Kureji. I'm only noticing that you don't seem to have any reason to believe anything. I have reason to believe what I can experience because my mind is the only thing I have faith in currently. I have no reason to doubt my mind, you've only said that if God doesn't exist than my mind is unreliable. That is your speculation and I disagree with it. I believe it's possible for a reliable mind to exist without the presense of a God to form it. You do not seem to share this belief, but that's your own purgative, and honestly neither of us can prove it either way. If they trust their minds then they can know whether Toyota's are beneficial or not. But I don't know anyone who relies solely on a Toyota for their perception of reality. You seemed to completely miss the point of that analogy. We trust our mind as an asset because it is the only choice we have. Once you throw away your mind as untrustworthy then you are simply sitting in the dark with nothing to work with. My main point in the analogy wasn't that toyota is some great choice for discovering your perception of reality, it was that the source of your mind doesn't determine if it's an asset, it's the reliability of it that determines if it is an asset. So when you say God is 'magical' you just mean he has 'seemingly supernatural qualities or powers.'? What else would I mean? That God pulls rabbits out of his hat? Or does card tricks on the side of the street? An uncreated, eternal, unintelligent, chaotic gas. Yeah hydrogen can be somewhat chaotic, if the universe was initially noble gasses, it would have been far more boring. Though I'm not sure about eternal, I don't know how the gas formed, most likely far protons and electrons pairing, and then those formed from quarks, but beyond that who knows? I can only speculate just like any other human. I take your answer to mean “Yes we are just shrapnel in an uncreated unintelligent eternal explosion.” - am I misunderstanding you? My answer is that I believe it could be a possibility. I've been asking you how you can be right about anything. Well sometimes people are right and sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes people think something their whole life devote their life to something and right at the end find out they are wrong. Now maybe you're again going with "Oh ho if God didn't make your mind your mind is unreliable and you can't be right" but again thats silly, I have no reason not to trust my mind. Is your whole strategy in this conversation just, make him question his mind and then maybe he'll find God? Super duper. You don't think the lack of mental reliability in any alternative world-view is confirmation in itself? That seems like the strongest confirmation possible. What lack of mental reliability? YOU believe there is a lack of mental reliability, I do not. If you accepted that evidence and trusted at least that much I think God would then be able to confirm himself to you in other ways to build your faith but, as long as you reject the initial evidence, how could you trust any confirmation wasn't just a mental glitch? What evidence? So you're saying if I believe in God then I'll start seeing things that I can chalk up to God? God, show me a sign... Oh look! The wind blew that branch! That must be God! Oh listen! A Dog barked right after I said that, he must have made that Dog bark! After I work out each afternoon, I feel God inside of me because I'm all warm and sweaty. It seems God couldn't even prove himself to you as long as you deny that he made your mind reliable because you might conclude the confirmation was an illusion or hallucination. You don't even seem willing to consider the possibility of there being no mental reliability in any other world-view. The way you turn some of my questions around makes it seem like you have some kind of bias that prevents you from being too inquisitive about your beliefs or lack thereof. See thats the thing, I don't have a lack of mental reliability. I don't see some act of God and think it's an illusion or mental glitch. I see the wind blow the branch and I know it's the wind. I hear a dog bark and I know it's most likely because someone walked too close to his property. People looking for God desperately will start seeing God if he is there or not. "feeling" his presence watching over you? If you suggest to someone there is someone behind them and that they shouldn't turn around or the person behind them will attack, some people will really start feeling someone behind them and get very scared or paranoid. You say there is something keeping me from being too inquisitive about my beliefs? I say I look deeper into the truth of the matter, I looked behind me when someone said someone was behind me, even though they said it meant death. Someone says the lamp shade is rattling so it must be ghosts, I find the heater below it causing the hot air to rise and push the lamp shade around. Someone tells me a large man in the sky is shy about showing up and wants me to follow some rules, I question his existance. It just seems you don't have any rational justification for trusting your mind if God didn't make it. The impossibility of an alternative seems convincing to me. I'm just asking if you have any alternative. It seems all you have is who cares why not whatever. It just seems you don't have any rational justification for trusting God exists. The nonexistance of God seems convincing to me. I'm just asking for proof of his existance. It seems all you have is speculation that without God your mind wouldn't be reliable. I have faith in my mind just as you have faith in your God. You say a mind is reliable if it is created by God. I say a mind can be reliable even without the existence of God. Can I prove it? No of course not, just as much as you can prove that God exists. Do we both accept our minds are reliable? I hope so, otherwise we're probably both wasting our time. Your thinking is flawed. Your statement is: Your mind can only be reliable if God made it. You support this with: If God made your brain, then it would be reliable as he is perfect and would make an awesome brain. Any other way your mind would be formed would be imperfect. Now this is why I have a problem with this, this is assuming that God making it is the only way you can have a reliable mind. I can accept the statement: "If God made your brain, it would be reliable." Though, suggesting that any other form of creation being unreliable is where I have problems. Now can we agree that the mind is in the brain? I really don't want to get into a metaphysical conversation about that. Now a brain isn't special super material, it's made of cells which are made of atoms. Now these are arranged in a very special way to form our brain, either God created it, or it came together by itself over time through evolution, or whatever. Are you telling me that it is impossible that cells that formed could have formed together to create a brain with a mind? Improbable maybe, but impossible? I think not. Initially the belief that nothing else is trustworthy apart from God. Then hearing the gospel about Jesus dying for me and that my sins could be forgiven. Then reading the new testament, especially the words of Jesus. There was another experience which I remember thinking was like an internal confirmation to me but I think I had already accepted the fact that nothing made sense apart from God nor did I deny the truth of the gospel or anything like that. But I don't see how any of this could mean anything to you except for the first one. Well I personally have not come to the conclusion that nothing else makes sense apart from God. Whenever I give up trying to find the solutions to problems I'll start looking at God to give it a real quick answer. You could prove your existence to someone who believes in God but, if you were posing in front of an agnostic, how could they trust what they were seeing? A. "You" are part of an eternal gas cloud. B. So am "I". C. Therefore Kureji is real. As long as the agnostic wasn't questioning his reality, I'm sure I could convince him of my existence. What does having faith in myself mean? I have faith that I am not a broken machine. I have faith that my input and output are reliable. I have faith that I'm not crazy and that what I experience is actually happening. This is the only thing I have faith in. As you should know, as a man of God, faith is something you believe in, yet may not be able to prove. You have faith in God, right? It just seems that's the best an anti-theist can do when it comes to questioning his or her perception or knowledge. I've only asked you how you can trust your mind and you don't seem to have an answer. Well there is two possibilities. 1) my mind is reliable and your point is moot. 2) my mind is unreliable and you probably don't even exist so why am I talking to you? I assume the first, after all I'm still talking to you. Sounds like you're begging the question there. I don't really see what else you can do though since you don't want to believe that God made your mind. Anything referring to the mind is begging the question, it's why you can't PROVE to yourself that your mind is reliable, either you believe it or not because anything you might use as evidence is from your mind.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 8, 2010 15:30:57 GMT -5
... no response? I'm not trying to be catty, I'm just curious.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 11, 2010 22:41:18 GMT -5
... no response? I'm not trying to be catty, I'm just curious. Sorry to leave you waiting. I had a busy week or so and I wanted to put a lot of thought into how to avoid just going in circles on this topic. I think I see how to avoid a misunderstanding now.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 11, 2010 22:47:52 GMT -5
I meant the lack of evidence. The lack of a logical confirmation of the assumption of reliability. This misunderstanding was confusing me throughout the discussion. I don't know if I failed to distinguish between the ways we were using the word unreliable or if we were just talking in circles. I'm not trying to convince you that your mind is actually unreliable (except for unbelief). That makes sense. The denial of the mind would assume the validity of the mind to deny anything. It sounds here like you implied you don't know if you are right about anything, you just think sometimes you might be or could be. Is that what you believe? I mean could be imperfect. I'm not sure if I could prove it would be – I'd have to think about it more. When I say 'unreliable' and 'untrustworthy' my point is that the logical possibility of serious error would remove the logical certainty of reliability (provided by faith in God) which uniquely complements the assumption of reliability (unlike atheism). Without the intelligence of God, unintended error is possible. Without the benevolence of God, deliberate error is possible. I don't usually think of faith as excluding proof. To me it seems that it would be intellectually inconsistent to doubt God's existence. Since I have faith in my mind just like you, it makes sense to me to have faith in God as well. It seems to me that faith in God confirms my faith in my mind which confirms my faith in God and so on. It seems impossible for there to be any other belief that would be compatible with mental reliability. I don't think consciousness could ever occur this way. If you shake a giant box of legos for a bazillion years maybe an unconscious lego-man could fall out – but I don't think it could be conscious or personal.
What type of proof do you think is right to expect? What is your understanding of the difference between natural and supernatural?
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 12, 2010 13:55:12 GMT -5
I'm bad at this whole quoting thing, so I'm going to just take issue with this "I don't think it's silly. If it is reasonable to assume the reliability of the mind, it seems equally reasonable to embrace the only belief which logically confirms this assumption. Do you disagree? "
I disagree because I don't think that belief in God "logically confirms" the assumption that the mind is reasonable.
What I mean by this is that is that all of your "evidence" that God exists you have received through your mind and senses, thus you FIRST have to assume that your mind is reliable, completely independent of God or anything else you see as "real". THEN and only then can you deduce that God, Satan, Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, your cat, your toilet and whatever else exists or does not.
My argument says "everything I know (including God) is perceived through my mind, therefore I have to assume my mind is reliable"
Yours says "my mind is reliable, so that means that God created it, because I learned through things I have translated through my mind that God created everything" (extremely circular and self-justifying).
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 12, 2010 17:37:04 GMT -5
I'm bad at this whole quoting thing, so I'm going to just take issue with this "I don't think it's silly. If it is reasonable to assume the reliability of the mind, it seems equally reasonable to embrace the only belief which logically confirms this assumption. Do you disagree? " I disagree because I don't think that belief in God "logically confirms" the assumption that the mind is reasonable. What I mean by this is that is that all of your "evidence" that God exists you have received through your mind and senses, I agree with this. I meant it confirms the assumption after the fact. Maybe 'confirm' is too loose a word. How about "affirms". Believing God exists affirms (after the fact) the assumption of mental reliability. Having assumed mental reliability there seems to be no other belief that affirms our assumption other than belief in God. In fact it seem logically impossible for any other belief to ever do so. I don't know if that counts as an argument because you already assume the "therefore" to be reliable before the following conclusion is accepted. My mind is reliable and the only possible belief which is logically consistent with this, is belief in God. I think it is reasonable to embrace the only belief that is logically consistent with faith in your mind. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 12, 2010 17:53:35 GMT -5
My mind is reliable and the only possible belief which is logically consistent with this, is belief in God. I think it is reasonable to embrace the only belief that is logically consistent with faith in your mind. Do you disagree? I completely disagree. Firstly, because we already assumed that the mind is reliable. Because of that, I can rely on evidence, on things that I see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc. God is not one of those things, thus my reasonable mind gives me no reason to assume he exists. Secondly, not everyone's mind is reliable. People do have mental disabilities and illnesses that prevent them from relying on their mind. Why did a God who only makes perfect and awesome things do this? Because no God designed their minds, nor my mind or yours. They came to be the way they are, reliable or not.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 13, 2010 16:30:37 GMT -5
My mind is reliable and the only possible belief which is logically consistent with this, is belief in God. I think it is reasonable to embrace the only belief that is logically consistent with faith in your mind. Do you disagree? I completely disagree. Firstly, because we already assumed that the mind is reliable. Because of that, I can rely on evidence, on things that I see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc. God is not one of those things, thus my reasonable mind gives me no reason to assume he exists. That seems to assume that mediate sensory input is the only source of knowledge. What about memory, logic, and thoughts in general? We don't perceive purely intellectual phenomena through the five senses, but we still acquire lots of knowledge through such phenomena. Why couldn't knowledge of God be acquired through the intellect rather than only through the senses? Is it unreasonable to accept intellectual evidence? We know at least some disability is the result of sin. If someone's wife was a drunkard while pregnant, her child can be severely disabled as a result of her sin. That may not be the explanation for all disabilities, regardless, it's not logically necessary to conclude God is not the creator just because there is suffering in the world.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 13, 2010 22:30:49 GMT -5
Why couldn't knowledge of God be acquired through the intellect rather than only through the senses? Is it unreasonable to accept intellectual evidence? memory, logic and thoughts are constructed from pre-gathered sensory information. Well, your entire argument is that if one assumes the mind is reliable, one must assume the existence of a reliable creator. Based on the fact that some minds are unreliable, does that mean that God is hit or miss? That he only created SOME of the minds? Or is it more likely that the reliability of a mind is based SOLELY on the surrounding elements (genetics, the way a child is raised during brain development), what you would refer to as sin, even though children in completely "sinful" environments can turn out productively, and children in what you would consider "good" environments turn out with unreliable minds.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 14, 2010 12:34:03 GMT -5
Why couldn't knowledge of God be acquired through the intellect rather than only through the senses? Is it unreasonable to accept intellectual evidence? memory, logic and thoughts are constructed from pre-gathered sensory information. Yes, I thought about that. It certainly would rule out memory as being non-sensory evidence of something in the way I was intending. But logic still applies because not every logical conclusion was necessarily an object of direct sensation in my past. There seem to be many ways we can gain knowledge of things we have never seen. For example, my neighbor said his father had a bee farm in Kyrgystan. I can reasonably believe him even though I've never seen that country, his father, or even a bee farm. All I had to do was consider whether it was reasonable to believe him or not. Jesus said he had seen God. I also can consider whether it is reasonable to believe Jesus or not. Also seems that when we do math problems we can acquire knowledge that is not a result of direct sensation. Or the fact that I have thoughts. I've never seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt a thought - but I know I have thoughts. I can reason about all sorts of things and grow in knowledge without that knowledge being the direct result of the five senses. Logic provides us with knowledge that is not the direct result of sensation. Logic tells me that only belief in God provides a worldview (on top of the assumption) of certainty. Logic tells me that all other worldviews leave things open for seemingly unlimited universal deception. Since I can't help taking the leap of faith that my mind is reliable, it seems reasonable to trust my mind when logic is pointing its finger at God saying "Look, certainty is in him." Seems people have the option to reject the idea in some ways. I was mainly just pointing out how no atheistic worldview seems to logically compliment the assumption of the mind's reliability. But belief in God seems to do so exclusively. I'm not opposed to the idea that God allows other factors to influence the formation of our minds. God hasn't yet put an end to all the rebellion in the universe. I don't see why it would have to be either/or. It doesn't matter how you grew up, God will not judge a person for what they don't know about. Sin is only when you know better and are able to be loving but choose selfishness instead - as if you are more important than anyone else. I agree. We are not solely a product of our environment because we have the ability to make free choices.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 20, 2010 11:35:37 GMT -5
There seem to be many ways we can gain knowledge of things we have never seen. For example, my neighbor said his father had a bee farm in Kyrgystan. I can reasonably believe him even though I've never seen that country, his father, or even a bee farm. All I had to do was consider whether it was reasonable to believe him or not. Jesus said he had seen God. I also can consider whether it is reasonable to believe Jesus or not. First, how did you acquire that "information"? You HEARD the words through your neighbor. Still sensory information. Secondly, Jesus never wrote down a word, he spoke to people who spoke to people, and it was written down per THEIR interpretation. Perhaps THEIR minds were unreliable? Believing this is the equivalent of "my friend's second cousin's wife heard from a friend that..." But the basis of the math problems was acquired through the senses. How do you know what numbers are represented? Senses. Same with functions and everything else. Similarly, all of the stimulus and information used in a thought was acquired through the senses. Well, logic tells me that only belief in science provides a worldview (on top of the assumption) of striving towards certainty. Closing your eyes to all that is not supported by a 2,000 book is the opposite of certainty. So he allows unreliability, which completely contradicts your argument that the mind is reliable because God created it... Clearly whether or not God created it , it can be reliable or not. Argument solved. Again, the logic in my mind tells me that when I have consentual sex with my adult boyfriend, that's not selfish. That's a loving experience in which we hold each other as more important than ourselves. You see it as selfish of me because I'm encouraging another to sin with me. I'm a good person, and an often (not always) selfless person when it comes to nearly universal ideas of good, not silly rules from a "benevolent creator" who lets us have all these "vile affections" and then condemns us for them. I agree. We are not solely a product of our environment because we have the ability to make free choices.[/quote] But that still ends up in chemical imbalances leading to mental illnesses through no fault of the child's? Teach me the benevolent logic in that....
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 21, 2010 19:47:02 GMT -5
There seem to be many ways we can gain knowledge of things we have never seen. For example, my neighbor said his father had a bee farm in Kyrgystan. I can reasonably believe him even though I've never seen that country, his father, or even a bee farm. All I had to do was consider whether it was reasonable to believe him or not. Jesus said he had seen God. I also can consider whether it is reasonable to believe Jesus or not. First, how did you acquire that "information"? You HEARD the words through your neighbor. Still sensory information. Secondly, Jesus never wrote down a word, he spoke to people who spoke to people, and it was written down per THEIR interpretation. Perhaps THEIR minds were unreliable? Believing this is the equivalent of "my friend's second cousin's wife heard from a friend that..." Are you a Bible scholar or something? If some men write a few non-fiction eyewitness accounts of their friend's life, it is totally reasonable for me to consider whether they seem trustworthy or not - It's not that complicated. It's not like we can never determine anything about any biography that anyone writes because it is not our own first hand experience. My point was that the conclusion was not directly acquired through the senses even if the technique and input data were initially acquired through the senses. How do you know you have thoughts? Striving towards certainty? No you're not. If your mind was not intelligently designed then you can't rule out serious unintentional error. If your mind was not benevolently designed then you cannot rule out sabotage or intentional manipulation. It sounds more like you are pressing the gas pedal with the engine off and calling it striving towards the grocery store. Also refusing to believe in God seems very unscientific in light of what we've been discussing. It seems like you are projecting your inconsistent and unreasonable bias onto my consistent and reasonable faith. Wait, I said that based on logic though... and logic is thousands of years old! Nevermind! I obviously can't trust my conclusion because logic is so ancient! I wasn't building a case on the mentally handicapped (by birth) but on people with potentially working minds like you and kureji. The fact of mental disability acknowledges minor exceptions to the overall or general reliability of the human mind. The worldview of ignoring God allows a universal failure, more than a few exceptions as in reality, in the form of unintentional mental error or sabotage or manipulation. That's because you do not allow the logic in your mind to embrace belief in your creator so now you are mentally handicapped and perverted. So what? In effect you lovingly hold the devil as more important than yourself because you do his will even though it will result in you being thrown into hellfire. And your fornicating partner will end up in the fire too. So really it's like you love the devil more than either of you. If you were married you would still go to hell for your self-idolatry and unbelief. But you are right that it is selfish for you to sin with another person. That suggests that morality is a democracy. You deserve to go to hell for just one time you were unfairly selfish, you can't wash it away by telling yourself you are good and telling other people how moral and good you are. Vile affections? You wouldn't have vile affections if you loved Jesus. The reason you have vile affections is because you rejected God. Now God has rejected you and left you to make your body cheap (or selflessly free..) by giving it to a man while you are not his wife, which makes you sexually filthy even if you prefer to live in a fantasy world of "selflessness". That's about as selfless as giving a tip to your drug dealer. There's nothing benevolent about children growing up with a Godless fornicating mommy and being mentally troubled by their experiences. God does not cause parents to ruin their children's lives by being immoral.
|
|
|
Post by mollyohio on May 24, 2010 10:49:47 GMT -5
And in this one, nothing you said was supported by any fact or logic, just blind faith.
When I say the Bible is a 2,000 year old book I mean just that: it describes things that "happened" (either by disciples who would be considered the modern-day equivalent of cult followers, or much later passed through various translations and eventually compiled ignoring all the texts that "contradicted" the others), and NOTHING that happened in the Bible has happened in whole or in part since. The second coming hasn't happened, to which you would argue "yet", and God does not literally "talk" to people in any observable or measurable form. Unlike logic, it is not something that can be observed presently.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on May 24, 2010 21:23:19 GMT -5
And in this one, nothing you said was supported by any fact or logic, just blind faith. Was there some part you did not understand? I tried to show my reasoning throughout the post. I agree, though some of it's way older. I agree. They were considered strange cult followers by many back then. I don't think they really fit the profile of cult leaders though. Have you read the new testament part of the Bible? The first time I read through the Gospels I thought a lot of the things Jesus said made manipulative cult-leader types look really pathetic. I was impressed by the down-to-earth honesty and bluntness of Jesus Christ and his followers. Not really as I understand it. I'm pretty sure we have the Bible in its original languages for the most part. You can read it in the original Hebrew and Greek if you wanted to check how different groups have translated it into English. Sometimes I check the original language (since computers make it easily available) if I think I'm missing some meaning in the English translation. Of course. If we inserted the Quran into the end of the Bible don't you think it would defeat the purpose of compiling the Bible? huh? It rained in the Bible. The Lord Jesus' return is not intended to be the kind of proof that an atheist would want. That kind of proof would not benefit an atheist in any way because it would be too late to repent. You mean like telling people to write his words in a book for the whole world to read? Or do you mean audibly with a voice from heaven? I don't understand why you've said this. Do you observe thoughts with your five senses? Or do you need to see a squiggly line on a readout from some electrode machine in order to be convinced you have thoughts? Not all knowledge is a direct result of sensation.
|
|