Proof of God

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That entirely avoids my question. What does that definition you provided actually mean?

I don't know what you mean.

I'll try a different tact then - what is the "natural world" you speak of?

The world existing in or formed by nature.

What does controlling the universe actually mean?

Could mean a lot of things. Be a bit more specific in your question.

 

[PixyMisa]

Firstly we must look at the definition of the “God” we are referring to. The definition is as follows: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

Please define: "supernatural", "perfect", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "originator", and "universe". Depending on your answers, we may need you to define additional terms.

Thank you.

I just tried to use words that would convey the most meaning and be most easily understood by a majority of readers.

You failed.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Please define: "supernatural", "perfect", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "originator", and "universe". Depending on your answers, we may need you to define additional terms.

Supernatural-of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural.

Perfect-exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose.

Omnipotent-almighty or infinite in power, as God.

Omniscient-having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Originate-to take its origin or rise; begin; start; arise.

Universe-All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

 

[PixyMisa]

Supernatural-of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural.

Perfect-exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose.

Omnipotent-almighty or infinite in power, as God.

BZZZT! Circular definition!

Omniscient-having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Originate-to take its origin or rise; begin; start; arise.

Universe-All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Thanks, Dustin.

Okay, let's work with those.

Can we say that the universe is all that is natural? That would tie the definitions of "universe" and "supernatural" together. Is that acceptable?

And for omnipotent, if we define that instead as being without limit in its actions, or, able to perform any coherently defined action? (So none of that "rock so heavy he can't lift it" guff.)

Omniscient... Hmm. Let me think on that one.

Your definition of perfect doesn't work, though, because then you'd need to define God's purpose, or the need for God.

And "originate" doesn't work at all, because that's a definition pertaining to time, and time is a property of the universe, not of God, right?

I have some other points (not related to definitions) but I'll address those in a separate post.

 

[Apathia]

Good grief, use a spell checker man!

No, My argument does NOT make the same baseless assumptions as the Anselm version.

No. Pragmatism has nothing to do with the improvement on Kurt Gödel argument, but is discussed later in the post.

Yes, my post was awful. It wasn't my meaning that pragmatism had anything to do with Godel's proof. So I'll post that part again and try to clean up the spelling errors:

Dustin,

Is your experience the glue that holds all this together for you? Or are you still insisting on "Proofs?"
I have no quarrel with you if you are saying your belief is pragmatic and functional for you, and that you find your subjective experience to be revelatory in your worldview.
I've had mystical experiences myself, and over the years my understanding and interpretation of them has changed as I've come to see the wide variety of religious and secular contexts in which people have them.
So, you won't find me saying your experience was some kind of abnormal psychology. At the same time, I ask you not to characterize those who haven't had the same experiences or interpret them in different ways as "blind" and "cripple."

 

[l0rca]

Is anyone else here exhausted when it comes to reading 'fresh' theistic arguments? Theists: if you want to debate God, and remain somewhat respectable, you've got to put it into the context of past philosophy and arguments. 'Inventing' worn out philosophical proofs bothers us. We don't want to read very long essays, to only half-way through realize that the arguments are entirely old. It's even worse when the writer doesn't acknowledge this. It makes that writer seem uneducated on the subject.

If we're going to look at the history of this and judge where the next reply comes from, it is the theist who must reply, in regards to Popper, Hume, Kant, etc. I'm not going to waste my time (and evidently neither are most of us, at least seriously) in argument with someone who's reinventing old arguments. Will any of you realize empiricism is the dominating strategy for understanding and rationalizing the universe? Will any of you stop ignoring this, and finally try to confront it?

I'll take you seriously when you confront the flaws, confront our counter-arguments, and give us a good reply, not asking is to presuppose wild axioms. This is the 21st century, and philosophy has been around for a very long time. We'e all sort of yawning about this God thing right about now.

 

[Z]

You claim yourself to be a "fellow man of faith"? What sort of "Faith" are you promoting here? The kind of faith that is synonymous with 'dogma' or the kind of faith that simply equals belief?

I mean 'faith' as in 'holding onto beliefs which are themselves unproven through observation and fact', as opposed to 'holding on to beliefs which are disproven through observation and fact'.

If you are saying you hold dogmatic beliefs

I did not.

then your world view is inherently illogical and you have no justification or grounding to critique me in any way, shape or form.

An empty assertion, at best. Even one who holds on to dogmatic beliefs may have considerable justification and grounds to critique you. For example, a Baptist priest might also well be an expert in use of precision in language, and may well have both justification and grounds to critique your excessively flowery diatribe.

No. The material for such things come from the "world outside". Thoughts, dreams, etc all originate from the outside world outside of our consciousness.

Are you equating 'the world outside' with anything which is beyond immediate awareness?

From our perspectives, dreams originate from the world outside and are based on such. Simply our minds processing what it receives from the outside world. You can't use dreams, thoughts or imagination as an example of something occurring specifically inside of our minds with no cause elsewhere.

I have to disagree. Our minds also process what they send to themselves, as well. Hence, memory and imagination, dreams and thoughts, are all internal to the mind. However, I am beginning to suspect that your use of 'mind' relates ONLY to conscious awareness, which I feel is a fallacy. The conscious awareness is only a fragment of the mind, and an ephemeral and possibly illusory one, at that.

Indeed, in order to disprove that thoughts and imaginings cannot originate in the mind, you would first have to define what the mind is, and demonstrate the truth of the definition.

Anyway, I suspect I'm merely misinterpreting your choice of words here. Please clarify what you mean by 'mind'.

No. Re-read what I said...

If we are experiencing a tree and the cause of that experience exists within our own unconscious minds then that cause of that experience must itself have a previous cause which itself has a previous cause, etc.

Why? I'm afraid your result makes little sense, but the cause of that result needs explanation. Please explain why you think the unconcious mind cannot be the originator of an experience without itself suffering causation. Indeed, by your thinking, God could not exist, because God would be the cause of experiences, and the cause of that experience must have a previous cause... etc.

In other words, you either have to accept infinite regression at all levels, or primal causation at all levels... or even both. But you have to be prepared to justify your choice.

From what I can tell from your writings, you do NOT accept infinite regression when it applies to God, but do NOT accept primal causation when it applies to the mind. Please clarify.

Nothing stopping them from asking such a thing.

And you have an answer for this? Or no?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is your experience the glue that holds all this together for you? Or are you still insisting on "Proofs?"

Proof.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I mean 'faith' as in 'holding onto beliefs which are themselves unproven through observation and fact', as opposed to 'holding on to beliefs which are disproven through observation and fact'.

Yes. Dogma.

I did not.

You do.

Dogma-a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

An empty assertion, at best. Even one who holds on to dogmatic beliefs may have considerable justification and grounds to critique you. For example, a Baptist priest might also well be an expert in use of precision in language, and may well have both justification and grounds to critique your excessively flowery diatribe.

Except that's not what I'm attacking. You're purportedly critiquing my reasoning when your entire world view is based on nothing.

Are you equating 'the world outside' with anything which is beyond immediate awareness?

The "World outside" meaning outside of the cause of our consciousness, whatever that may be.

I have to disagree. Our minds also process what they send to themselves, as well. Hence, memory and imagination, dreams and thoughts, are all internal to the mind. However, I am beginning to suspect that your use of 'mind' relates ONLY to conscious awareness, which I feel is a fallacy. The conscious awareness is only a fragment of the mind, and an ephemeral and possibly illusory one, at that.

Indeed, in order to disprove that thoughts and imaginings cannot originate in the mind, you would first have to define what the mind is, and demonstrate the truth of the definition.

Anyway, I suspect I'm merely misinterpreting your choice of words here. Please clarify what you mean by 'mind'.

Give me an example of a 'thought' that isn't totally reliant upon external experiences.

Why? I'm afraid your result makes little sense, but the cause of that result needs explanation. Please explain why you think the unconcious mind cannot be the originator of an experience without itself suffering causation. Indeed, by your thinking, God could not exist, because God would be the cause of experiences, and the cause of that experience must have a previous cause... etc.

In other words, you either have to accept infinite regression at all levels, or primal causation at all levels... or even both. But you have to be prepared to justify your choice.

From what I can tell from your writings, you do NOT accept infinite regression when it applies to God, but do NOT accept primal causation when it applies to the mind. Please clarify.

Firstly, I'm saying there must be some dichotomy between conscious thoughts and unconscious causes of those thoughts if indeed the causes of our thoughts are ourselves.

Secondly, I never said that God can't suffer from the infinite regress problem either.

And you have an answer for this? Or no?

It's not relevant to the existence of a God. God exists whether he was made by another previous God or whether he made himself.

 

[PixyMisa]

Now, one of my favourite topics:

If one toys with a television antenna then the reception will change, the same way as if one toys with our brains our consciousness changes.

Dustin, this is deeply, deeply inaccurate.

If you vaporise an antenna, you lose all signal, the same as if you destroy a brain you lose all consciousness.

But that is as far as the analogy goes!

Specific physical brain defects, whether congenital, medical, or due to injury, map consistently to specific mental deficiencies.

Take the case of anterograde amnesia: When the hippocampus is damaged, the subject is quite capable of performing daily tasks, but is no longer capable of forming long-term memories. Sufferers can engage in conversation, but will remember nothing of it an hour later.

Take the case of split-brain studies: In severe cases of epilepsy, one possible treatment is the severing of the corpus callosum, a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. A side effect of this, though, is that the patient cannot name an object that is presented to their left field of view, even though they can identify it. This is because the left eye is wired to the right hemisphere by the optic nerve (which was not severed, of course), but speech is controlled by the left hemisphere.

Or take the experiments that show (I will have to dig up some references for you) that conscious awareness of a decision to act comes some hundreds of milliseconds after motor neurons start firing to perform the action.

To claim that

This is to say, our consciousness isn’t a direct result of our brains but our brains simply work as receivers.

Requires that we have a language receiver... or rather, a spoken language receiver and a written language receiver, for they are separate functions in the brain; several separate visual perception receivers (because we can trace the neural activity of visual perception through the brain); both a short-term and a long-term memory receiver; and so on and on.

And these "receivers", were they really such, can be tricked in rather odd ways for "receivers".

Take the McCullough Effect as an example here. This is a class of optical illusions that produces a persistent change in your colour perception - lasting hours or even longer - based on whether lines are vertical or horizontal. Biologically, evolutionarily, this appears to be an automatic adjustment to your colour perception that works just fine in the real world. It works less well for Psych 101 students, and I would find it interesting to hear your explanation of this if our awareness of colour is somehow beamed into us from... elsewhere.

Finally, we now have the ability to monitor brain activity to millisecond resolution in living, conscious human subjects via NMR. We can see the cascades of brain activity, from one part of the brain to the next (each adjacent), when, for example, a visual cue is presented. We can have a test where the subject has to press one button or another depending on the visual cue, and we can track all the brain activity involved, starting with the optic nerve. There is, quite simply, no room left for the "receiver" theory. It's a "God of the gaps" claim, and while I can't say the gaps are entirely gone, they are far too small for such a theory to find any place in our understanding of the mind.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Specific physical brain defects, whether congenital, medical, or due to injury, map consistently to specific mental deficiencies.

Take the case of anterograde amnesia: When the hippocampus is damaged, the subject is quite capable of performing daily tasks, but is no longer capable of forming long-term memories. Sufferers can engage in conversation, but will remember nothing of it an hour later.

Doesn't negate my comparison.

Take the case of split-brain studies: In severe cases of epilepsy, one possible treatment is the severing of the corpus callosum, a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. A side effect of this, though, is that the patient cannot name an object that is presented to their left field of view, even though they can identify it. This is because the left eye is wired to the right hemisphere by the optic nerve (which was not severed, of course), but speech is controlled by the left hemisphere.

Doesn't negate my comparison.

Or take the experiments that show (I will have to dig up some references for you) that conscious awareness of a decision to act comes some hundreds of milliseconds after motor neurons start firing to perform the action.

Doesn't negate my comparison.

To claim that

Requires that we have a language receiver... or rather, a spoken language receiver and a written language receiver, for they are separate functions in the brain; several separate visual perception receivers (because we can trace the neural activity of visual perception through the brain); both a short-term and a long-term memory receiver; and so on and on.

And these "receivers", were they really such, can be tricked in rather odd ways for "receivers".

Take the McCullough Effect as an example here. This is a class of optical illusions that produces a persistent change in your colour perception - lasting hours or even longer - based on whether lines are vertical or horizontal. Biologically, evolutionarily, this appears to be an automatic adjustment to your colour perception that works just fine in the real world. It works less well for Psych 101 students, and I would find it interesting to hear your explanation of this if our awareness of colour is somehow beamed into us from... elsewhere.

Finally, we now have the ability to monitor brain activity to millisecond resolution in living, conscious human subjects via NMR. We can see the cascades of brain activity, from one part of the brain to the next (each adjacent), when, for example, a visual cue is presented. We can have a test where the subject has to press one button or another depending on the visual cue, and we can track all the brain activity involved, starting with the optic nerve. There is, quite simply, no room left for the "receiver" theory. It's a "God of the gaps" claim, and while I can't say the gaps are entirely gone, they are far too small for such a theory to find any place in our understanding of the mind.

I don't see how that negates my comparison.

 

[Wolfman]

*noting that there is strangely lacking a response to my post*

 

[PixyMisa]

Doesn't negate my comparison.

Provide an explanation of how this is possible under your "receiver" speculation.

I don't see how that negates my comparison.

Where does the receiver come into play, Dustin?

We can measure every stage of visual perception and response, from the retina itself through to conscious awareness (which comes last!) as the process cascades through the brain. We can see the neural activity shift as signals flash from one section to another. We can even measure the time delay from the initiation of the response to the conscious awareness of the decision.

Where, in all this physical activity, will you insert your external signal?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Provide an explanation of how this is possible under your "receiver" speculation.

Receivers can have different parts for different functions as well.

Where does the receiver come into play, Dustin?

We can measure every stage of visual perception and response, from the retina itself through to conscious awareness (which comes last!) as the process cascades through the brain. We can see the neural activity shift as signals flash from one section to another. We can even measure the time delay from the initiation of the response to the conscious awareness of the decision.

Where, in all this physical activity, will you insert your external signal?

Tell me where the consciousness comes into play. Our abstract "minds". You can explain the various routes to perception of specific things but you haven't explained exactly how it equals our abstract minds.

 

[PixyMisa]

Receivers can have different parts for different functions as well.

So we receive one signal, you say, and then it spreads out into different parts of the brain for interpretation?

I say yes, that's exactly right - except that this applies to physical signals from the real world, and your supposed magical signal does not and cannot play any part.

Tell me where the consciousness comes into play. Our abstract "minds". You can explain the various routes to perception of specific things but you haven't explained exactly how it equals our abstract minds.

Okay, first, I note that you completely avoided my question.

Second, what is the difference between perception, which is entirely explained by physical processes, and your so-called "abstract mind"? What is it that you think the "abstract mind" does?

Third, if consciousness - i.e. the abstract mind - is beamed in from elsewhere, how does it know what we just saw?

And fourth, why is it that we don't know what we just saw until 200 to 300 milliseconds after we decide to respond to it? We are "conscious" of a "conscious" decision, but we don't even know we've made the decision until well after we have acted upon it. How, Dustin, does that work?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Okay, first, I note that you completely avoided my question.

Second, what is the difference between perception, which is entirely explained by physical processes, and your so-called "abstract mind"? What is it that you think the "abstract mind" does?

Third, if consciousness - i.e. the abstract mind - is beamed in from elsewhere, how does it know what we just saw?

And fourth, why is it that we don't know what we just saw until 200 to 300 milliseconds after we decide to respond to it? We are "conscious" of a "conscious" decision, but we don't even know we've made the decision until well after we have acted upon it. How, Dustin, does that work?

Let me rephrase the question so as you can understand.

What causes me to think about something I choose to think about? Is it purely biological with no choice there? If I think about a random thing like...A tree. What causes me to think of a tree? The thought enters my brain 200-300 milliseconds before I have perception of it, right? What causes it to occur?

 

[Wolfman]

Hmmm...since my original post apparently deserves no response, I'll add one more item:

That is, one should be automatically suspicious of "logical" arguments which are begun with the presupposition of a particular truth. Ie. Dustin (and others who make these arguments) believe first that god exists; then set out to use "logic" to prove or justify that belief. However, when one begins a 'logical' argument with the foregone conclusion that this argument must be correct, it is inevitably going to lead to errors. Dustin isn't using non-biased logic to examine a proposition and determine if it is true or not; he is using "logic" to "prove" something that he has already pre-determined is true.

There is a world of difference between these two different forms of argument and logic. Take pretty much any major belief system on the planet -- theistic or atheistic -- and begin with the assumption that this belief is true, and a believer will be able to formulate an argument which appears completely logical to support and "prove" that belief.

Muslims do this. Christians do this. Buddhists do this. Atheists do this. Etc., etc., etc.

The question is this; if one began with a complete lack of knowledge of any god, of any religion, of any theology, would such an observer's "logical examination" of the universe around them lead them to anything even remotely resembling Christian theology? No, of course not. In fact, take 100 different people in such a situation, and they'd likely end up with 100 different world views. Just as, in real life, we've ended up with countless different religions, theologies, etc.

To me, a "logical" argument which is begun with the presupposition that the point they are trying to prove must be true, is suspect from the very beginning. It is not an examination of "what is true", but rather an exercise in "proving what I believe is true". In Dustin's case, any "logical" argument which excluded the existence of god would automatically be discarded, regardless of its merit, because such an argument does not fit with his already predetermined view that god exists.

 

[Apathia]

Proof.

I hope then that your journey takes you to better than that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Let me rephrase the question so as you can understand.

What causes me to think about something I choose to think about?

What do you mean by "cause"?

Is it purely biological with no choice there?

What do you mean by "choice"?

If I think about a random thing like...A tree.

Sure.

What causes me to think of a tree?

See the first question.

The thought enters my brain 200-300 milliseconds before I have perception of it, right?

I don't know if that is measurable.

What I'm saying is that there are some (rather clever) experiments that show that there is a delay of 200 to 300 milliseconds between the moment you begin to perform a conscious action and your awareness that you decided to do so. So either action precedes decision - even though this was, as far as the subjects can report, a conscious decision - or decision precedes consciousness. Either one presents your "receiver" with a certain amount of difficulty.

 

[PixyMisa]

... one should be automatically suspicious of "logical" arguments which are begun with the presupposition of a particular truth.

Except for Proof by Contradiction, and I'm pretty sure that's not where Dustin's going with this.