How does one know anything via faith?

[The Cadet]

Thats good I'm glad it can relieve extreme seizures, but when the procedure starts being used for purposes other than to help patience, I fear its getting into ethical dilemmas. When you start tampering with the brain you risk damaging it and severely affecting the person ability to think and reason.

Yeah, and no IRB would ever allow for a study that did that, as it would be massively unethical and dangerous. Trust me, when it comes to the ethics of experimenting on grown humans, medical fields are pretty good about it.

Thankfully, our brains have a miraculous ability to heal themselves and even be strengthened through training and I don't believe this is an accident, but rather by design because a reasonable person with faith who is able to think for themselves is a force to be reckoned with.

The talk was interesting. However, nothing in there indicated any sort of "miraculous" healing. What's more, Dr. Amen has been criticized at length for the rather unscientific manner in which his research is conducted. His claims about SPECT scans are not widely accepted. Here's a piece of advice: whenever you hear about a doctor pushing a treatment that seems non-mainstream, your first stop should be googling <Doctor's name> Quackwatch.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-amens-love-affair-with-spect-scans/
http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/amen.html

 

[True Scotsman]

But if we're being reasonable and we believe the universe is not dependent on our conscious minds, then isn't it most reasonable to believe that the universe is dependent on unalterable laws or truths? And if we continue to be reasonable and we consider the fact that our conscious minds are required in order for us to realize a degree of those unalterable laws or truths, it then becomes reasonable to believe that those unalterable laws or truths are "realized" by an unalterable conscious mind that is timeless, thus is conscious and exists simultaneously and infinitely.

If "realized by" means dependent upon, then no it is not reasonable. To propose that the universe has two contradictory fundamental natures, i.e., existence has primacy and does not have primacy, is to embrace a contradiction. The universe is not dependent on anything because there is no fact that is a precondition of existence. It is the one irreducible primary. Nothing can precede it. It can have no cause because causes presuppose that something already exists to be the cause. The unalterable laws of nature are a result of the law of identity. The order we see is not imposed by any consciousness. It is a result of each existent being consistent with itself and acting according to its nature. There is no chance of a disorderly universe. If you recognize that the universe is not dependent on our conscious minds (or any other observed consciousness) then you have to recognize the fact of the primacy of existence, that things exist and are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity. To do otherwise is to embrace a fundamental contradiction.

 

[Chriliman]

Why does design make sense? What would lead you to that conclusion?

I can't deny that intelligence permeates everything I know to exist. So its reasonable to believe that everything that exists is because of intelligence. It does not makes sense that intelligence can come from anything other than intelligence. I have faith that our intelligence will lead to the truth, but if there is nothing beyond ourselves that reveals truth, then it is pointless for humans to be intelligent.

 

[com7fy8]

Firstly, the idea that consciousness is primarily physical is backed up quite heavily within neuroscience. Brain injuries can cause distinct shifts in how our personalities work.

If a scientist already believes there is only physical existence, this can effect how the person interprets things. And our character has a lot to do with what we want to believe; we can want certain things to be true, and so we see things that way, using whatever is put before us.

So . . . if a person becomes brain damaged, the person can adapt to the change, so that the person shows a different personality; but that different way of expressing will be connected to the person's real, deep-down character.

For another possible example > a person might act very nice, but then get Alzheimer's. As the person's memory changes, the person might forget to put on that show of being nice, and then can start acting out, showing how all along the person was deeply nasty. Or a nasty controlling person might change to forget what the person was so nasty about, and then act sweet because the workers charm him or her. But the character of wanting his or her own way is still there.

I now am gnawing on some turkey bones, by the way, while thinking and writing about this. So, in case you do think I'm a real turkey to think like this, may be it's the turkey bones. If you believe the physical can effect our personalities and how we see things . . . possibly you could believe that my chewing at turkey bones can effect my thinking But even though my personality might show differently while I am chewing at turkey bones, I am still me, deeper.

Well, the bones might distract me, so my thinking is different than if I were not gnawing bird bones; and so I could seem like I am a bird-brain while relating with these bones. My personality might show differently while I am enjoying some meaty bones, but this does not mean I have changed to a different personality, necessarily > personalities can have different moods and manners of giving attention, at different times; it can have a lot to do with who and what is getting their attention.

Preference for pleasure can have a lot to do with how a personality shows. If a person is brain damaged, the personality can develop in relation to how now the person now can not get certain pleasures or have the control that the person wants. The person can get nasty or depressed . . . or say, ok now I can rest more - - depending on how the person is, deeper than the shown personality.

The study of split-brain patients is particularly interesting; apparently cutting the corpus callosum in half (this is done to alleviate seizures) essentially creates two distinct, different personalities. Did splitting the brain somehow create two souls?

Each side of the brain is capable of different things; so it can be the same person developing emotionally in relation to what each side is able to do, and how each side is functioning.

I suppose, too, that there can be memory stored, different on each side. So, the person may be acting according to each h side's memory. But deeper is the real person, with that person's character having a lot to do with what the person does.

Especially interesting for people who believe in hell is the case where one personality is a theist and one is not.

Even if a person has no brain damage or split brain, still a person can be what the Bible calls "double-minded" (James 1:5-8). Possibly, this is someone who is capable of, at one moment, believing in God and then, later, not believing in Him. So, a split head could be a way for such a person to express both ways, at once.

And, "of course", there are theists who do not believe in the God of the Bible. So, their character can be similar to that of a non-theist, and therefore capable of showing either a theist personality or a non-theist personality. For one example, a terrorist can be a theist, but act like a sociopath > the same person at one time can show a very religious and family personality, then show a butchering personality.

So, this brings us to your question about faith.

Faith is not only a belief that we can change when it suits our purpose. But plenty of religious people, even, will live their own lives, then all of a sudden have "faith" when they get stuck or want something they have not been able to get; and then can be when they use "faith" to try to get God's attention.

I understand that Biblical faith is "faith working through love" as Paul says in Galatians 5:6. And "love", here, means God's own love which He is sharing with us, "in our hearts", as Paul says in Romans 5:5. So, Christian faith has us in connection with God Himself in us. And our connection with God is our "evidence of things not seen" which you referred us to, in Hebrews 11:1. We do not see Him . . . physically . . . but in us He is our Proof that He is and how He is in love.

It says faith works "through love". So, faith is not only thinking something in your head. But I see how faith is our connection with God and His love so we have the effect of God's love on our character > 1 John 4:17. And with Him we have His leading and guiding, in connection with Him > "But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, and no IRB would ever allow for a study that did that, as it would be massively unethical and dangerous. Trust me, when it comes to the ethics of experimenting on grown humans, medical fields are pretty good about it.



The talk was interesting. However, nothing in there indicated any sort of "miraculous" healing. What's more, Dr. Amen has been criticized at length for the rather unscientific manner in which his research is conducted. His claims about SPECT scans are not widely accepted. Here's a piece of advice: whenever you hear about a doctor pushing a treatment that seems non-mainstream, your first stop should be googling <Doctor's name> Quackwatch.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-amens-love-affair-with-spect-scans/
http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/amen.html

Without reading it yet, my guess is that it's about grossly inappropriate reverse inferences being made on the basis of SPECT imaging? Reverse inferences relating to psychiatric diagnoses maybe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Without reading it yet, my guess is that it's about grossly inappropriate reverse inferences being made on the basis of SPECT imaging? Reverse inferences relating to psychiatric diagnoses maybe?

Nailed it! Then again, it should seem familiar: I've read about it before on the NeuroBollocks blog.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can't deny that intelligence permeates everything I know to exist. So its reasonable to believe that everything that exists is because of intelligence. It does not makes sense that intelligence can come from anything other than intelligence. I have faith that our intelligence will lead to the truth, but if there is nothing beyond ourselves that reveals truth, then it is pointless for humans to be intelligent.

How you make this leap is not at all clear. If intelligence can only come from intelligence, then what intelligence did God come from?

 

[Freodin]

Its important to agree on a definition of terms in order to understand each other. I try to define terms in the most reasonable way possible and I expect others to do the same, or else there being unreasonable. I don't consider anything you say a personal attack, I view our dialogue as a friendly discussion.

Do you think that making definite statements about things that are incorrect and not based on reality is "unreasonable"?

If you do... why do you act unreasonable?

But if we're being reasonable and we believe the universe is not dependent on our conscious minds, then isn't it most reasonable to believe that the universe is dependent on unalterable laws or truths?

No. Your conclusion is not derived from your premise or your arguments. Thus: not reasonable.

And if we continue to be reasonable and we consider the fact that our conscious minds are required in order for us to realize a degree of those unalterable laws or truths, it then becomes reasonable to believe that those unalterable laws or truths are "realized" by an unalterable conscious mind that is timeless, thus is conscious and exists simultaneously and infinitely.

Also not conclusive reasoning, and a potential error of category on top of that.
Our conscious minds are "required" for us to realize... well, everything. It is what "conscious minds" do.
But there is nothing to conclude that there is an unalterable conscious mind, a timeless mind, or an infinite mind. Such a conclusion is not reasonable.
I also guess that your quote-version of "realized" hinted at the alternative version of that term, meaning: "to make real" instead of "to understand". If so, that would be the error of category.

The only meaning is has is that it seems impossible for something to cease to exist.

I sincerely doubt that you apply that kind of reasoning to your daily life.
But if you were correct here, it would render meaningless the whole concept of "something". This whole concept rest on the potential of distinguishing between "things". In your worldview, such a distinction would have no meaning.

The particles that made up the glass of water have always existed within the universe, so these particles went from not forming a glass of water to being formed into a glass of water and then being smashed into a broken glass of water. Now all of this forming and smashing required space and time, which also exist within the universe. So if you imagine yourself able to step outside of space/time you'd view the glass of water as taking all possible forms simultaneously in a single instance of timelessness. So from your subjective view it appears as if the glass of water ceases to exist, when in reality it has always existed in some form within the universe.

The particles / energy that made up the glass of water have always existed... but the configuration that was "the glass of water" did not. If you want to claim that these particles are "in some form" the glass of water... you have to be aware that these same particles [/i]are[/i] also a heap of cow dung, red arsenic and your dead great-grandmother. Or, the next time you are thirsty, you could try to drink some air... it is just a glass of water in a different form, isn't it?

Everything is a part of the universe. Everything is, in a sense, the universe. But if your start to make distinctions - be it "a glass of water" or "consciousness"... the statement becomes false... incomplete. Everything is a distinct part of the universe... different from other parts. Changable within the universe, within space and time.

And another thing: this "step outside of space/time" is exactly what I was aiming for when I mentioned different definitions of "existence". Within space-time, it means "being present, at a certain distinct point in space and time". Thus, it can not-exist.
Outside of space-time, it means "existing at some point in space and time". But you also used terms like "forever" and "beginning"... terms that only have meaning within a temporal setting.
You shift between your setting, as you need it. But that is not reasonable.

Nope, not a contradiction because my beginning is dependent on God infinity existing in timelessness. So before me was God and God is infinite and timeless so saying that I non-exist before my beginning is pointless because what was before me is infinite timeless existence.

Pointless? Did you exist or did you not? I didn't ask about "infinite timeless existence"... I ask specifically about "you".

But hey, see, I agree with you here. I also believe that the basis of all, what all is "dependent" on is infinite timeless existence. (More or less). But this infinite timeless existence isn't any more "conscious" as it is "wet". It doesn't have sons, it doesn't love, it doesn't sacrifice, forgive or punish.
Any such statements are not based on any kind of reason... just baseless assertions.

Before the beginning of anything there was infinite timeless existence. Before anything there was God. This is what I believe.

"Before" is another meaningless concept in regard to timeless existence. And I am aware that you believe that. I believe something different.

No, my reasoning is based on my limited understanding of infinite timeless existence and I only have this limited understanding because I believe in God and have accepted the sacrifice of His son for my sins.

Your limited understanding is riddled with logical flaws. Only because you believe in God can you ignore these flaws. You simply choose not to see them. They are still there. They don't depend on your conscious recognition.

I can't deny that intelligence permeates everything I know to exist. So its reasonable to believe that everything that exists is because of intelligence. It does not makes sense that intelligence can come from anything other than intelligence. I have faith that our intelligence will lead to the truth, but if there is nothing beyond ourselves that reveals truth, then it is pointless for humans to be intelligent.

There are a lot of other things that "permeate everything"... and to a higher degree than intelligence.
So what else can only come from the same? Dimensions? Force? Waves? ... Evil?

 

[paulm50]

I don't think they used the term miraculous, but it's pretty darn cool and fascinating that our brains have this capability built into them as if by design. Sure you can assume it's not by design, but it's much more reasonable to believe it's by design because it just makes sense.

Our bodies ability to repair itself is limited. A cut will close up and repair itself, lop off a finder and it won't. Same with the brain.

As for psychiatry that's mending the perception the brain forms. I suffered from depression, no amount of counseling will stop it hitting me. A little pill every day does the trick.

Or sex, that hits the nail on the head. And it's meant to.

 

[paulm50]

If a scientist already believes there is only physical existence, this can effect how the person interprets things. And our character has a lot to do with what we want to believe; we can want certain things to be true, and so we see things that way, using whatever is put before us.

How can they possibly function as scientist and believe in non physical existence?

Here's a question for you regarding physical reality and religions view on our creation.

We have to have sex to have babies, well we used to. Sex is made to please us, when we have sex our bodies produce chemicals that are meant to make us feel pleasure, enjoyment, attachment and actually make us healthier. We can have sex with anyone, with ourselves, anytime and many ways. It's all natural, even oral sex produces juices that are meant to make us feel sexy. That's how we were made. We were not even made to have one mate for life.

So why did the bible go the opposite way? Trawl through the pages to see how the bible contradicts the way we were made, then tells us, doing it is wrong. And claiming god made us like this.

The physical v the non physical?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He notes that, at a conference, researchers raised questions about using SPECT imaging in psychiatry clinically, as compared to research. That's a good point. If SPECT adds no new diagnostic information that could not otherwise be obtained through cheaper and less invasive methods, then it is redundant. If SPECT fails to demonstrate adequate sensitivity and specificity for psychiatric diagnoses, then it is worse than redundant, it isn't even informative!

From a clinical perspective, other aspects of his talk are also concerning. He dismisses the use of behavioural therapy in treating an adolescent exhibiting problem behaviour and suggests "brain rehabilitation" instead. Ignoring for a moment that he leaves vague what this "brain rehabilitation" might entail, it seems utterly incongruous to suggest that behavioural therapy would be a "cruel" treatment for behavioural problems, especially given the literature.

 

[The Cadet]

I can't deny that intelligence permeates everything I know to exist.

Is this rock I'm holding here intelligent?

So its reasonable to believe that everything that exists is because of intelligence.

That's a complete non-sequitur.

It does not makes sense that intelligence can come from anything other than intelligence.

Sure it does. Evolution beautifully accounts for intelligence arising from ostensibly non-intelligent microbes.

If a scientist already believes there is only physical existence, this can effect how the person interprets things. And our character has a lot to do with what we want to believe; we can want certain things to be true, and so we see things that way, using whatever is put before us.

So . . . if a person becomes brain damaged, the person can adapt to the change, so that the person shows a different personality; but that different way of expressing will be connected to the person's real, deep-down character.

For another possible example > a person might act very nice, but then get Alzheimer's. As the person's memory changes, the person might forget to put on that show of being nice, and then can start acting out, showing how all along the person was deeply nasty. Or a nasty controlling person might change to forget what the person was so nasty about, and then act sweet because the workers charm him or her. But the character of wanting his or her own way is still there.

I'm fairly sure that's not how Alzheimer's or brain damage works. The claim that people suffering from brain damage whose personalities undergo massive shifts are somehow "expressing a real, deep-down character" is something I think you ought to prove, and something I don't think you can, because that's not how brain injury works. What is this deep-down character, and can you provide evidence for it?

Look, we know that brain damage can and does cause massive changes in a person's personality. This is not disputed. However, we wouldn't necessarily expect every aspect of the person to change when they suffer from brain injury; merely the parts of their personality related to the damaged parts. However, we do occasionally (not often, but it happens) see massive shifts in overall personality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If a scientist already believes there is only physical existence, this can effect how the person interprets things. And our character has a lot to do with what we want to believe; we can want certain things to be true, and so we see things that way, using whatever is put before us.

So . . . if a person becomes brain damaged, the person can adapt to the change, so that the person shows a different personality; but that different way of expressing will be connected to the person's real, deep-down character.

For another possible example > a person might act very nice, but then get Alzheimer's. As the person's memory changes, the person might forget to put on that show of being nice, and then can start acting out, showing how all along the person was deeply nasty. Or a nasty controlling person might change to forget what the person was so nasty about, and then act sweet because the workers charm him or her. But the character of wanting his or her own way is still there.

I'm sorry, but this makes little sense at all. Alzheimer's disease isn't typically associated with drastic changes in personality, but behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is. I think it would be silly to claim that the patient's "real character" comes through in bvFTD. It's the disease, not their "real character."

 

[Chriliman]

Chriliman - "But if we're being reasonable and we believe the universe is not dependent on our conscious minds, then isn't it most reasonable to believe that the universe is dependent on unalterable laws or truths?"

No. Your conclusion is not derived from your premise or your arguments. Thus: not reasonable.

Sorry I don't have the capacity right now to respond to everyone, but I just want to focus on the above. My quote and then Freodin's quote.

So, Freodin, you live your life expecting the universe to violate its established laws of nature at any moment? So you live as if gravity is going to turn off or as if Saturn is going to appear in your backyard? If you do not live like this then you've accepted the truth (believe) that the universe depends on unalterable laws or truths in order to remain the universe, if you did not believe this then you'd irrationally believe that the universe can contradict its established unalterable laws at any moment. I can't make sense of how you can say No to my above quote.

 

[Freodin]

Chriliman - "But if we're being reasonable and we believe the universe is not dependent on our conscious minds, then isn't it most reasonable to believe that the universe is dependent on unalterable laws or truths?"

I'm sorry: this now will be a direct criticism of your approach instead of your argument here... you might consider it a personal offense, but I fear that it is the heart of our miscommunication.

You are not listening.

I know that communication is always a two-way system, and what the sender says is not always what the receiver hears... but I cannot change what you hear. I can only try to formulate my intent to the best of my ability, and try to correct you when you get it wrong.

And boy, do you get it wrong!

I am not completely disagreeing with all of your statements. I, more or less, agree with some of them, and disagree with others. What I completely disagree with is your assertion of the method by which you arrive at these statements.

In the case of your quoted statement here: your reasoning is invalid. You asserted a premise: "if we do this" and gave a conclusion "then this is the most reasonable to believe that". This conclusion is not derived from that premise. It is a "non-sequitur". It doesn't follow.
If that is the "reasoning", the rational way, that you claim you used to arrive at your conclusion... then it is wrong. It is unreasonable.

That does not mean that your conclusion is false. It just means your reasoning is false. You can indeed get correct conclusions from wrong premises and wrong arguments... usually by pure luck, or by subconsciously using a different reasoning than you presented.

But as long as you use such false reasonings, it is more likely that you arrive at false conclusions. And it is 100% certain that you arrive at conclusions that are not reasonable.

So, Freodin, you live your life expecting the universe to violate its established laws of nature at any moment? So you live as if gravity is going to turn off or as if Saturn is going to appear in your backyard? If you do not live like this then you've accepted the truth (believe) that the universe depends on unalterable laws or truths in order to remain the universe, if you did not believe this then you'd irrationally believe that the universe can contradict its established unalterable laws at any moment. I can't make sense of how you can say No to my above quote.

And here again you used such an invalid conclusion.

"If I do not live as if the laws of the universe can change, then I have accepted the truth that the laws of the universe are unchangable." (You conclude that it is true that the laws of the universe do not change, because I act as if the don't.)
That doesn't follow.
We have started from the premise that the universe is not dependent on my consciousness. It is also not dependent on my worldview, my lifestyle, my acceptence. Regardless of how I live, the laws of the universe could or could not change. My opinion on that doesn't matter.

You don't know me: I could very well live as if the laws of nature were violated at any moment. And you don't know what that would mean for me, how I am going to live because of that, or what would happen.
You could say that this position "does not make sense" or "is unreasonable" or "irrational". But to do that, you have to assume that the laws of nature are unchangable.

But the rules of logic state that you cannot use the thing you try to conclude as your premise. You cannot start with the same assumption that you want to prove with your reasoning. That is unreasonable.


Understand that. This is my point. Before we can argue which conclusions are correct, we first have to have conclusions that are valid.

Your conclusions are not valid.

 

[Chriliman]

"If I do not live as if the laws of the universe can change, then I have accepted the truth that the laws of the universe are unchangable." (You conclude that it is true that the laws of the universe do not change, because I act as if the don't.)

I did not conclude that it is true that the laws of the universe do not change, simply because you act as if they don't, I concluded that its more reasonable to believe that the fundamental laws of the universe will not change.

Heres why. I accept the truth (believe) that the fundamental laws/truths of the universe will not change. I can't know this for sure, which is why I must accept it as true in order to remain rational. If I don't accept it as true, I would live in constant fear that the fundamental laws will change at any moment, but this is irrational, so instead I'm rational in believing that the fundamental laws/truths will not change because my consciousness gives me constant evidence of these unchangeable laws/truths.

Now pay attention here. It becomes less reasonable to assume these laws will not change, when I've already established the belief that they will not change based on the constant evidence provided by my consciousness of the laws/truths, so I will continue believing these laws/truths that I perceive will not change and reject assumptions about the laws.

Now if the laws did actually change, this would require a force outside the universe, which I do believe is possible because that force is God, this belief is also rational because it would make sense that if the fundamental laws were to change it would require a force outside the universe to make that change, but I don't believe God can contradict Himself, so the fundamental laws will remain unchangeable and I will continue to believe this because its rational. However, since God can't change the fundamental laws of the universe, this does not mean He can't change me and indeed He has changed me.

 

[Freodin]

*snip*

Whatever it is you are presenting here... rational it is not. I could try to go through this line by line and explain to you just how irrational this is... but from the previous conversation, I can not see how to get you to understand that.

I just will end it here. Thanks for your time.

 

[Chriliman]

Whatever it is you are presenting here... rational it is not. I could try to go through this line by line and explain to you just how irrational this is... but from the previous conversation, I can not see how to get you to understand that.

I just will end it here. Thanks for your time.

It's reasonable to agree to disagree for now, either until God proves himself to you or until one of us dies. I hope for the former to happen first, be sure to find me when it does happen

God bless!

 

[ken777]

/

Why does god like to kill us, why are there so many versions of god

I am an old man and experiencing the usual complaints of the elderly so the question of death is on my mind. I see it a bit like leaving school and entering the real world, so I would not say "God likes to kill us" but that God is taking us to the next level (dimension).

I think there are many versions of God because God is an infinite being with a great many attributes. You know the story of the three blind men and the elephant?

why can't god come to Eath and show himself so we aren't left with people to tell us what he wants.

He did ... and people killed Him because they liked their own way better.

Why, is the only question, when applied to religion, the answer is. To control us.

You don't think that sounds a bit like a petulant teenager when he isn't given the keys to the car?

.

 

[paulm50]

/
I am an old man and experiencing the usual complaints of the elderly so the question of death is on my mind. I see it a bit like leaving school and entering the real world, so I would not say "God likes to kill us" but that God is taking us to the next level (dimension).

Even the people he killed for being evil? Did he take the Canaanite to the next level and the innocent people he killed in Egypt?

I think there are many versions of God because God is an infinite being with a great many attributes. You know the story of the three blind men and the elephant?

So how can they all be right?

He did ... and people killed Him because they liked their own way better.

That to me showed how he wasn't a god. A god would of stopped people killing him, wouldn't of been in an outpost of the Roman Empire and would be here to prove himself. It would save so much trouble.

You don't think that sounds a bit like a petulant teenager when he isn't given the keys to the car?

Do you think religion, as the entire concept, is to make us free, or make us follow?