Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

[Iacchus]

What kind of personal evidence did you have in mind?

Hey better yet, why don't we all just take a vote on it? That seems to be the general consesus on this forum doesn't it?

 

[RandFan]

Pardon me, RF. I had to edit your typo.

"Absolutely!"

 

[kuroyume0161]

Hey better yet, why don't we all just take a vote on it? That seems to be the general consesus on this forum doesn't it?

No, the general consensus on this forum is based upon known evidences, not popular vote.

There wasn't a vote or committee that said (to be done a Monty Python voicing), "Well, we had a vote, and, well, um, we decided that gravity exists. Yep, that's it. The decision was marginal; those who voted 'nay' are floating about in defiance. That's all."

As everyone else has said, subjective experience is nowhere nearly as conclusive as objective experience. Science deals with the how and what of the objective experiences by examining recurring evidence. The recurring evidence adds to the statistical possibility that it is not subjective experience - that there is something beyond our control and independent. But absolutes? Science doesn't deal with absolutes (except in the idealist mathematical sense) because it would change the focus from observation and increasing our knowledge as well as the fact that as the evidence mounts, we find less and less 'absolutes' and more and more change.

 

[Tricky]

Hey better yet, why don't we all just take a vote on it? That seems to be the general consesus on this forum doesn't it?

For some. You would lose such a vote, but that wouldn't mean you were wrong. Instead, try evidence and logic. People here respond well to that. Got any?

 

[Iacchus]

No, the general consensus on this forum is based upon known evidences, not popular vote.

Do you mean known in the absolute sense? Or, are you just speaking of the general consensus as I say?

And please define what objectivity is, if it's fully contingent upon statistics.

 

[RandFan]

There wasn't a vote or committee that said (to be done a Monty Python voicing), "Well, we had a vote, and, well, um, we decided that gravity exists. Yep, that's it. The decision was marginal; those who voted 'nay' are floating about in defiance. That's all."

But people did get together to vote on the nature of god (see council of nice). They concluded, in part, that god is both one entity and three at the same time. Nice, huh?

 

[Iacchus]

By virtue of your own subjectivity, you can't acknowledge what objectivity is. Or can you? Hey, isn't that what Socrates said?

 

[Iacchus]

But people did get together to vote on the nature of god (see council of nice). They concluded, in part, that god is both one entity and three at the same time. Nice, huh?

Me, myself and I? Or, how about mind, body and soul? Or, if you happen to have a particular problem with soul, perhaps you can substitute spirit or energy? Of course I'm not sure this is what they realized they were doing at the time, in fact I don't think it was a realization that came until much later.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Me, myself and I? Or, how about mind, body and soul? Or, if you happen to have a particular problem with soul, perhaps you can substitute spirit or energy? Of course I'm not sure this is what they realized they were doing at the time, in fact I don't think it was a realization that came until much later.

'My, myself, and I' is redundant reference. The representation is still the same being.

'mind, body, and soul'... well, from an empirical point of view, the mind is a manifestation of the body (and thereby a subset of it). When one can provide evidence of a soul, then one can include it.

Actually, they were trying really hard to reconcile disparities between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as being either three distinct representations of the same thing or three separate things related to one. Still didn't work. For instance, if Jesus was God, then nothing was accomplished by Jesus' presence (how can God really suffer and why does God need to take human form in order to accomplish anything - seeing that God can hypothetically do anything without performing parlor tricks and making special compensations?). If Jesus was a human, then how could he be considered God?

Kuroyume

 

[RandFan]

Me, myself and I? Or, how about mind, body and soul? Or, if you happen to have a particular problem with soul, perhaps you can substitute spirit or energy? Of course I'm not sure this is what they realized they were doing at the time, in fact I don't think it was a realization that came until much later.

Post hoc reasoning AKA rationalizing.

 

[HTmonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by The Don

"There is no *plan*. Basing your entire life on the hope for eternal resurrection does seem a little extreme when you don't know for sure that; there is a god; that there is an afterlife; that you're devoting your life to the correct god(s); that you're following the correct rule set for that particular god (set of gods)."

Lacchus: "And what might that life be? The one that begins with, and ends with, nothing? If that's the case, what difference would it make, besides any possible worthless sentimental reasons?"

I thank you lacchus, for that. your reply to don helps me undestand few people very close to me. Their mindset.

thanks again (sincerely, no smilies or jokes)

 

[RandFan]

If Jesus was a human, then how could he be considered God?

And saying me, myself and I is hardly a reason for me to seriously start talking to myself and expect an answer.

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
--Luke 22:42

"Not my will but yours" How can one person have two wills? Just who was Christ talking to? And why? What about this did he not get?

"I and the Father are One"
--John 10:30

Then there is no need to ask yourself out loud if you can skip something.

Atheist Essays

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms that while God is one, He exists as three persons: The unknown God, creator and source of all life; Jesus Christ who has revealed the Father, and the Holy Spirit, the bond of love between Father and Son, who is always at work in transforming the world according to God’s purpose. Usually, the trinity is referred to as God the Father, The Son and the Holy spirit/ghost. There has been some debate as to the biblical foundation of the concept, however it has become widely accepted in Christian teaching across the world. The old testament makes no specific reference to the trinity, however the Hebrew word Elohim is plural. So the single Godhead comprises the majesty of divine plurality. The nature of God as it is shown in the book of Genesis implies that God is a family (Genesis 5:2-3); God is one (Deut. 6:4, Ex. 20:3). The early Christians however had a Trinitarian experience. For them the Spirit of God was personal. In the fourth gospel, the divinity of Christ is explicitly stated (John 1:1, 1:18).

Origin of the concept aside, it is clear from any church service, that the Trinity is an accepted doctrine of Christianity. However eloquent, poetic and inspirational such a concept may be however, it cannot escape from the fact that it claims that 1+1+1 = 1. It claims that God, comprises 3 persons, but is still one. There are a number of ways in which Christians have argued against this flagrant logical contradiction. Firstly, it is common to hear Christians citing the trinity to be 3 thirds of an overall whole. However to divide an infinite into equal parts is completely irrational, as infinity divided by three, is quite clearly still infinity. Furthermore, to say that there are three distinct, ultimate beings would be a tritheistic belief, and I very much doubt that any Christian would lay claim to possessing a belief in a plurality of deities. Secondly, Christians have argued simply that the idea of the Trinity is a mystery, a truth which we must believe because God has made it known to us, but which we cannot perfectly understand. This of course, is understatement at its finest. The concept of three being one but still three is wholly unintelligible to any rational human being. To admit this, and then simply point out that a human mind cannot possibly understand the nature of God in this way is to lay claim to a level of omnipotence that most Christians would not even attribute to God, the ability to directly contradict logic. If God is completely unrestrained by the boundaries of logic and reason in this way, then he is wholly, and absolutely unintelligible in any limited way, shape or form. To discuss a God whose properties transcend logic in this way would be a purposeless and futile endeavour as nothing meaningful could conceivably be uttered on either side of the debate. A belief in such an incomprehensible deity would be equally nonsensical, as the concept of the believer could bear absolutely no relation to that which he or she believed in. Almost the same contradiction can be found in the very foundation of Christianity the belief in the divine incarnation of Christ. The doctrine teaches that Jesus was a man, but was also God the temporal blended with the a-temporal, the contingent infused with the necessary. This concept is utterly incomprehensible due to the conflicting ontological statuses of man and deity, there is no conceivable way in which a material being can contain any element of ultimate reality without confessing again that God is completely and utterly incomprehensible in every way and that all discussion and insight into his nature or existence is meaningless rambling. It seems clear then, that a system of irrational beliefs that are irrationally exalted as absolute and true, clearly cannot be reconciled with logical scrutiny. No system of doctrines whose only possibility of being true relies on belief in them being meaningless can possibly be exalted as exclusive truth, over and above all others. Christianity is therefore, unequivocally irrational.

 

[Iacchus]

Post hoc reasoning AKA rationalizing.

Of course you have to say this in order to deny it. But how do you know it wasn't just part of the overall plan? You know, if God exists and man is an instrument of God, doesn't it only make sense that God should implement His works through man? Which is really what this great big argument is all about anyway isn't it?

 

[Iacchus]

'My, myself, and I' is redundant reference. The representation is still the same being.

Of course it is, it was a joke.

'mind, body, and soul'... well, from an empirical point of view, the mind is a manifestation of the body (and thereby a subset of it). When one can provide evidence of a soul, then one can include it.

But where does the mind go when the body dies, and where does the living energy go? And of course we can't have matter (the body) without energy (the soul), from which we derive the notion of one's mind.

Actually, they were trying really hard to reconcile disparities between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as being either three distinct representations of the same thing or three separate things related to one. Still didn't work. For instance, if Jesus was God, then nothing was accomplished by Jesus' presence (how can God really suffer and why does God need to take human form in order to accomplish anything - seeing that God can hypothetically do anything without performing parlor tricks and making special compensations?). If Jesus was a human, then how could he be considered God?

Kuroyume

It's much easier to accept in terms of one person though, as we all have the same three aspects ourselves. If Jesus was God though, it bridges the gap between the material and the ethereal and shows that indeed everything is connected ... "And God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son." I wonder what that could mean? Also, why is Jesus compared to the Bridegroom and the Church compared to the Bride?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course it is, it was a joke.

Being facetious, huh?

But where does the mind go when the body dies, and where does the living energy go? And of course we can't have matter (the body) without energy (the soul), from which we derive the notion of one's mind.

Where does the application running in your computer's memory and through the cpu go when the computer shuts off? It goes away.

Seems that you have a different version of energy than most of us. Matter is just a form of energy (E=MC^2 or M = E/C^2) and energy is a physical property of the universe. None of this new-agy crapola about souls, 'living energy' and 'auras' fits the objective definition of energy.

The illusion of 'mind' is just the interplay between the brain (computer hardware and firmware) and electrochemical impulses (computer software). So, there is no 'living energy' - whatever the heck that is. When you die, your active mind (conscious awareness) dissipates as the electrochemical impulses disappear. Soon after, the lack of oxygen starts to destroy the actual brain tissue itself (static mind, if we must) thus obliterating the firmware (hard-coded information, neural pathways, and whatnot). It is quite apparent from cases where people have had lack of oxygen to the brain for sufficient time periods, that the remaining person is not the same and has not retained much of their personality, memories, or other basic functions - usually in direct relation to the areas of damaged tissue. The 'mind' and body are eventually converted into heat, food, and other remaining byproducts.

It's much easier to accept in terms of one person though, as we all have the same three aspects ourselves. If Jesus was God though, it bridges the gap between the material and the ethereal and shows that indeed everything is connected ... "And God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son." I wonder what that could mean? Also, why is Jesus compared to the Bridegroom and the Church compared to the Bride?

Which three aspects and where's the evidence?

This argument has been raised before, but if Jesus was God, then there are two possibilities:

1. He was totally God; God prancing about in an illusory human form. No suffering, the cross was a put on. Why the 'horse and pony show'?

2. He was only partially God. But which part? How much? Why would Jesus need to pray and dialogue with himself? And as was mentioned by RandFan's reference, where would God reside in a human structure or physical form? We know, God works in mysterious ways. Proves the point made in that reference.

*3. He was totally human and God used him (as with many others) as a pawn. He created a person to be ridiculed, tortured, and killed just to fulfill his little game. But again, why the circuitous route for God. Why not just part the clouds and, in a booming voice, say "Believe in me and you're forgiven!"?

Seems God is really vague, shy, indeterminate, and a total screwup at the job. I say we find someone more appropriate to take his place.

Kuroyume

 

[RandFan]

Of course you have to say this in order to deny it. But how do you know it wasn't just part of the overall plan? You know, if God exists and man is an instrument of God, doesn't it only make sense that God should implement His works through man? Which is really what this great big argument is all about anyway isn't it?

I say it simply because your argument is fallacious. The doctrine of the trinity is illogical. One simply cannot read the statement from Nice and conclude anything but. Trying to turn a sow's ear in to a silk purse won't work.

Nice try though.

As to god intending to use irational thought to make a point, It seems rather bizare for a perfect being. Next he will get a group together to declare that 1+1=3 and it will have some hiding meaning that we will deduce in the future.

 

[Anders]

But where does the mind go when the body dies, and where does the living energy go? And of course we can't have matter (the body) without energy (the soul), from which we derive the notion of one's mind.

Well, there are no "living energy" right? That was concluded about 150 years ago. And the energy of our dead body is consumed by either the small earthworms, by eating us, or by fire if we're cremated. The soul is most probably just electric and chemical signals between synapses in our brain.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, there are no "living energy" right? That was concluded about 150 years ago. And the energy of our dead body is consumed by either the small earthworms, by eating us, or by fire if we're cremated. The soul is most probably just electric and chemical signals between synapses in our brain.

Well what is it about us that's alive then? And how is it that we know we're alive? Also, how is that we can transfer information across radio waves? Isn't that a form of energy? Why couldn't it involve something similar with our consciousness? We obviously have some sort of life-force don't we? If so, then what the heck is it? You see it's the fact that we're alive and conscious that eliminates any possibiliy that the Universe is strictly a mechanical operation and that everything runs on auto-pilot. Are you willing to agree that you're more than just a robot?

 

[Tricky]

Well what is it about us that's alive then? And how is it that we know we're alive?

How does the brain know anything, Iacchus? We don't understand all the details, but it is pretty certain that "knowing things" is one of the functions of the brain. Injure the brain, and you may stop knowing some things.

Also, how is that we can transfer information across radio waves? Isn't that a form of energy? Why couldn't it involve something similar with our consciousness?

Radio waves are well understood. They are demonstrable and repeatable, and everyone who picks up the same frequency gets the same message. None of the above is true for "consciousness transferring." Believe me, this analogy has been made many times and has been thoroughly smashed.

As soon as you can demonstrate the existence of "consciousness waves", we'll give it some credence.

We obviously have some sort of life-force don't we? If so, then what the heck is it?

There are lots of "life forces", but they eventually resolve down to plain old physical, chemical, electrical etc. forces. And they all disappear when you die and decompose. I could be wrong, but I await your evidence (not belief) for any life force which survives death.

You see it's the fact that we're alive and conscious that eliminates any possibiliy that the Universe is strictly a mechanical operation and that everything runs on auto-pilot. Are you willing to agree that you're more than just a robot?

Depends on what you mean by "robot". If there were such a thing as a conscious robot, would it then have a "soul"? Where would it come from?

From all appearance, you are just another of the millions of people who are afraid to die, and must believe that something survives death, otherwise it is too scary.

Well, something does, my friend. Your memes survive death. The things you have said to others, the things you have taught people, the ideas you have created may survive your death. But they had better be pretty good ones, or they won't survive long after your death. I advise you to start doing some critical thinking right away. Time is fleeting.

Oh make the most of what you yet may spend,
Before you too into the dust descend.
Dust into dust and under dust to lie,
Sans wine, sans song, sans singer and -- sans end.
-------The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

 

[Iacchus]

Where does the application running in your computer's memory and through the cpu go when the computer shuts off? It goes away.

The energy is dissipated back into the ground I believe. However, it is energy nonetheless, neither does it explain the nature of consciousness. Computers aren't conscious are they? And what about the nature of radio waves? If you beam them out into space they will literally continue on forever won't they? Who's to say our consciousness doesn't behave similarly with respect to radio waves? Besides, a computer and/or a radio are pretty crude in comparison to the workings of a human brain aren't they?

The illusion of 'mind' is just the interplay between the brain (computer hardware and firmware) and electrochemical impulses (computer software). So, there is no 'living energy' - whatever the heck that is. When you die, your active mind (conscious awareness) dissipates as the electrochemical impulses disappear. Soon after, the lack of oxygen starts to destroy the actual brain tissue itself (static mind, if we must) thus obliterating the firmware (hard-coded information, neural pathways, and whatnot). It is quite apparent from cases where people have had lack of oxygen to the brain for sufficient time periods, that the remaining person is not the same and has not retained much of their personality, memories, or other basic functions - usually in direct relation to the areas of damaged tissue. The 'mind' and body are eventually converted into heat, food, and other remaining byproducts.

Sounds kind of pathetic if you ask me, to suggest that life is merely an illusion unto itself. Of course it's like you and/or others continue to say, if there's no ultimate meaning in life, then the only choice we can have (hmm, a choice? since when are illusions afforded a choice?) is to accept that life is merely an illusion. By the way, did you get a chance to see my thread called, The Great Illusion?

Which three aspects and where's the evidence?

Obviously when the body dies, and the minds ceases to know, and the energy dissipates, then all we have left is the physical evidence, in the form of a dead and rotting corpse. In which case we have to ask, where did so-and-so go? They're obviously no longer with us, right? Also, according to most accounts, not even the physical evidence was left behind in Jesus' case.

This argument has been raised before, but if Jesus was God, then there are two possibilities:

1. He was totally God; God prancing about in an illusory human form. No suffering, the cross was a put on. Why the 'horse and pony show'?

What better way to identify with God, than in human form? And don't the scriptures say we were created in God's image? Indeed, why shouldn't the whole of creation ultimately (through man) reflect that which created it?

I don't know, does God suffer? Does the Universe suffer, outside of consciousness that is? Or, is suffering, as you seem to suggest in the case with humans, merely a matter of illusion? If that were the case, we don't need to inquire about God suffering now do we?

2. He was only partially God. But which part? How much? Why would Jesus need to pray and dialogue with himself? And as was mentioned by RandFan's reference, where would God reside in a human structure or physical form? We know, God works in mysterious ways. Proves the point made in that reference.

Ever see parents identify with their own children, so much so, that when their children suffer they suffer too? Or, maybe Jesus was but a tiny sliver of God or, an appendage perhaps, say like a mouthpiece or a microphone? It's still an effective way to get your point across isn't it?

*3. He was totally human and God used him (as with many others) as a pawn. He created a person to be ridiculed, tortured, and killed just to fulfill his little game. But again, why the circuitous route for God. Why not just part the clouds and, in a booming voice, say "Believe in me and you're forgiven!"?

Even if we weren't created in God's image, albeit it alludes to a heaven which embodies the human form, why shouldn't He try to communicate to us through the medium we're most familiar with?

Seems God is really vague, shy, indeterminate, and a total screwup at the job. I say we find someone more appropriate to take his place.

Kuroyume

Of course if God was everpresent (although he is) or, at least continually in our faces about it, it wouldn't afford us much of a life of our own would it? In which case God wouldn't be God, and we wouldn't be able to acknowledge it, from the standpoint of our being separate that is. In other words is God merely looking for suckups? Of course that isn't to say there aren't a lot of people like this but, that would be their folly.