Theism vs. Atheism debate

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 540
#391
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Insight comes from God. ....That is what "Orthodox" means. Right believing.....The Ultimate Reality is God, without a doubt.
Placebo affect is effective in 10% of some lab experiements. If it floats your boat, cranks you tractor, expands you balloon, etc

My beliefs are based on rational, logical common sense as derived from observations by self, or others.

1} occupied space -- 3 primary kinds of occupied space

.......1a} Spirit-2, physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and aggregate thereof ex sub-atomics, atomics, molecules, planets, galzies etc,

.......1b} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, Gravity (  )  aka positive shaped (  )  -Space- geodesic,
 
........1c} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, Dark Energy )(  aka negative shaped )( -Space- geodesic.

2} Spirit-1 --spirit-of-intent--, metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ex concept of Space, God, Intellect, Dogs Toyotas etc

3} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds our eternally existent and finite,  occupied space Universe #1 above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reality { primary } is the set of truths and facts  existent in our observed experiences.

Dreams { 2ndary } are a semi-false reality that stem from  our observed experiences of truth and facts.

Sherlock Holmes and Unicorns exist as concepts ergo mind/intellect via and integral processing of brain and nervous system  we identify as consciousness.

The truth is an accurate approximation { quality aka degrees of truth }, or depiction of our observed experiences and/or any existence associated with our observed experiences even if not instrumentally quantised or mathematically quantified.

Facts are the individual or collective set of quantisable observations of our experiences.

#392
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
I'm certainly not in favor of solipsism, but used an example similar to solipsism to show a point. If you were the only person, there is no way to create a firm distinction between reality and what we call hallucinations. And we quite literally do not have the ability to distinguish scientifically quantifiable things from things that aren't. Are scientific experiments reproducible in everyone's dreams? Unless you can come up with a way of distinguishing for certain whether one is in a dream, you can't be sure it isn't all a fluke and all your experiments have been done under "unreal" conditions. 
Even in a hypothetical solipsistic dream, science and logic have demonstrable efficacy.

Different dreams might have different rules, but this one works best when approached with science and logic.

Even in a hypothetical solipsistic dream, efficacy validates methodology.
#393
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@mustardness
The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation.

What you are calling reality is in fact creation.

#394
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
The scientific method works in your dreams?
Even (IFF) we are currently immersed in a hypothetical solipsistic dream (THEN) the scientific method is still the most reliable method of gathering data.  The efficacy of the scientific method is not affected by the solipsist dream hypothesis.

The rules are even consistent within one dream? What if I dreamed I was dreaming, which rules apply? Let's say I have lucid dreams regularly where I'm consistently omnipotent, and it works, does that mean I'm omnipotent? 
It certainly depends on the dream.  HowEVer, in this particular "dream", science has demonstrable efficacy.

I just believe that because the environment of an experiment affects the experiment, you can never say for certain what is quantifiable
Yes, you can say what is Quantifiable.  It's pretty simple actually.  You rigorously define it, then measure it, and then test it for reliability and submit it for peer review.
#395
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
Yes, it is a convention that it is impossible to breathe underwater. Thats why if youre doing it, youre probably in what we call a dream. And what is the difference between a real and dreamt lion?

I think everyone who has ever dabbled in 'philosophy' goes through that phase!

#396
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,408
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser
Isn't that sort of, stating the obvious?

And don't we all dabble daily to some degree?
#397
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
Whether 1) a real lion is the same thing as a dream lion and 2) whether it it is possible or an individual to know if a given preception is 'real' or 'hallucination' are very different questions.  it's the difference betweeen 'epistemology' and 'ontology'.

My belief is we live in a world where there are both real lions and 'lions in the mind'.  Lions in the mind are sometimes dreams, but more usefully they often correspond to real lions.   Lions in mind are evolutions trick to protect us from real lions.
 
An alternative belief system is that there are no 'real lions', there are only 'lions in the mind'.  Such a view can't be refuted because the proposer can always assert that the refutation is part of the illusion.... so I no longer argue over it.   A few solipsists/idealists claim to believe in it, but it doesn't seem to affects the way they live their day-to-day lives!       
#398
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
I'd say this debate has very little to do with facts and proofs.  It's about hunches and preferences.

My hunch is that the universe started with matter and consciousness arose to help living things navigate reality.      
#399
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
It is no "hunch" or "preference" that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists, it is the only Truth that all but the most stubborn of fools can be 100% certain of.
#400
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
I am with you until measure and test for reliability. These things, at least in this particular dream, cannot be done scientifically. Well, you can do them, but you are never actually have a proper treatment and control group, because they would need to be identical. (I would understand if you need me to flesh this out)
There is no such thing as a "perfect experiment".

HOweveR, science doesn't require perfection.  We only need to attain efficacy (so we can build cars and computers and phones).
#401
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
I do not know the origin of hunches.  I believe they occur because brains evolved to work with imperfect and incomplete information.  It has nothing to with faith, because I know my hunches are hunches are hunches and as such could be wrong.  If I had faith that matter preceded consciousness I would know it was so despite inadequate or even contradictory data.

So I don't have faith that matter came first - it's just a hunch.


#402
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Hunch = intuition

Too many hunches will sometime seep out of brain on spinal chord and become a 'hunch back' in some people. 8--)
#403
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
Yes, I agree. No such thing as a perfect experiment, although science is quite helpful for myriad things, but the reason I mention the experiment thing is because it means science, in fact, tells us nothing about [NOUMENON]. Science is not [MEANINGFUL] nor objective. 
#404
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
Whether god exists or not does not depend on the outcome of this debate!  

I think chatting about the nature of intuition is much more interesting - and difficult.   It means having to think about what we don't think about....
#405
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
I am asking the justification of your belief, not saying you are ruling out being wrong. I also think there is a difference between faith and blind faith. You can have faith in something (I think faith = believing despite lack of justification) while still admitting you could be wrong and weighing evidence as it becomes available. But blind faith is with no regard to any evidence. It seems to me you have a belief without justification so faith, but are open to considering evidence if any were to appear, so assuredly not blind faith. That's my take at least. But as far as the thread goes, I have yet to see a decent argument for the existence of God/god(s) (not that this is your argument, you seem to be on the secular side).  
But are you making a distinction without a difference?

I mean, what do you think are the logical consequences of a "consciousness first" hypothesis?

What do you think are the logical consequences of a "matter first" hypothesis?
#406
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean, what do you think are the logical consequences of a "consciousness first" hypothesis?

What do you think are the logical consequences of a "matter first" hypothesis?
The consequences are irrelevant. Wouldn't you want to know which came first for the sake of curiosity?

From the perspective of a functioning universe, the consequences would probably be negligible. From a personal perspective they could be extremely profound.

#407
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
From a personal perspective they could be extremely profound.
Like what?

If the question itself is beyond our epistemological limits, the practical benefits or efficacy of the competing hypotheses would seem to be the only data we could possibly use to compare our options.

From what I can currently tell, they appear to be indistinguishable.
#408
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Kant invented a philosophy specifically to undermine Christian theology, which is why you associate God with noumenon.


His philosophy was made with the intent to be subversive.

Kant was an unenlightened boob.

#409
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
From a personal perspective they could be extremely profound.
Like what?

Epistemological limits aside, "knowing" (hypothetically proven as a fact) that consciousness came before matter could mean the possibility of the existence of God, reincarnation or some type of existence after the physical body dies, etc. It wouldn't definitively answer any of those questions but it would be evidence that could sway minds to a more spiritual life and a conception of existence after death.
#410
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
From what I can currently tell, they appear to be indistinguishable.
I would say 'matter first' suggests it should be possible to build an artificially conscious device out of ordinary matter.   'Consciousness first' is a bit more ambiguous about that.  Or perhaps it isn't!  I don't know what can't be proven with 'consciousness first'.


I think one 'atraction' of idealism is that it seems to satisfy occam's razor - ie if all you need is the mental, there is no need for the phyical and the mental.  but i'm not sure how idealists deal with simple thingslike two people seeing the same thing.  If you and I look at a tree, we both see a tree.  Why do we agree if there is no external world that we share?  Unless of course you are part of my imaginary world.  Basically, if you are prepared to go to silly lengths idealism can be made irrefutable.   Dr johnson was wrong trying to refute idealism by kicking a stone.   But if he'd accidentally stubbed his toe on an unseen stone then that might have done it!

#411
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
Epistemological limits aside, "knowing" (hypothetically proven as a fact) that consciousness came before matter could mean the possibility of the existence of God, reincarnation or some type of existence after the physical body dies, etc. It wouldn't definitively answer any of those questions but it would be evidence that could sway minds to a more spiritual life and a conception of existence after death.
A "dirt first" hypothesis does not logically exclude ghosts, gods and goblins.
#412
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
A "dirt first" hypothesis does not logically exclude ghosts, gods and goblins.
It certainly doesn't support those ideas either. A consciousness first hypothesis supports something similar to dualism.
#413
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TwoMan
@3RU7AL
Does a word spoken exist without the breath that carries it?



#414
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Does a breath that carries a word exist if it never speaks?
#415
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
It certainly doesn't support those ideas either. A consciousness first hypothesis supports something similar to dualism.
Dualism is logically incoherent.

Ghosts can (EITHER) interact with matter (fundamentally identical) (OR) NOT interact with matter (fundamentally separate).

(IFF) ghosts CAN interact with matter (THEN) they are fundamentally the same substance as matter (THEREFORE) monism is true.

(IFF) ghosts CAN'T interact with matter (THEN) they are fundamentally separate (AND) can safely be ignored forever (THEREFORE) de facto monism is true (ghosts can safely be said to be indistinguishable from non-existent).

We're really talking specially about HUMAN consciousness (first or not first).

Even a "dirt first" hypothesis doesn't have anything at all to say about what "caused" the big bang. [LINK]
#416
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
Does a breath that carries a word exist if it never speaks?
Huh? A breath, that carries a word, is speaking. 

 I think your confused or mispoke{ mistyped }. I dunno

#417
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
We're really talking specially about HUMAN consciousness (first or not first).
I was actually referring to a primordial consciousness.

Even a "dirt first" hypothesis doesn't have anything at all to say about what "caused" the big bang.
Agreed. A primordial consciousness does.
#418
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
...consciousness came before matter could mean the possibility of the existence of God......
Huh?  There exists occupied space matter { fermions } and forces { bosons } and perhaps some new { 3rd } hybrid catagory.

All is derived from that set and not your alledged "consciousness". Whatever that may or may not be defined by 100 differrent people with 5000 differrent answers.

Why do so many people believe irrational, illogical and lack of common sense concepts?  I think the reasons vary from person to person. Yet there may exist a few common reasons why humans have this inherent flaw in their character.

#419
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@mustardness
This was a discussion about a hypothetical premise. I don't need to see your cosmic trinity to discuss a hypothetical situation.

#420
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TwoMan
This was a discussion about a hypothetical premise.
Ergo you can spew as much irrational, illogical lack of common sense and clarity as you choose. Why? The reasons vary from person to person, yet there may be exist and underlying common theme.   No new news there.

I don't need to see your cosmic trinity to discuss a hypothetical situation.
You only need to see my cosmic trinity when you want to entertain some actual rational, logical common sense with clarity.  Again, your choice to play irrational, illogical and lack of common sense mind games with no specifying/defining clarity, or the alternatives that Ive always tried to present with clarity for some 25 years now.

Your choice exists with the context of an eternally existent, predetermined illusion of free will. 8--)