You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

nthclare

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You were the one complaining that this forum is boring and it's mods don't seem to appreciate banter and heated discussions. I assumed you were including your posts in that assessment.


This is a discussion forum, it's for discussion. People should be able to handle their beliefs being deconstructed. If they can't and they rail against the notion, then they are closeminded and anti-cohesion.


I am not a mod, I have no upperhand anywhere. I just suggested a thread which deals with that specific topic, so that we don't drag this thread off topic.


Never said otherwise.

If you're ever in North Clare or South Galway, PM me and I'd be happy to sit down for a coffee and desert in a café or funky restaurant...we can discuss this.. we'd probably have a good laugh about it anyhow.. and I'd be happy to pay for it

Bobtheman

I don't know whether God exists or not but I believe some form of intelligence formed life.

smacl

Bobtheman wrote: »

I don't know whether God exists or not but I believe some form of intelligence formed life.

And how did the intelligence that formed intelligent life come into being?

Bobtheman

smacl wrote: »

And how did the intelligence that formed intelligent life come into being?

Good question. Goggle Dna by design by Stephen Myers.
The odds on one protein cell forming are astronomical.
But who created that ? That intelligence. I don't think there is evidence there.

Bobtheman

I would postulate that a lot of organized religion is based on events we can't be certain of? The red seal parting etc.
It's possible whatever intelligence created the world had nothing to do with organized religion.
Until science can explain these astronomical odds achieving life then I'm with the intelligent design group .the odds on one protein cell developing astronomical but obviously more than one developed so..

nozzferrahhtoo

Bobtheman wrote: »

The odds on one protein cell forming are astronomical.

That is a fallacius way to look at it though.

Think of it this way. Get 4 decks of cards. Mix them together until they are random as you possibly can get. Then dealt hem out.

The odds that you get the order of cards you just did are astronomical. You could spend the rest of your life dealing and redealing and never get the same order of cards ever again.

But there is nothing special about the first hand you dealt. It is only if you PRETEND it is special and look back on that pretence retrospectively, that it seems special. But you could do the same thing no matter what first hand was dealt.

Similarly we have NO IDEA how many different ways of forms life could have taken. So we look at something like a "protein cell" in situ, the same way as that randomly dealt hand of cards, and go "Wow, the odds of this are huge!".

It is a very wrong, but very human, way of thinking that is misleading you there.

All that said though, your sentence is very misleading and fallacious for a second reason too. The odds of a protein cell, like one from your body, forming as it is right now out of nowhere is indeed quite astronomical. People in the past have tried to liken it to a hurricane going through a junk yard and accidentally constructing a passenger jet.

But that is NOT how our cells formed.... in one single formation. To our best knowledge it formed over millions of years of ever more complex iterations. Which is an entirely different thing altogether.

nozzferrahhtoo

iceman700 wrote: »

I think it is fair to say that if someone sits there and asks for proof of God, it cannot be done, its not possible.

I said as much earlier in the thread. In one of the posts that you seemingly ignored and did not reply to. Remember when I told you "Be careful with the word proof".

The problem is not that you have no "proof" there is a god. The issue for me is you have absolutely ZERO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer thus far that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that our universe and/or life within it are the product of the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

Put another way, you do not have proof, but you do not have ANY evidence either it seems. So do not get ahead of yourself looking for "proof" yet. Aim for getting off square one first.

iceman700 wrote: »

Once you have had personal experience, you will be in no doubt whether it is imaginary or not, and thats the bottom line, the evidence lies in your own experience.

You are repeating yourself now, which is more evidence you are interested in soap boxing a sermon and not conversation. You already said the above about personal experience already. I replied before thusly:

"Even when someone else has the SAME personal experience, that does not make it evidence (Careful with the word proof). For example many people have certain experiences during meditation. Some people interpret that experience as evidence there is a god or gods. Someone else having the exact same experience does not."

There is a reason personal testimony is one of the worst forms of evidence.

iceman700 wrote: »

I would find it a more balanced view, if someone did partake in spiritual practice for a period of time and then proclaimed it didnt work.

You have it already. On this very forum in fact. Here is a link.

iceman700 wrote: »

I do not believe it is a die-hard belief needed at the start, more so an open mind

Which I have. But alas many people misunderstand when "have an open mind" actually means. What it DOES mean is being willing and open to changing your mind if and when evidence demands it. What it does NOT mean.... but alas what many theists here try to make it mean........ is to afford things undue credence as a default. But not all things. Just particularly the thing or things THEY are trying to make you believe when they admonish you to have an open mind.

iceman700 wrote: »

The other bugbear seems to be free will, was it not free will that was exercised when you got up this morning, when you decided to post on said forum

To us it does FEEL like that was free will yes. But that does not mean it actually was free will. Giving a personal, possibly fantasy, anecdote of someone you know who SAID she has free will, is not evidence that it exists either. We can all find anecdotes of people expressing positions we agree with.

I am short on evidence for free will so I must withold belief in it at this time. If I look at a glass of water and "chose" to pick it up, or not, I certainly FEEL like that is my free will making a choice. But feeling it is true does not make it true. Be that the existence of a god, or the existence of free will.

Bobtheman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a fallacius way to look at it though.

Think of it this way. Get 4 decks of cards. Mix them together until they are random as you possibly can get. Then dealt hem out.

The odds that you get the order of cards you just did are astronomical. You could spend the rest of your life dealing and redealing and never get the same order of cards ever again.

But there is nothing special about the first hand you dealt. It is only if you PRETEND it is special and look back on that pretence retrospectively, that it seems special. But you could do the same thing no matter what first hand was dealt.

Similarly we have NO IDEA how many different ways of forms life could have taken. So we look at something like a "protein cell" in situ, the same way as that randomly dealt hand of cards, and go "Wow, the odds of this are huge!".

It is a very wrong, but very human, way of thinking that is misleading you there.

All that said though, your sentence is very misleading and fallacious for a second reason too. The odds of a protein cell, like one from your body, forming as it is right now out of nowhere is indeed quite astronomical. People in the past have tried to liken it to a hurricane going through a junk yard and accidentally constructing a passenger jet.

But that is NOT how our cells formed.... in one single formation. To our best knowledge it formed over millions of years of ever more complex iterations. Which is an entirely different thing altogether.

You are being terribly simplistic..it happened several times and even when spread out over millions of years still astronomical

Bobtheman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a fallacius way to look at it though.

Think of it this way. Get 4 decks of cards. Mix them together until they are random as you possibly can get. Then dealt hem out.

The odds that you get the order of cards you just did are astronomical. You could spend the rest of your life dealing and redealing and never get the same order of cards ever again.

But there is nothing special about the first hand you dealt. It is only if you PRETEND it is special and look back on that pretence retrospectively, that it seems special. But you could do the same thing no matter what first hand was dealt.

Similarly we have NO IDEA how many different ways of forms life could have taken. So we look at something like a "protein cell" in situ, the same way as that randomly dealt hand of cards, and go "Wow, the odds of this are huge!".

It is a very wrong, but very human, way of thinking that is misleading you there.

All that said though, your sentence is very misleading and fallacious for a second reason too. The odds of a protein cell, like one from your body, forming as it is right now out of nowhere is indeed quite astronomical. People in the past have tried to liken it to a hurricane going through a junk yard and accidentally constructing a passenger jet.

But that is NOT how our cells formed.... in one single formation. To our best knowledge it formed over millions of years of ever more complex iterations. Which is an entirely different thing altogether.

I think you are talking through your hole. Look up anything by Stephen Myers on dna by design

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure why you are replying to me twice. Is once not enough? I am well aware of Mr Myers, and many of his kin like Behe and convicted criminal Kent Hovinid and many many more. You would do well not to assume I do not know the literature quite well indeed.

Bobtheman wrote: »

You are being terribly simplistic..it happened several times and even when spread out over millions of years still astronomical

No, it is you being simplistic. Because as I said you are looking at a cell today, with all it's complexity, and trying to discuss the "odds" of it forming. Without even showing your workings. Whats your denominator for the "odds" exactly? How do you calculate it.

You are being simplistic by leaving out the iterative steps over millions of years that formed it. You are being simplistic by leaving out all the other possible ways it could have formed. You are being simplistic by simply looking at the end result and working backwards.

And finally you are being simplistic when forgetting the countless BILLIONS of planets in our universe, all with different conditions and parameters. The odds of winning the lotto seem high because if you play once, it is unlikely you will win. If you play 8 million times however, your chance of winning is nearly guaranteed. Similarly when considering the odds of life forming as it has, you have to factor in that that is a game we have rolled the dice on many many billions of times.

So one of us is being simplistic sure, but to simplify it for you: It aint me.

CramCycle

Also, to fit in with my "free will" and physics idea, look at experiments were they basically threw the bare chemicals into a tank and gave a spark of electricity, and low and behold, amino acids formed. While there were issues with the premise, the results showed a preference for forming of these molecules, so its not as much of a random thing as people make out. They are preferential when the ingredients are there, which sways the odds of the starting blocks happening far more favourable.

Pherekydes

Bobtheman wrote: »

I think you are talking through your hole. Look up anything by Stephen Myers on dna by design

Myers is an advocate for ID. He is talking through his hole.

iceman700

I have to say Iam quite happy I posted here, its easy to converse with like minded people where everyone more or less agrees.
I knew I was walking into the lions den, but felt I had to challenge my beliefs.
I understand totally where you are all coming from and would like to thank everyone who took part.
Not been able to give evidence for the existence of God, in a logical debate, was an eye opener, seriously,that is a problem.
Again thank you to everyone who took the time, but may I ask one more question, and could we apply the same strict parameters of logic and science and dealing with the five senses.
Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.

nozzferrahhtoo

iceman700 wrote: »

Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.

Actually I personally do not believe love exists.

I think it is a placeholder term for a cascade of emotions that differs from person to person, and context to context.

What "love" means to a parent holding their new born child differs to what "love" means to two teenagers lying in each others arms in secret down the hay barn and differs from what "love" means to the theist who is on their knees looking up in endless admiration at their Messiah on the Cross or the wet eyed emotions that spring out a of a Muslim thinking about their perfect human Mo.

For me "love" does not exist in and of itself, in the same way that "cake" means many different things to different people and one cake can be very very different to the next. We just have one umberella term that vaguely describes a whole swath of human experience.

All that said however we can very much evidence that peoples emotional reactions differ towards those they love than to anyone else they know, and differ yet further to complete strangers. We can put a brain under fMRI, or we can measure things like Galvanic Skin Response to show all the effects of love and it's constituent parts. And we have vast swaths of data on people giving their own life or suffering, despite all our evolved instincts towards self preservation, in the name of a person, place, or ideal that they love.

As I said before, be mindful of the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I think we can strongly evidence the existence of "love" if we define it clearly..... but nothing is ever 100%. With the existence of god we can not even seemingly get off square one in evidencing it's existence. Especially as "god" is also often quite vaguely (if at all) defined by the people claiming it exists.

magicbastarder

iceman700 wrote: »

Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.

are you trying to draw a corollary between the task of proving god exists, and of proving love exists?
love is an emergent property, and as nozzferrahhtoo points out, a moving target.
though i guess god is a moving target also, the definition of god is many and varied.

however, if god is an emergent property also, you certainly can't claim (s)he is the creator of all things.

smacl

iceman700 wrote: »

I have to say Iam quite happy I posted here, its easy to converse with like minded people where everyone more or less agrees.
I knew I was walking into the lions den, but felt I had to challenge my beliefs.
I understand totally where you are all coming from and would like to thank everyone who took part.
Not been able to give evidence for the existence of God, in a logical debate, was an eye opener, seriously,that is a problem.
Again thank you to everyone who took the time, but may I ask one more question, and could we apply the same strict parameters of logic and science and dealing with the five senses.
Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.

Love is an emotion, which is a subjective state of mind. It can be evidenced to a limited extent in some contexts by observing a persons behaviour. It is also a very ambiguous term, so I could reasonably say that I love my wife, I love my children, I love the new Fiona Apple album, I love the solace of cycling alone through the mountains at daybreak, I love getting into a warm bed after a long day, etc.. You might also add that you love your god. All of these things use the same term, love, to describe very different things. What they all have in common is that they describe a positive relationship between oneself and something or someone else, real or imagined. From that we can deduce that love doesn't exist in and of itself, it is a word we use to describe a state of mind. I would humbly suggest this is something that it has in common with belief in a god or gods.

iceman700

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Iceman700 made two claims:
The soul can be experienced physically
It cannot be measured scientifically.

These contradict, as anything that can be experienced physically must be by definition measurable scientifically (as scientific measurements are recorded physical experiences themselves).


I followed up, as a general aside, asking that if something cannot be measured scientifically, then how do you know if it exists at all?

Just to clarify, maybe I didnt make myself clear, the results of spiritual intervention can be experienced in this physical reality.
Heres a small story which might make it clearer.
There was a great flood, many people were drowning, some managed to climb to their rooftops to escape the rising waters. One man, a pious man was steadfast in his belief God would save him. A boat came to his rescue, he refused to get in, telling the boatman go rescue the others, God will save me.
The waters kept rising, another boat came, again he refused, same reason, God will save me. Later again a helicopter came and hovered above, again he refused. The water was now up to his neck, and he became frightened and called out to God, why have you forsaken me. A booming voice came out of the sky and said, I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more do you want.

If something cannot be measured scientifically, then , how do you know it exists, how do you measure love, scientifically.

nozzferrahhtoo

So in your fantasy anecdote above, "god" is just the placeholder term for anything that happens at all. If you need money and you win the lotto, you can just call that "god". If you need help in a flood and a boat comes: "god".

By that standard you can simply see the hand of god in anything you want. Which is the "belief before evidence" we spoke of before where you can similarly see evidence for an unfaithful spouse in anything at all. The spouse is not hungry today? Clearly because they had a meal with their other lover! The spouse is late home from work? Clearly spending time with their other lover!

If you select a belief first, you can contrive any narrative to it later. I have heard the phrase, and it was even a country song "Thank god for unanswered prayers". That is win win. If you pray for something and you get it, that was god! If you do not get it, that was also god! When a positive AND negative result of a test can BOTH be taken as validation for a premise.... the test is a joke.

joe40

smacl wrote: »

Love is an emotion, which is a subjective state of mind. It can be evidenced to a limited extent in some contexts by observing a persons behaviour. It is also a very ambiguous term, so I could reasonably say that I love my wife, I love my children, I love the new Fiona Apple album, I love the solace of cycling alone through the mountains at daybreak, I love getting into a warm bed after a long day, etc.. You might also add that you love your god. All of these things use the same term, love, to describe very different things. What they all have in common is that they describe a positive relationship between oneself and something or someone else, real or imagined. From that we can deduce that love doesn't exist in and of itself, it is a word we use to describe a state of mind. I would humbly suggest this is something that it has in common with belief in a god or gods.

Love as an emotion is the result of complex brain chemistry. It has evolutionary benefits it terms of survival of our species
Humans greater strength is the development of strong social groups. This involved the ability of complex communication, co operation and ultimately love.
There was an anthropologist that was asked what was the first evidence of humanity developing. She said the discovery of a healed femur, that had been broken.
That meant the person was cared for as their injury healed.
That is love.. human biology.
I no way want to diminish love it is paramount to our existence. But it has a biological basis.

(Sorry, I meant to respond to a different post, the one above I agree with)

smokingman

The polyfilla arguement...I don't know, but it fills the gaps...

iceman700

Could you truly know what love is unless you experienced it.
Describing different types of love, doesn't present evidence of the existence of love.
Given that it can go as quickly as it comes, or even turn to hate, how do you even pin it down, if its a state of mind, could it be in our heads only, is it then our imagination.
Which comes first, the state of mind or emotion.
I cant see a persons behavior been evidence, it could be nothing more than following a set step of procedures, handed down by society.

smacl

iceman700 wrote: »

Could you truly know what love is unless you experienced it.
Describing different types of love, doesn't present evidence of the existence of love.
Given that it can go as quickly as it comes, or even turn to hate, how do you even pin it down, if its a state of mind, could it be in our heads only, is it then our imagination.
Which comes first, the state of mind or emotion.
I cant see a persons behavior been evidence, it could be nothing more than following a set step of procedures, handed down by society.

Perhaps before looking for evidence for the existence of love, you could start by providing us with a single well accepted and unambiguous definition of what you mean by love. I doubt you'll find one as all the standard dictionaries, e.g. Merriam-Webster here, contain multiple definitions as both noun and verb. If for example, you say 'I love my wife', love is a verb, it doesn't exist in and of itself. If you talk about 'the love' between and husband and wife, you've conflated the love the husband has for his wife and the love the wife has for her husband which are clearly two different things.

If you take the first entry from MW, that love is "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties" than yes, you can measure it through observing someones comparative behavior to the person they love versus others they do not. The reason you can do this is that love is defined above in terms of behavior. Going through other definitions, e.g. "attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers", you can also measure this but you would do so differently as it is a different meaning for the same word.

pearcider

All these arguments about love miss the point because atheists only believe in the void of biological determinism ie that the existence of love, beauty and truth are merely an accidental by product of a clock work universe and that these so called altruistic genetics can replace God.

The problem that the atheists have is that the quantum theorists discovered many years ago that you must completely abandon determinism and opt for the many worlds or multiverse theory to explain physical reality. That, to most people, is even more of a stretch than just simply believing in God. Simply put either only our reality exists or every single possible reality exists. When presented with such a choice most opt for the existence of the single, stupendously well designed reality that we appear to inhabi.

Fundamentally all attempts by the human brain to understand the mystery of human existence are doomed to fail. See Godels theorem. Since the brain is part of the system it seeks to understand, any exercise to do so is futile and leads to numerous paradoxes such as the hard problem of conciousness. Of course most people don’t need a scientist to tell them that. The Bible warns of listening to “wise people” “ever learning but never able to come to the truth.” Be wise as serpents against such people who seek to control human behaviors and rule by committee. This is the new priesthood that mankind must fear. The rule of the white coats and the bean counters foreshadowed in communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

Thankfully, for the moment the ordinary person already knows that life is a profound miracle which is why the number of atheists in the world is tiny compared to the number of believers. And why belief in God is fundamental to all culture.

magicbastarder

death metal exists, but can i prove that scientifically?

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

death metal exists, but can i prove that scientifically?

So does Frankie Knuckles, he's pushing up the daisy's now but his mixing still takes me to a heavenly place,and his legend still lives on...

I love death metal too, Territory is one of my favourite tracks by Sepeltura... darkness and light...it exists alright...

robindch

nthclare wrote: »

I tried to be friendly here or put my hand up and apologise for my attitude or upsetting the decorum of the subject matter, and when I do it's only the moderators who'll thank your post,as they have mine sometimes. Maybe we should have a better place to discuss these matters, such as a loosecloak type of sub forum. Where people can let off steam,slag each other off etc.. and have a warning that if you're highly sensitive or lack emotional intelligence maybe it's best you steer clear.

No, A+A aims to discuss things with some semblance of reason, where people are expected to provide evidence to support their points of view. If you don't like rational discussion and want instead - as you say above - to insult people directly or indirectly, then, as smacl correctly points out, After Hours will suit you better than here. And sites other than boards.ie will suit you better still.

nthclare wrote: »

[...] it's the only forum on board's where one has to walk on eggshells.

I'm sure there are plenty of forums on boards and elsewhere like A+A, but A+A is the only forum that I'm aware of where you will be pulled up for the kind of direct and indirect incivility which flavours most of your vague, meandering, soft-focus postings. If you find being civil to your fellow posters, or saying something worth reading, or ideally, both at the same time, to be burdensome to the point of feeling that you're walking on eggshells, then, ya again, you're better off elsewhere.

Mark Hamill

iceman700 wrote: »

Just to clarify, maybe I didnt make myself clear, the results of spiritual intervention can be experienced in this physical reality.

If you cannot measure a thing, then you cannot say how much of an event is down to the intervention of that thing. If you cannot measure that thing, you cannot even determine that it exists.

iceman700 wrote: »

If something cannot be measured scientifically, then , how do you know it exists, how do you measure love, scientifically.

MRIs, brain chemistry analyses. Love is an emotion after all.
Your turn now, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?

joe40

pearcider wrote: »

All these arguments about love miss the point because atheists only believe in the void of biological determinism ie that the existence of love, beauty and truth are merely an accidental by product of a clock work universe and that these so called altruistic genetics can replace God.

The problem that the atheists have is that the quantum theorists discovered many years ago that you must completely abandon determinism and opt for the many worlds or multiverse theory to explain physical reality. That, to most people, is even more of a stretch than just simply believing in God. Simply put either only our reality exists or every single possible reality exists. When presented with such a choice most opt for the existence of the single, stupendously well designed reality that we appear to inhabi.

Fundamentally all attempts by the human brain to understand the mystery of human existence are doomed to fail. See Godels theorem. Since the brain is part of the system it seeks to understand, any exercise to do so is futile and leads to numerous paradoxes such as the hard problem of conciousness. Of course most people don’t need a scientist to tell them that. The Bible warns of listening to “wise people” “ever learning but never able to come to the truth.” Be wise as serpents against such people who seek to control human behaviors and rule by committee. This is the new priesthood that mankind must fear. The rule of the white coats and the bean counters foreshadowed in communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

Thankfully, for the moment the ordinary person already knows that life is a profound miracle which is why the number of atheists in the world is tiny compared to the number of believers. And why belief in God is fundamental to all culture.

It is possible that we may never understand the complexity of the universe, due to inherent limitations of the human brain. (When I say we I mean really smart people..)
But I don't understand why that should mean proof or existence of a super natural entity that created and controls everything.
It is a constant of human development, when faced with the inexplicable, super natural reasons were given.
We didn't understand thunder and lightning, so they were caused by the gods.
The universe is vast and complicated, with mysteries that may be beyond human understanding. That however is not proof or indeed evidence of a powerful creater, just a function of our limitations.

Mark Hamill

iceman700 wrote: »

Could you truly know what love is unless you experienced it.

Could you really know what nachos are, unless you experienced them?
Nachos are still measurable, the bag they come in even has the weight printed on it.

Kaybaykwah

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Could you really know what nachos are, unless you experienced them?
Nachos are still measurable, the bag they come in even has the weight printed on it.

I love nachos, but, as the saying goes, that doesn't prove the existence of nachos, nor of God, even less of love, and come to think of it; existence. Poof!

Mark Hamill

pearcider wrote: »

All these arguments about love miss the point because atheists only believe in the void of biological determinism ie that the existence of love, beauty and truth are merely an accidental by product of a clock work universe and that these so called altruistic genetics can replace God.

They are incidental, not accidental, as accidental implies some entity wanted something else to happen. On the universal level, nothing wanted anything to happen, it just did, and does, because the correct conditions arose for it to happen.

pearcider wrote: »

The problem that the atheists have is that the quantum theorists discovered many years ago that you must completely abandon determinism and opt for the many worlds or multiverse theory to explain physical reality. That, to most people, is even more of a stretch than just simply believing in God. Simply put either only our reality exists or every single possible reality exists. When presented with such a choice most opt for the existence of the single, stupendously well designed reality that we appear to inhabi.

Which quantum theorists did this?
Also, given that there are a trillion trillion stars and we only know of life on the microscopically small (relatively speaking) outer film of a single planet that happens to be within an appropriate distance from a single star, that seems to imply that this reality is horrifically badly designed for us. Even just looking at earth, insect life outweighs human life 2:1, so it doesn't even look like the biosphere on earth is particularly aimed at humans.

pearcider wrote: »

Fundamentally all attempts by the human brain to understand the mystery of human existence are doomed to fail. See Godels theorem. Since the brain is part of the system it seeks to understand, any exercise to do so is futile and leads to numerous paradoxes such as the hard problem of conciousness. Of course most people don’t need a scientist to tell them that. The Bible warns of listening to “wise people” “ever learning but never able to come to the truth.” Be wise as serpents against such people who seek to control human behaviors and rule by committee. This is the new priesthood that mankind must fear. The rule of the white coats and the bean counters foreshadowed in communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

Ultimately, no matter the claim of where the bible comes from, your brain is what you use to determine whether you accept those claims, so if you are genuine here you must admit that we cannot accept the bible either. In fact going by your logic here, we cannot ever accept any statement of reality, as ultimately we are relying on our brain to determine if that statement is true. At best, you have tried to create a stalement and then pretended it doesn't apply to you.

pearcider wrote: »

Thankfully, for the moment the ordinary person already knows that life is a profound miracle which is why the number of atheists in the world is tiny compared to the number of believers. And why belief in God is fundamental to all culture.

Those cultural beliefs in god can be quite fundamentally different. Most are inherently contradictory. They can't all be right.
And as you said above, culture ultimately comes from our brain, so we can't trust it.

iceman700

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you cannot measure a thing, then you cannot say how much of an event is down to the intervention of that thing. If you cannot measure that thing, you cannot even determine that it exists.


MRIs, brain chemistry analyses. Love is an emotion after all.
Your turn now, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?

How do you know it’s love you are measuring and not the thought of it, if you think of lemons does the mouth not salivate.
You can experience something, without measurment, but alas that’s not scientifically acceptable.
MRIs have been carried out on Buddhist monks before and after meditation, and changes found, is that a measure of connection?

iceman700

nthclare wrote: »

Love is all around, you experience it iceman and I wouldn't ask anyone here about the existence of love. Like yourself I dip into the lion's den now and again and it's the only forum on board's where one has to walk on eggshells.

A moderator here in a roundabout way suggested to me that if I want to share and respond in my usual way, that after hours might suit me better.
And I appreciate their heads up about that.

Not everyone in here will try to set a trap for you, there's more reasonable people than unreasonable...

I love debating with banter and a bit of heated debate doesn't cause me any bother, doesn't do me any harm.

You'll get people plagiarising from Richard Dawkins book's and other popular author's, thinking they're intelligent or scoring point's.
And the lion's will start coming out of the grasslands and my observation is they're not there for a balanced debate.. only to push people out. It's their territory.
I like holding ground until the lionesses or lion tells me that it's time to leave our den now, so like a cheetah I'm sprinting to greener pastures and then when I feel safe I'll have a look through the tall grass and pop my head up only to be chased off again.

I've heard it all in here,and I'll admit yes I do derail the thread now and again.
You'll never get someone agreeing to disagree, or respond to your genuinely nice post above, and say..

No worries man, were all different but we can get along all the same and sure it's like being being in the lion's den but our roar is worse than our bite. Oh no there's not an ounce of that here.

I tried to be friendly here or put my hand up and apologise for my attitude or upsetting the decorum of the subject matter, and when I do it's only the moderators who'll thank your post,as they have mine sometimes.

Maybe we should have a better place to discuss these matters, such as a loosecloak type of sub forum.

Where people can let off steam,slag each other off etc.. and have a warning that if you're highly sensitive or lack emotional intelligence maybe it's best you steer clear.

There's a sub forum here where you share about the Hazard's of belief etc and it undermines religion and spirituality quite a lot, so what's good for the goose should be good for the gander...

Hi NTH CLARE,
I like your style, I love a bit of banter, don’t even mind if the gloves come off.

iceman700

magicbastarder wrote: »

death metal exists, but can i prove that scientifically?

Course you can, buy the cd and take an X-ray of it.

smacl

iceman700 wrote: »

How do you know it’s love you are measuring and not the thought of it, if you think of lemons does the mouth not salivate.
You can experience something, without measurment, but alas that’s not scientifically acceptable.
MRIs have been carried out on Buddhist monks before and after meditation, and changes found, is that a measure of connection?

I note you still haven't given us your definition of what love is. Can't exactly put forward evidence indicating that something exists when you haven't even said what that thing is.

uptherebels

nthclare wrote: »

I'd love a permanent ban from Atheism and Agnoticism to be honest...love it

You know where the door is.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

I'd love a permanent ban from Atheism and Agnoticism to be honest...love it

Mod: If you don't like the style of discussion here, don't post here. It is not like anyone's making you. Only reason you'd get banned or infracted is if you can't manage to keep to the rules of the charter like every other poster here. With respect, you're acting like a gaa player at a soccer match getting all píssy because he can't pick up the ball. Thems the rules around here, simple as. You don't like them, play elsewhere

Username here

nthclare wrote: »

I'd love a permanent ban from Atheism and Agnoticism to be honest...love it

Why do you want a ban? So you can play the victim card? Or is your impulse control so poor that you need someone else to take that decision out of your hands?

Oh and by the way - the mere fact that people don't share your worldview doesn't make them narcissists.

nthclare

uptherebels wrote: »

You know where the door is.

How bad like....

magicbastarder

getting back to the thread title; why does my opinion matter? things either exist or they don't, and my opinion cannot change that.

Pherekydes

nthclare wrote: »

The only time I ever ever get infractions is in the A+A forum.

And I'm being told by a moderator to abide by the forum rules, because I'm upsetting other forum members.

You're being asked to follow the rules of the forum. Every forum on boards has its own rules. If you breach the rules you get warnings or bans.

You seem to think that the trite style of AH posting you're used to will be tolerated everywhere.

Bannasidhe

MOD

A number of posts discussing moderation in this forum have been merged and moved to the A&A Feedback thread where they belong https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113458551&postcount=1762

Any posters who wish to discuss moderation/make suggestions etc should do so there - and there only.
Any further attempts to discuss moderation in this thread (or attempt to drag another non-feedback thread off topic by discussing moderation) will be meet with sanction.
FEEDBACK THREAD IS HERE: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056770280&page=45

Mark Hamill

iceman700 wrote: »

How do you know it’s love you are measuring and not the thought of it, if you think of lemons does the mouth not salivate.
You can experience something, without measurment, but alas that’s not scientifically acceptable.
MRIs have been carried out on Buddhist monks before and after meditation, and changes found, is that a measure of connection?

Love is a thought (or a collection of them), so I don't see what distinction you are making.
An MRI taken after eating is different to one taken before, it doesn't mean anything more than biology.

Would you like to actually answer my question this time, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?

pearcider

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Could you really know what nachos are, unless you experienced them?
Nachos are still measurable, the bag they come in even has the weight printed on it.

I think you’re missing the point completely here. The question you need to ask is how can you know how nachos taste? Is that measurable? If we are merely measuring machines or “philosophical zombies”, then our feelings are just a way our brain represents our responses to the environment.

But we have no idea how the brain turns these responses into a subjective experience - if the brain is indeed involved at all - and science is actually pointing us to a non reductionist view. That is that consciousness does not live in the brain. The brain lives in conciousness.

All that said a computer might well be able to recognise the taste of nachos if it's programmed to do so. However, it will still have no subjective experience of tasting nachos or of anything else for that matter.

If you want to argue the reductionist or materialist approach to consciousness, which most atheists do, then you must accept there is no way to differentiate between a "philosophical zombie" who would respond to the taste of nachos by means of neuronal stimulation but without causing any subjective experience whatsoever and a human having a subjective experience of the same nachos.

For all intents and purposes, the zombie and the human would look and behave exactly the same.

However, you and I both know that we are not philosophical zombies since we both have subjective experiences although we are both unable to prove it. This is the essence of the hard problem of consciousness and there is no convincing materialist or reductionist way to solve it.

Of course it is no surprise that materialism breaks down when discussing fundamental questions of human existence since it also broke down for Schrödinger et al over a hundred years ago when they were looking at systems that were, at least on the face of it far, far simpler. It is more than curious to note that that problem (the collapse of the wave function) they ran into intimately involved consciousness too.

iceman700

smacl wrote: »

I note you still haven't given us your definition of what love is. Can't exactly put forward evidence indicating that something exists when you haven't even said what that thing is.

My definition of what love is, is irrelevant, are you pretending not to know what love is.
You have been given the task, through your very own strict parameters of logic and science and the five senses, to give evidence for the existence of love.
So far no-one has come even close, do you need more time?

iceman700

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Love is a thought (or a collection of them), so I don't see what distinction you are making.
An MRI taken after eating is different to one taken before, it doesn't mean anything more than biology.

Would you like to actually answer my question this time, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?

If you honestly think love is a thought, or a collection of them, I can only assume you have never experienced love.

For a second time, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You cannot have personal experience of something, if it doesn't exist.

Mark Hamill

pearcider wrote: »

The question you need to ask is how can you know how nachos taste? Is that measurable?

Yes. Nachos are chemicals and chemicals can be measured.

pearcider wrote: »

But we have no idea how the brain turns these responses into a subjective experience - if the brain is indeed involved at all - and science is actually pointing us to a non reductionist view. That is that consciousness does not live in the brain. The brain lives in conciousness.

Gustatory Cortex.
We have a very good idea of what chemically makes up taste and how our brain receives it. We have a fair idea of what makes those tastes good to some people and bad to others (genetics and upbringing effect what you enjoy the taste of).
You are going to have provide some evidence that science is pointing to the consciousness not living inside the brain, because I'm calling BS on that.

pearcider wrote: »

All that said a computer might well be able to recognise the taste of nachos if it's programmed to do so. However, it will still have no subjective experience of tasting nachos or of anything else for that matter.

If it is programmed to use nachos as fuel then it will, subjective to it's programming, prefer nachos to other items it is given to it.

pearcider wrote: »

If you want to argue the reductionist or materialist approach to consciousness, which most atheists do, then you must accept there is no way to differentiate between a "philosophical zombie" who would respond to the taste of nachos by means of neuronal stimulation but without causing any subjective experience whatsoever and a human having a subjective experience of the same nachos.

For all intents and purposes, the zombie and the human would look and behave exactly the same.

However, you and I both know that we are not philosophical zombies since we both have subjective experiences although we are both unable to prove it. This is the essence of the hard problem of consciousness and there is no convincing materialist or reductionist way to solve it.

How is it impossible to prove we have subjective experiences? It is eminently obvious to the point of not needing measurement that our experiences are subjective (we are different people). But we can prove that we experience things differently with things like MRIs to show different brain responses to the same stimuli.

pearcider wrote: »

Of course it is no surprise that materialism breaks down when discussing fundamental questions of human existence since it also broke down for Schrödinger et al over a hundred years ago when they were looking at systems that were, at least on the face of it far, far simpler. It is more than curious to note that that problem (the collapse of the wave function) they ran into intimately involved consciousness too.

It involved observation, which pop-sci and pseudo-science sometimes likes to interpret as the same as human consciousness, but that hasn't been proved to be the case at all.

Mark Hamill

iceman700 wrote: »

If you honestly think love is a thought, or a collection of them, I can only assume you have never experienced love.

You can't even define love, so how can you claim to have experienced it?
And I have experienced love. I am engaged, and I have a daughter, I love both my fiance and my daughter in different ways. These ways are both just collections of thoughts and emotions, just biology, but that doesn't reduce one iota how I feel about them.
Hunger is a simple biological response, but go hungry for a week and see if it doesn't take over your mind.

iceman700 wrote: »

For a second time, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You cannot have personal experience of something, if it doesn't exist.

Exactly.
If something doesn't exist, then you can't have had a personal experience of it. You had a personal experiences of something and have mis-attributed it to something that don't exist.
Given that people claim personal experience of things that directly contradict your personal experiences, the only way to determine if something exists is to remove the personal aspect of the experience, to measure it objectively.
Personal experience doesn't tell you something exists.

magicbastarder

i have personally experienced my dreams. doesn't mean that rambling old hotel in louisiana, that i got lost in last night trying to find my room exists.

iceman700

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You can't even define love, so how can you claim to have experienced it?

Either can you, but you claim to have experienced it.

And I have experienced love. I am engaged, and I have a daughter, I love both my fiance and my daughter in different ways. These ways are both just collections of thoughts and emotions, just biology, but that doesn't reduce one iota how I feel about them.
Hunger is a simple biological response, but go hungry for a week and see if it doesn't take over your mind.

Many people get engaged, married have children, but are not in love, going by your definition maybe you just think your in love.


Exactly.
If something doesn't exist, then you can't have had a personal experience of it. You had a personal experiences of something and have mis-attributed it to something that don't exist.

How could you possible know, I have mis-attributed anything.

Given that people claim personal experience of things that directly contradict your personal experiences, the only way to determine if something exists is to remove the personal aspect of the experience, to measure it objectively.
Personal experience doesn't tell you something exists.

Not by your narrow, strict, bible of logic and science