Why does God leave no tracks?

[dcalling]

Ideas and minds are not known to exist without physical brains to house them. To suggest otherwise requires either evidence or a solid philosophical argument.

I am not sure why philosophical argument is needed.

Anyway, some near death experiences might have shown minds exists beyond physical body. A lot of people who has NDE find themselves 'fly' above themselves, sometimes observe objects that can't be seen in their position. The problem is not much acdamic interest in NDE so it is very hard to verify.

 

[Davian]

I am not sure why philosophical argument is needed.

Anyway, some near death experiences might have shown minds exists beyond physical body.

The argument [for gods] is that a physical brain is not needed at all, but in the case of NDEs, a physical brain is involved every time. And, they are near-death-experiences, where the brain remains intact through the entire process.

A lot of people who has NDE find themselves 'fly' above themselves, sometimes observe objects that can't be seen in their position. The problem is not much acdamic interest in NDE so it is very hard to verify.

There was a large study done here:

http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(14)00739-4/abstract?cc=y=

Here is a review of the paper done by Dr. Novella, an academic neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/

No, the study did not support the speculation that people actually "fly" above themselves, or observe objects that could not be seen from the perspective of their body.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am not sure why philosophical argument is needed.

Anyway, some near death experiences might have shown minds exists beyond physical body. A lot of people who has NDE find themselves 'fly' above themselves, sometimes observe objects that can't be seen in their position. The problem is not much acdamic interest in NDE so it is very hard to verify.

The only way in which an out-of-body experience can even be taken seriously at all is if the person involved exploited the experience to acquire knowledge that they couldn't have otherwise obtained. I've never seen such a case; what I see is that the events seem so real that the person is completely convinced it is real. But of course,

 

[Ed1wolf]

Guessing then, with no means of testing accuracy.

What evidence?

No, it is more than guessing. How do you know that your wife loves you? Can you test that your wife loves you with accuracy?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Maybe, but minds and ideas themselves are not physical, so that shows that non-physical entities CAN cause things and events.

nv: Can you tell me what minds or ideas physically effect? Nothing. They might inform our actions, but it is our actions which have causal implications. Ideas and concepts do not.

Exactly, the non-physical mind and ideas cause our actions and our actions produce physical effects.

ed: Hebrews 11:3.

Of course not, the universe did not exist.

No, according to Hebrews 11:3 it was created out of something that is not visible or detectable by humans. Just as the BB theory has basically confirmed.

See above about what He created it out of, but the stuff of the universe did not exist that is why God is needed.

The universe has the characteristics of an effect, ie a beginning and it changes, therefore it needs a cause.

nv: I'm struggling to understand why you believe God is necessary, given all of your assumptions.

Because the universe is an effect and by definition requires a Cause. Plus it has specific characteristics that can only be caused by a personal being.

nv: You say that there exists some eternal dimension of time which exists for no reason and with no cause, and that there is this stuff which exists for no reason and no cause. If an atheist were to be of the persuasion that there was a natural cause for the Big Bang, he would require those two exact conditions and nothing more.

Who said it exists for no reason? It exists so God can create. But that is only one possibility, there is also the possibility that time is not necessary for causation since all it is is the relative positions of objects to each other. Nothing in not having that prevents causation.

ed: Well physical objects need a dimension of space to exist. I am not sure if finite objects can exist in the infinite. I will concede I could be wrong about that. But nevertheless finite time was created in order to destroy evil forever since a universe such as ours is necessary to accomplish that goal.

nv: This does not seem to be coherent.

I don't know why, it is not that hard to understand.

ed: Yes, but numbers are not physical entities.

nv: Well you already conceded you could be wrong about the point we are arguing here, and furthermore I do not even think the things you are describing are coherent, so I guess we can let this one die.

No, I didn't concede the point that physical entities need space to exist. And I didn't concede that finite objects can exist in the infinite, I just said that I am not as certain about that as I am the other point.

ed: 10% is still a rather sizable number.

nv: 10% of the population is left handed, yet the world is certainly arranged in favor of righthandedness anywhere you go.

Nevertheless, 10% of the total number of astrophysicists worldwide is a pretty large number of people.

ed: See above.

It may not be compatible with those laws of logic but it may well be compatible with the law of causality.

nv: Your responses have been divorced from the meaning of what I said from the very start. So let's go back to the start:

You said,

But even if there was no evidence for a second dimension of time (even though most of the evidence says there is), it is more rational to assume that the law of causality and logic are valid "outside" the universe.

I replied,

First, that's absurd. There's no reason to think that the laws of logic hold "outside" the universe because they don't even hold within our own universe. Or can you reconcile quantum superposition with the law of excluded middle and/or the law of identity?

Observe the structure of my response. I'm claiming that the laws of logic do not hold within our own universe. Do you think I am also contending that the laws of causality do not hold within our universe as well? Even if you think that's my contention, did I say so?

Umm, the law of causality is one of the major laws of logic. So there is no real difference. IOW if you deny one, then you deny them all.

nv: You continue, over and over, to invoke causality in your responses and ignore the point at hand. So once again, please read carefully:

Can you reconcile quantum superposition with the law of excluded middle and/or the law of identity?

Yes, I think they can probably be reconciled.

ed: Time is detected by the motion of objects and their relative positions to our planet, such as the revolutions of the earth around the sun.

nv: OK so you seem to generally agree with my definition now.

So you agree there is nothing in that definition of time if it does not exist will have no effect on prohibiting causation?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because the universe is an effect and by definition requires a Cause. Plus it has specific characteristics that can only be caused by a personal being.

You indicate that an eternal dimension of time and that a collection of "stuff" exist for no reason and with no cause and independent of God's will, desire, or interaction. You say that the Big Bang required a cause and that God provided this cause, and you dismiss the possibility that the cause was natural because the universe has "specific characteristics that can only be caused by a personal being." As far as I can tell, this is the only reason you give as to why the cause of the Big Bang cannot have been natural, given the eternal existence of time and stuff.

So I think for the time being you can have your disembodied minds and your notion that concepts or ideas manifest physically to causally influence things, you can have your definition of time, all of it. It is at this point inconsequential because if you cannot show that the universe has these specific characteristics you refer to, then you will be forced to admit that the universe could've had a natural cause just as easily as it could've had a divine cause, in which case the proposal that your God exists is no more necessary than the existence of Thor. Conversely, if you show that the universe has these specific characteristics, it won't really matter if I'm right in that the universe was necessarily uncaused because I will have difficulty, to say the least, in accounting for these characteristics.

 

[Davian]

No, it is more than guessing. How do you know that your wife loves you? Can you test that your wife loves you with accuracy?

No, not really. She often assumes I am a complete idiot, until I can prove otherwise. Fortunately, I usually can.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I forgot to respond to this in your post:

ed: and then also if transgenderism is real then that is evidence that the mind can in some way be independent of the brain and body.

nv: The mind is determined by the brain. What you are saying hardly even makes sense on any level.

If we do our best to take what you're saying to heart then we should expect to find people who feel that they are really dragons, but that their physical bodies do not match their own mental image.

Why? If human minds were created to only exist in human brains and bodies then no one that is mentally sane would make such a claim.

nv: I do not know of this occurring, and if it did it would be so rare and unique that it would likely be the result of something else rather than the known, regularly occurring transgender mental identity phenomenon.

Exactly see above.

nv: From what I can tell, the sex of a fetus is determined after the brain has already begun to form and so in people who self-identify with the other sex there was probably an "error" that occurred. I'll admit this is a complete guess on my part and I'm nowhere near qualified to discuss this, but I can definitely say that your explanation is way off.

If you are nowhere near qualified to discuss this then you can not say that you DEFINITELY know that my explanation is way off. But I agree that an "error" occurring is also a possibility, in which case it would mean that transgenderism is not real. I am only making this argument assuming that transgenderism is real.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why? If human minds were created to only exist in human brains and bodies then no one that is mentally sane would make such a claim.

You are arguing against yourself.

If you are nowhere near qualified to discuss this then you can not say that you DEFINITELY know that my explanation is way off. But I agree that an "error" occurring is also a possibility, in which case it would mean that transgenderism is not real. I am only making this argument assuming that transgenderism is real.

The "error" doesn't mean transgenderism is not real. You're getting into bigotry. It's an "error" in the same sense that identical twins are the result of "error."

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, not really. She often assumes I am a complete idiot, until I can prove otherwise. Fortunately, I usually can.

Exactly, so it is with the relationship with God, it cannot be scientifically tested just like all personal experiences of relationships. You believe your wife loves you because of your experiences with her.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed1wolf said: ↑
Why? If human minds were created to only exist in human brains and bodies then no one that is mentally sane would make such a claim.

nv: You are arguing against yourself.

In what way?

ed: If you are nowhere near qualified to discuss this then you can not say that you DEFINITELY know that my explanation is way off. But I agree that an "error" occurring is also a possibility, in which case it would mean that transgenderism is not real. I am only making this argument assuming that transgenderism is real.

nv: The "error" doesn't mean transgenderism is not real. You're getting into bigotry. It's an "error" in the same sense that identical twins are the result of "error."

Well it depends on what you mean by real. I mean real in that the person really is a woman stuck inside a man's body, or vice versa. And that is why it would be evidence that the mind is somewhat independent of the body and brain. In what way are twins an error? I know of no twins that ever wanted to have plastic surgery so that they would no longer be twins.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In what way?



Well it depends on what you mean by real. I mean real in that the person really is a woman stuck inside a man's body, or vice versa. And that is why it would be evidence that the mind is somewhat independent of the body and brain. In what way are twins an error? I know of no twins that ever wanted to have plastic surgery so that they would no longer be twins.

You're not getting it, but these issues are irrelevant. I explained in post #446 that the whole argument hinges on your claim about the universe which you have thus far made no attempt to defend whatsoever.

 

[Davian]

Exactly, so it is with the relationship with God,

Wait - when did the subject change from your [alleged] mind-reading skills that you use to determine what 'most atheists and agnostics' believe to your alleged experience with "god"?

it cannot be scientifically tested just like all personal experiences of relationships. You believe your wife loves you because of your experiences with her.

Allowing for your ever-moving-goalposts, I do not see anything analogous here.

Everyone agrees on what a wife is; and of course my relationship can be tested, and often is. She clearly exists, lives in the same house, and can communicate with words and actions.

How do you "communicate" with your "god"? Does it rise above random chance events and confirmation bias? What is a "god", exactly? Where do you find one? Do you get a warm, fuzzy feeling when you do things right? Or struck by lighting when you do wrong? No?

Please, spare no details.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You're not getting it, but these issues are irrelevant. I explained in post #446 that the whole argument hinges on your claim about the universe which you have thus far made no attempt to defend whatsoever.

I assume you are referring to the characteristics of the universe that point to the Christian God as the cause. First, one is that purpose exists in the universe, ie ears are for hearing and eyes are for seeing, only intelligent minds can create purpose. Second, personal beings exist in the universe, only persons can produce the personal, so whatever caused the universe is most likely personal. Thirdly, the universe is a diversity within a unity. We know that when an artist creates something there are certain characteristics that are left by the artist that identify him as the only artist possible. The nature of the Triune Christian God is a diversity within a unity just like the universe. This is most likely God's fingerprint left on the universe thereby making Him the most likely cause of this universe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I assume you are referring to the characteristics of the universe that point to the Christian God as the cause.

Yes.

First, one is that purpose exists in the universe, ie ears are for hearing and eyes are for seeing, only intelligent minds can create purpose.

The God you propose has characteristics which, by your argument, exist for a purpose and therefore had to be given to him by another God. And so we go on ad infinitum.

Second, personal beings exist in the universe, only persons can produce the personal, so whatever caused the universe is most likely personal.

So this personal being only could have come from something else which was personal.

Thirdly, the universe is a diversity within a unity. We know that when an artist creates something there are certain characteristics that are left by the artist that identify him as the only artist possible. The nature of the Triune Christian God is a diversity within a unity just like the universe. This is most likely God's fingerprint left on the universe thereby making Him the most likely cause of this universe.

Once again... if God is diversity in unity, it's only because he came from a previously existing deity who had such characteristics.

Come on man, are you even trying?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Exactly, so it is with the relationship with God,

dav: Wait - when did the subject change from your [alleged] mind-reading skills that you use to determine what 'most atheists and agnostics' believe to your alleged experience with "god"?

Actually I made a mistake I was responding to different post. As far as my mind reading skills my years of experience debating atheists and agnostics helps me to understand their mindset, just like you understanding your wife better the longer you are married to her.

dav: Everyone agrees on what a wife is; and of course my relationship can be tested, and often is. She clearly exists, lives in the same house, and can communicate with words and actions.

Yes, but you cannot prove scientifically that she loves you.

dav: How do you "communicate" with your "god"? Does it rise above random chance events and confirmation bias? What is a "god", exactly? Where do you find one? Do you get a warm, fuzzy feeling when you do things right? Or struck by lighting when you do wrong? No?

Please, spare no details.

Primarily through His written word and prayer but also circumstances, experiences, and other believers. I already explained to you what the Christian God is so I won't repeat it again.

 

[Davian]

Actually I made a mistake I was responding to different post.

I know.

As far as my mind reading skills my years of experience debating atheists and agnostics helps me to understand their mindset, just like you understanding your wife better the longer you are married to her.

I do not see how you get to "just like", unless you are actually living with these atheists and agnostics that you claim to understand so well. I have not seen you demonstrating this understanding here.

Yes, but you cannot prove scientifically that she loves you.

Sure I can. I can form a hypothesis, conduct experiments, and produce repeatable results. You are not married, are you?

Primarily through His written word

...your interpretation of the bible...

and prayer

...chance and confirmation bias..

but also circumstances, experiences,

...more chance and confirmation bias...

and other believers.

...doing the same thing.

As "communication" goes, that is pretty weak.

I already explained to you what the Christian God is so I won't repeat it again.

If you cannot explain to me what your god is, where do you get off making the comparison of my relationship with my wife to yours with your "god"? I don't even know what you are talking about.

 

[Peter1000]

And how do you know your particular "id" created the universe? It sounds very generic.

I know that ID did, because it could not have been created by a random chance happening. Random chance happenings is all that science has to explain the creation. That's it. Since random chance happening is out of the question, I have turned to an intelligent Designer, who knows what the masses of the elements need to be exactly, to not only produce stars and planets, but also to produce life. It is at least a reasonable alternative to "random chance happenings".

It's really rather simple to me. There is really only 2 choices.
1) You either believe in a random chance happening.

2) You believe in an Intelligent Designer

I have chosen to believe in the Intelligent Designer. Its not rocket science.

 

[Davian]

I know that ID did,

No, I asked, how do you know is was your particular "id", as that term is rather generic. I notice that your faith indicatior says "Mormon" and not "id".

because it could not have been created by a random chance happening. Random chance happenings is all that science has to explain the creation. That's it.

<citation missing>

Since random chance happening is out of the question,

I do not know what you mean by 'random' in this context. Do you mean things that we are currently unable to predict at this time?

I have turned to an intelligent Designer, who knows what the masses of the elements need to be exactly, to not only produce stars and planets, but also to produce life.

Yet you can only speculate that this "id" had any choices to make in these values.

It is at least a reasonable alternative to "random chance happenings".

Just as bad, perhaps. It would be intellectually honest to say "we don't know".

It's really rather simple to me. There is really only 2 choices.
1) You either believe in a random chance happening.

2) You believe in an Intelligent Designer

3) we don't know
4) there were no other choices
5) we "got lucky" with this particular universe

I have chosen to believe in the Intelligent Designer. Its not rocket science.

Indeed. You are not doing science.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I assume you are referring to the characteristics of the universe that point to the Christian God as the cause.

nv: Yes.

ed: First, one is that purpose exists in the universe, ie ears are for hearing and eyes are for seeing, only intelligent minds can create purpose.

nv: The God you propose has characteristics which, by your argument, exist for a purpose and therefore had to be given to him by another God. And so we go on ad infinitum.

Actually God doesn't have ears or eyes. Remember He is a non-physical being.

ed: Second, personal beings exist in the universe, only persons can produce the personal, so whatever caused the universe is most likely personal.

nv: So this personal being only could have come from something else which was personal.

Not if He is not an effect, then He doesn't need a cause, and there is nothing illogical about something being a cause and not an effect. And in fact, that is what He is.

ed: Thirdly, the universe is a diversity within a unity. We know that when an artist creates something there are certain characteristics that are left by the artist that identify him as the only artist possible. The nature of the Triune Christian God is a diversity within a unity just like the universe. This is most likely God's fingerprint left on the universe thereby making Him the most likely cause of this universe.

nv: Once again... if God is diversity in unity, it's only because he came from a previously existing deity who had such characteristics.

Come on man, are you even trying?

No, again, not if He is not an effect then He doesn't need a cause or creator.