|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God and the human mind | |||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
jar
I said not at present.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Hangdawg writes: Neither do you have a reason for your own existence.sidelined writes: I am sorry but I am not sure if this is what you meant to say as of course I have a reason for my own existence. Rene' Descartes (1596-1650). A French philosopher and mathematician who was called "The father of modern philosophy." ... So do you justify your existance by the fact that you exist,sidelined? As Christians, it is hard for us to present God to you becauseThe only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere (viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). His scrapping of previously accepted philosophies marked the beginning of the Man-centered universe beliefs that currently drive Western thought. Isa 55:8 writes: By virtue of our relationship with God, we feel as if though we understand Him somewhat, and occasionally we will say something profound that we know is not our thoughts...but to prove this relationship to YOU is another matter. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways,"declares the LORD. sidelined writes: It is my belief that time conformed to God...Gods first action was not even measureable because you need another timepoint of reference to measure it by. Gods second action became a point of reference...UNLESS you consider the possibility that God could do an infinite number of things in a single point. How would this be measured without another point of reference? I am the atheist remember? Proving god's' existence is not on my roster. In what manner do you define an existence without time? (And in reply to Hangdawg)an act of creation implies an event which indicates time.Unless you can explain to me how you logically arrive at a assumption that god can act without an event and therefore a time occuring then I must reject your hypothesis.sidelined writes: So, is disproving God on your roster,perchance? Or do you simply enjoy the discussion? Proving god's' existence is not on my roster. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-24-2004 05:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Phatboy
So do you justify your existance by the fact that you exist,sidelined? I do not justify my existence I simply have no evidence to the contrary.I also have a reason for my existence which changes over time with different stages of life.We are all aware of the line Cogito Ergo Sum yet does existence end when there is no thought?A rock most assuredly exists {if you doubt this try rock climbing and have a piton give and take a drop against a cliff face made of it then get back to me}yet most all of us would agree that rocks do not think.So there is danger in philosophy to make statements that seem brilliant that at the same time are not generalizable to the actual world. It is my belief that time conformed to God...Gods first action was not even measureable because you need another timepoint of reference to measure it by. Yes but others on this forum will just as willingly state that god had no beginning so this would conflict with your view.Still others will have been "told by god" that they are right about their view and this will be an entirely different explanation.The most salient explanation for the differences is that they are human generated not the result of divinity.
So, is disproving God on your roster,perchance? Or do you simply enjoy the discussion? Why would I try to disprove something that has no existence without the ramblings of human beings to give it continued life?Yes I do enjoy the discussions and I also like to take the time to point out the inconsistencies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 750 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Sorry for another delayed reply... I'll try to reply to the main points.
LOL!! Hangdawg, I am the atheist remember? Proving god's' existence is not on my roster. I know! And I'm not trying to prove God to you. All I'm trying to do is show that you cannot argue against God's existence by defining him in terms of the physical universe which he created. Again, if you choose to believe that the only reality is bound in the physical, that is your choice. But since you cannot prove this is true, your arguments based on the premise -- that if such a being should exist, he must be bound by the physical -- are invalid.
In what manner do you define an existence without time. Well, obviously, being a creature of physical nature I have no vocabulary or ability to accurately describe this. But I like how John puts it, "In the beginning, which was not a beginning, was the Word."
Well let's see how this plays out.We can tell that something exists because we can show evidence of physical phenomena related to it.Your god ,as you keep repeating,is beyond the physical so how do you propose that he exists if he does not have a physical existence. [Just a note: To correctly represent my position, you should say beyond the BOUNDS of the physical because just saying "beyond" the physical implies he is outside and not able to come in] Like I said before, I cannot explain how or why God exists anymore than you can explain how or why you exist.
If Time is the dimension in which events occur then by what rational do you say that god can do something without the dimension of Time which allows actions to occur as sequential events in the three spatial dimensions? Again, I have no answer for "how". Can you give me an answer for "how" time exists?
However,it is necessary to show me how you arrive at a reality that is not accessible to our senses... Dman us atheists for requiring actual evidence. haha... You're not damned for requiring evidence. David asks many times: God where are you? Why don't you show your face? How I arrive at this reality is through my search for meaning and purpose in life. There is no reason, means, or purpose for existence apart from God. If you open your "heart" (to use a mushy undefined term) to the realities of life and existence from the purpose/meaning perspective rather than looking at everything as the result of a formula that works for no predetermined reason, you begin to see God. When you open your mind or "heart" to this purpose/meaning dimension of reality, God will show himself to you -- sometimes even physically. I understand your need for evidence to believe in God, and that's ok. I wish God would physically knock on everyone's door and provide physical proof of himself, but that is not his plan for this age. This life is a test, a war, a training ground so to speak to see who can stay focused on the things of real worth and meaning; the things of real worth and meaning are immaterial. All I can say is that this part of our lives is not about the material expressions of power; its about service and love and war and contrasts in life. And if you have shut your mind to an overall meaning of these things in life, you have shut your mind to God. ...I know... Sorry for preachin again.
I am sorry but I am not sure if this is what you meant to say as of course I have a reason for my own existence. No, you don't. No atheist can provide a reason for their existence (I should say "external" reason; because now that you're here you can find reasons for being here, but you have no reason to exist in the first place).
My question was how he can experience. And I don't know. Do you know how you can experience? Sure, neurons fire at the synapses in your brain. And electrons which are made of quasi-particles which are made of a quantum soup of energy which comes from -- God knows where. Where does it come from? How and why are you here experiencing?
Nature is crazy go figure. And this was my point in bringing up QM theory. There you have all kinds of things that seem to contradict reason. Before the mathematical proofs were derived all of it would be hogwash... Nature tells us things aren't always what they seem like they should be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 750 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
To continue...
So what is the mechanism that would allow him to physically effect a material world into being if not through material means? You keep asking "how" as if my lack of an answer makes my assertion false or unprofitable for gaining understanding. I could assert that the sun exists and know nothing about atomic fusion and be correct in my assertion. We don't always have to know "how" something exists to know that it exists. And, yes, I realize we can "see" the sun, but we cannot "see" God. You are married right? Surely, you must abandon your scientific "how" approach to at least your relationships? We can't have relationships if we are always testing and probing and hypothesizing about people. Instead we have to understand them and get to know them and love them and think about their needs. This is another approximation or illustration for our benefit to understand how we relate to God. ...But there I go preachin again.
I am asking questions that try to penetrate to the core of the assumptions made by people such as yourself that envision god as having human qualities such as a mind without explaining how those qualiies can exist without the same physical apparatus as ourselves. Saying God has a mind, is only an approximation as is everything. It's written somewhere, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities have been made known through what is seen."
Also what hope of understanding can be expected of minds that cannot transcend phenomena to find god unless he is phenomena. To quote again from the Bible (note I'm not using the Bible as proof, just as a better explanation, since it says it better than I can): "God said, "Go out and stand in front of the LORD on the mountain." As the LORD was passing by, a fierce wind tore mountains and shattered rocks ahead of the LORD. But the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind came an earthquake. But the LORD wasn't in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was a fire. But the LORD wasn't in the fire. And after the fire there was a quiet, whispering voice." If you are expecting a scientific explanation for God's existence, I'm sorry. If God created the laws of science, he is not defined by them. Saying God is here or not there is only an approximation to understand him. He has "non-locality" in the physical sense. You could say the probability he is anywhere is always 1. Thanks for your replies. I'm so busy I'm not sure I'll get back to reply again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Difficult Questions. Thoughtful Answers. | RZIM
broadcast on Mars Hill Network – Hope in the Journey this morning,speaking on the philosopher Kant in the context of a debate on abortion between Gore and Quayle given in the past in Atlanta. Ravi wanted to "warn" believers that Kant had isolated faith from rationality and correctly portrayed the some philosophical history as to the use put by Kantian's of Kant sympathizers who dissed religion on the base of reason. Ravi's "talk" however could confuse a mind, trying to think God's thoughts "after" HIM because Ravi did not distinguish rationality IN understanding from rationality in a judgement. Kant made that distinction. Ravi wanted to logically help out D. Quale however and interms of oration the point Ravi made gets through to his audience. The "warning" however does not work for my own experience with "faith" and "grace". There is NO politics ABOUT or involved in that, for that was Gore's mistake, not RVs. There IS an error in Ravi's thinking if this presentation was supposed to speak for any oration he might give. That is not fair to Ravi but taken as was, it is. There does seem to be a mistake in evolutionistic discussion however that makes the same error on lack of distinguishing rational judgement, rational understanding and reason. Even as a teenager I noticed the difference. I was trying to measure the snout-vent-lengths of salamanders and I used a straight edge ruler to get a measurement. I thought to myself, "what does the slimy thing care that a put a hard straight thing next to it's curvy body, it probably doesnt care if I had used a French Curve with marks on it instead". My rational judgement wanted to measure the the thing with a curve but my rational understanding prevented me from doing so. When any two biological specialists get together it is clear that some of them make judgments on one kind of critter parts and another specialist on something entirely different (mosquito beaks' longest spike vs leek internode lengths for instance) but they can have the same rational understanding that evolution exists. Evos often try to convert their rational understanding into a rational judgement but it is much easier to perform a personal rational judgment than to communicate a more or less consensus rational understanding. My own approach to voiding the possible construct that Ravi might have miscommunicated this morning (I was not mislead) attempts to expand the possiblities for evolutionary change understanding (not that evoluion MUST so operate (I do not "defend" evolutionary theory)) so that one can clearly distinguish when rationality is applied in the understanding or the judgment. Here are four categories of thought that I include under this thought. ANiche Construction, Premeditation, and the Use of Economic Analogies B Concomitant alterations in Macroeconomics if biomass productivity out competes agriculture C Relations to Natural Selection via natural products, distingishing baramins and irreducible complexity on Purpose. DHow the ecological momement impacts Biotechnology or can human population increases evolutionarily divert from the Keynsian “circular flow”. Rather than deal with this four-fold division Ravi related it all to an incident in modern politics. Perhaps I noticed this because it was created sometime ago. Not even Schummer made the proper thought when questioning Roberts recently. As a tease about what I am thinking in this regards where the judgement but not the understanding is involved, one might see from this:
quote: Malthus had said, p239 “As in these and similar instances, or to take a larger range, as in the great diversity of characters that have existed during some thousand years, no decided difference has been observed in the duration of human life from the operation of intellect, the mortality of man on earth seems to be as completely established, and exactly upon the same grounds, as anyone, the most constant, of the laws of nature.” An immediate act of power in the Creator of the Universe might, indeed, change one or all of these laws, either suddenly or gradually; but without some indications of such a change , and such indications do not exist, it is just as unphilosophical to suppose that the life of man may be prolonged beyond any assignable limits, of the longing of the soul after immortality.” Chapter XII Mr. Godwin’s conjecture concerning the indefinite prolongation of human lifebut I, BSM, Say |_____________individualone____________| |--birth margin--|-------LIFE-----|--death margin--| }species A xxxx|_____________individual two__________________| more later... This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-16-2005 12:50 PM This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-16-2005 12:52 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024