Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Discussion of Reason

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 12:05:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When discussing God or religion, atheists contend that they prefer to depend on the physical, the tangible. They want things shown to them using our senses, measurements, or the ability to replicate. To atheists, science rules. Much of science, though, and most atheist arguments against God rely on reason.

If you remove someone's scalp you can see brain activity, but you can't see reason, inside that brain. You can't measure it. So how does reason fit into the atheist's requirement that all things must be provable by physical means??
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 12:13:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's getting old hearing the same tired crap against atheists, I am sure you don't mean it, but just think about it for a min. Most atheists accept that black holes exist right ? Well you can't see a black hole, gravity, light doesn't escape blah blah blah, never the less most atheists accept that black holes exist.

Ergo, this whole that atheists won't accept something is there unless they can "see" it is bullsh*t.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 12:30:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I asked a legitimate question. If you don't want to have a discussion about reason that's cool, but clicking on this thread was kinda silly.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 1:04:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reasoning is a process. It is defined by rules, is observed and demonstrated, and the ability to reason can be measured by tests. I think that most religious people would accept that using reasoning is not an act of faith.

Few atheists would claim to only believe things that are logically provable. For example, an atheist might believe and act is if a train or airline will leave on time, even though it cannot be logically proved. The difference has to do with the amount of evidence needed for a high certainty of belief. If the train or plane is late, the belief is the schedule is dispelled. Atheists think religious people's level of certainty is unreasonable given the evidence.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 1:52:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 1:04:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Reasoning is a process. It is defined by rules, is observed and demonstrated, and the ability to reason can be measured by tests. I think that most religious people would accept that using reasoning is not an act of faith.

Few atheists would claim to only believe things that are logically provable. For example, an atheist might believe and act is if a train or airline will leave on time, even though it cannot be logically proved. The difference has to do with the amount of evidence needed for a high certainty of belief. If the train or plane is late, the belief is the schedule is dispelled. Atheists think religious people's level of certainty is unreasonable given the evidence.

I agree with Roy here, Atheist seek what is most likely by our physical means that we can calculate which is completely understandable. Though they think theist are unreasonable because we declare that we know things beyond the physical and it is unexplainable by measures. I accept this because that is what makes salvation and God so great. I would rather have faith in God that communicates with me on high enough level that I can comprehind who He is and what He wants from me. I do not blame atheist because if I didnt have God it would be hard to believe and I can understand that. I without a doubt want that blessing for them but them and God make that choice. What I am concerned about is atheist thinking we are not being logical when they know me most certainly are through regular discussion. They question is why are we logical normally and then have such unreasonable methods for our belief. The reason is because we allowed ourselves to seek beyond the physical. To do that you must give up, sumbit, just through up your hands in helplessness and to be lower yourself in humbleness before God. When you have truely decided to do that then you are prepared to ask the Lord for salvation. You must have those things before that salvation can be achieved.
TheAsylum
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:53:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 12:05:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When discussing God or religion, atheists contend that they prefer to depend on the physical, the tangible.

The Fool: Athiesm=/=physicalism. Physicalism is the doctrine that everything is physical. I don't think this, and it becoming a dated doctrine. Most people here are young and it is a natural assumption of what science is to them.

They want things shown to them using our senses, measurements, or the ability to replicate.

The Fool: To believe something without out a Reason is exactly the opposite of reasnable.

medic0506: To atheists, science rules.

The Fool: Tell that to a marxist or any eastern type religions. This is just flat out dishonist. RIght?

medic0506: Much of science, though, and most atheist arguments against God rely on reason.

The Fool: yes its reasonalbe to think that the necessary condition for even the possibiliy of something being true. Can't have feature which cancel or the opposite if its own constituins. If you say we don't know what they are. Then you don't know what God is. Therefore we are to assume you claim or of knowledge it follows by necessity that they are FALSE CLAIM. But I think it is fair assume claims are not random. If you say faith is a form of knowledge then that reduced the Criteria of knowledge so low that anything is knowledge by faith alone. Including the opposite of your claim which then cancel them out anyways.

medic0506: If you remove someone's scalp you can see brain activity, but you can't see reason, inside that brain.

The Fool: The niave empirist like The Jackal think that. Ask him, he likes that kind of reasoning.

medic0506:You can't measure it.

The Fool: yes you can, or else you couldn't demarcate what the word means. Aka I can describe how I feel, without someone needing to see my feeling.

medic0506: So how does reason fit into the atheist's requirement that all things must be provable by physical means??

The Fool: Simple it doesn't. There is no requirement for being an Athiest no more then it is required to be a ALeprachaunist Its an irrational title from the Bible that people have accepted to Identify themselves. They shouldn't be called Athiest for any more reason then those who don't believe in Dragons are ADragonist! They are called Linguistical illusions. That is the illusions that comes about when people mistake physical symbols of langauge for an actual reality they were meant to symbolize.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:07:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I only need one question to utterly dismiss that GOD concept..

What is GOD without existence?

It's nothing, non-existent, meaningless, irrelevant, pointless, and at best a fallacy imagined.

As far as immateriality is concerned. It seems theists would be offended if they were more than nothing, or offended of being made of something tangible, existent, or of actual value greater than zero... Even if they can't handle immateriality being a fallacy, or physicality being the only tangible reality, that simple little question utterly destroys such a concept of GOD..

The only GOD of existence is existence itself to which is the totality of everything in and of existence, every force to cause, every rule and law, every property, every system, every state and function, every place, and is the sole governor of all that exists to which includes any conscious entity. Existence determines what is and isn't possible. Existence determines what will be, become, or is now.

Sorry, true origins doesn't come from a magical pixie fairy in the sky. And if existence is GOD (pantheism), that makes everything "GOD". That makes you, me, that pile of steamy dog poop "GOD".
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 4:09:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
medic0506: If you remove someone's scalp you can see brain activity, but you can't see reason, inside that brain.

This is like saying if you take the side panel off your computer you can see fan activity, but you can't see the information processes, or the information being processed, interpreted and expressed. Therefore it must be magically immaterial! :/ Hey, flat Earthers use the same sort of logic to argue the Earth is flat. Science is a conspiracy too! That's why your computer works!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 5:14:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 3:07:54 AM, TheJackel wrote:

The Spade and The Jack. p3

The Jackel:: I only need one question to utterly dismiss that GOD concept..

The Fool: A question is a question? Nothing more nothing less.

The Jackel: What is GOD without existence?

The Fool: I claim to be a Fool nothing more nothing less.

TheJackel:: It's nothing, non-existent, meaningless, irrelevant, pointless, and at best a fallacy imagined.

The Fool: A wise man once told me two things. The first: Is that we can actually think without physcaly observing our thought. But if this is true then there was no need to write down your questions here and give your self an answer. But as a fool I assume you have a much more intellegant explanation then I do about such matters.

I am still quite confused though, because the other thing I was told, is that, what does not exist, is not there to even think about. But according your you reasoning this must be false. But if the wise man it true and I know him to be wise then it follows by necessity that you have no 'Idea' of what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>sizzle>>>>>>>>>>>Boom! <(80)
But I am but a Fool, so don't blame me blame logic. >>>>>>>>>>splush <(XD)

TheJackel:: As far as immateriality is concerned.

The Fool: Is it really concerned? Now I am concerned about its concerns. <(86)
But enough about my foolish concerns. What are your concerned about its concerns, and what is this concerning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Zing!
<(8I)

TheJackel: It (seems) theists would {[be offended if (they) were more than nothing,] (or) [offended of being made of something tangible, existent,] (or) [of actual value greater than zero...]}

The Fool: I can say one thing, "it does not "seem" possible from a fools point of view." Because Insofar as "They" is a reference to something it not possible to be nothing. Foolish Tips: Becarefull all things are not always what they "seem" to be. But that is what it means to be Fooled.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh Oh>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>oops!! <(8F)

TheJackel: Even [if] {(they can't handle immateriality being a fallacy,) or (physicality being the only tangible reality)}, [Then] (that simple little question utterly destroys such a concept of GOD..)

The Fool: Please enlighten us on this the immaterial fallacy. So far its a Bold assumption fallacybased from an appeal to authority fallacy. But if this is true then all your claims here are an appeal to ignorance. But that would be foolish for a jackel.

TheJackel:: The only GOD of existence is existence itself to which is the totality of everything in and of existence, every force to cause, every rule and law, every property, every system, every state and function, every place, and is the sole governor of all that exists to which includes any conscious entity.

The Fool: I once met a wise Jew who had the same opinion. But I always thought he just was just labeling the universe as God. He told me that we were like little pieces of God, like small worm living in blood. He spoke as though everthing had minds. I thought that was absurd. I said to him, 'if we are one part of Gods infinite being" then we don't exist. Because 1 out of infinity is 0. Therefore such a God is false, because we need to exist even know such a think. Poor basterd, he died from ingestisting glass, at the place of his work. Or maybe it was all a dream in my mind. Still an intresting dream I say.

TheJackel::Existence determines what is and isn't possible. Existence determines what will be, become, or is now.

The Fool: hmm, but what IS is already existing, it can't determine it self, for it is itself all ready. no? who knows about such matters.

TheJackel:: Sorry, true origins doesn't come from a magical pixie fairy in the sky.

The Fool: Who are you responding to here?

TheJackel: And if existence is GOD (pantheism), that makes everything "GOD".
That makes you, me, that pile of steamy dog poop "GOD".

The Fool: Try thinking in your mind first. If it is complicated then see if it is easier to write it down in a forum. Maybe. I don't these matters.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 5:17:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 6:30:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: A wise man once told me two things. The first: Is that we can actually :think without physcaly observing our thought. But if this is true then there was no :need to write down your questions here and give your self an answer. But as a :fool I assume you have a much more intellegant explanation then I do about such :matters.

I am still quite confused though, because the other thing I was told, is that, what :does not exist, is not there to even think about. But according your you reasoning :this must be false. But if the wise man it true and I know him to be wise then it :follows by necessity that you have no 'Idea' of what you are talking about. :>>>>>>>>sizzle>>>>>>>>>>>Boom! <(80)
But I am but a Fool, so don't blame me blame logic. >>>>>>>>>>splush <(XD)


Sorry son, constructing logical fallacies via toss salads of words of language won't make something magically exist, or your trolling clever.. It's not going to make the Earth suddenly flat either. And none of which to the above, either my argument here in this post, or yours will have any relevance to the argument stated or the question asked.. And no you can't think or observe your thoughts without physicality. Care to take a ride in a Centrifuge to 9 G's? Yeah, you're not very clever.. No worries though, you can convince yourself to ignore reality. You play a good game of playing intentionally stupid to troll the fora Fool, but clever you are not in your methods...Childish at best.

What is the fools troll arguments without existence, language, information, the brain, or a means to process information ect ect?

Ah yep, nothing, meaningless, irrelevant, nonexistence, pointless, and well at best nonsense. Don't blame me, blame logic and your childish ignorance.

The Fool: Please enlighten us on this the immaterial fallacy. So far its a Bold :assumption fallacybased from an appeal to authority fallacy. But if this is true then :all your claims here are an appeal to ignorance. But that would be foolish for a :jackel.

I Don't have to, self-refuting concepts don't need demonstration as they are self-refutations by consequence.. Your appeal to ignorance and circular argument isn't going to make self-refuting concepts relevant, or anything more than self-refutations. If you the fool can't comprehend the definition of nothing, then you really are the quality of your name. And your usage of claiming my argument to be an appeal to ignorance and authority is as bad as Flat Earthers claiming the evidence that the Earth isn't flat as an appeal to ignorance and Authority. Sorry, we just can't take internet trolls such as yourself seriously in these matters. Especially when your using computer on the internet to make such inane and childish arguments..

TheJackel::Existence determines what is and isn't possible. Existence determines :what will be, become, or is now.
The Fool: hmm, but what IS is already existing, it can't determine it self, for it is :itself all ready. no? who knows about such matters.

This is complete incoherence to the question asked or the statement you quoted. Are you really this dumb to where you can't comprehend the question asked, or the statement you quoted here? Your reply was as coherent as the four corner time cube, or a 2 year old trying to discuss quantum physics. It comes out cute, but not very coherent. And sorry, a self-generating system to which existence is, can determine itself, and simply because energy can interfere with itself. And no conscious state can exist without such a system, or cause.

So every time you post such inane and childish argument, I will simply just post this in response to which will tag the following videos:

Not a thing begins with consciousness, everything begins and ends with information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 6:46:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And none of which to the above, either my argument here in this post, or yours will :have any relevance to the argument stated or the question asked..

And this meaning we depend on the merit of that question. Hence, you or I require it to exist or to even make our arguments. It's not the other way around like theists like to think.. Some even think consciousness is such a simple answer in that it requires nothing to exist. Some think it has no complexity... And yet when you asked them to build us a conscious thing, it suddenly becomes not so simple or lacking complexity. It becomes tremendously complex and in need of many complex systems to function. Just taking a stroll into cybernetics, sensory systems, and systems theory will demonstrate this quite well.
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 9:34:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 5:14:30 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/16/2012 3:07:54 AM, TheJackel wrote:

The Spade and The Jack. p3

The Jackel:: I only need one question to utterly dismiss that GOD concept..

The Fool: A question is a question? Nothing more nothing less.

The Jackel: What is GOD without existence?

The Fool: I claim to be a Fool nothing more nothing less.

TheJackel:: It's nothing, non-existent, meaningless, irrelevant, pointless, and at best a fallacy imagined.

The Fool: A wise man once told me two things. The first: Is that we can actually think without physcaly observing our thought. But if this is true then there was no need to write down your questions here and give your self an answer. But as a fool I assume you have a much more intellegant explanation then I do about such matters.

I am still quite confused though, because the other thing I was told, is that, what does not exist, is not there to even think about. But according your you reasoning this must be false. But if the wise man it true and I know him to be wise then it follows by necessity that you have no 'Idea' of what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>sizzle>>>>>>>>>>>Boom! <(80)
But I am but a Fool, so don't blame me blame logic. >>>>>>>>>>splush <(XD)

TheJackel:: As far as immateriality is concerned.

The Fool: Is it really concerned? Now I am concerned about its concerns. <(86)
But enough about my foolish concerns. What are your concerned about its concerns, and what is this concerning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Zing!
<(8I)

TheJackel: It (seems) theists would {[be offended if (they) were more than nothing,] (or) [offended of being made of something tangible, existent,] (or) [of actual value greater than zero...]}

The Fool: I can say one thing, "it does not "seem" possible from a fools point of view." Because Insofar as "They" is a reference to something it not possible to be nothing. Foolish Tips: Becarefull all things are not always what they "seem" to be. But that is what it means to be Fooled.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh Oh>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>oops!! <(8F)

TheJackel: Even [if] {(they can't handle immateriality being a fallacy,) or (physicality being the only tangible reality)}, [Then] (that simple little question utterly destroys such a concept of GOD..)

The Fool: Please enlighten us on this the immaterial fallacy. So far its a Bold assumption fallacybased from an appeal to authority fallacy. But if this is true then all your claims here are an appeal to ignorance. But that would be foolish for a jackel.

TheJackel:: The only GOD of existence is existence itself to which is the totality of everything in and of existence, every force to cause, every rule and law, every property, every system, every state and function, every place, and is the sole governor of all that exists to which includes any conscious entity.

The Fool: I once met a wise Jew who had the same opinion. But I always thought he just was just labeling the universe as God. He told me that we were like little pieces of God, like small worm living in blood. He spoke as though everthing had minds. I thought that was absurd. I said to him, 'if we are one part of Gods infinite being" then we don't exist. Because 1 out of infinity is 0. Therefore such a God is false, because we need to exist even know such a think. Poor basterd, he died from ingestisting glass, at the place of his work. Or maybe it was all a dream in my mind. Still an intresting dream I say.

TheJackel::Existence determines what is and isn't possible. Existence determines what will be, become, or is now.

The Fool: hmm, but what IS is already existing, it can't determine it self, for it is itself all ready. no? who knows about such matters.

TheJackel:: Sorry, true origins doesn't come from a magical pixie fairy in the sky.

The Fool: Who are you responding to here?

TheJackel: And if existence is GOD (pantheism), that makes everything "GOD".
That makes you, me, that pile of steamy dog poop "GOD".

The Fool: Try thinking in your mind first. If it is complicated then see if it is easier to write it down in a forum. Maybe. I don't these matters.

I'm so confused.... Fool, you know he's an atheist too, right? WTF IS GOING ON HERE??? IM SO CONFUSED!!
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 9:51:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 12:05:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When discussing God or religion, atheists contend that they prefer to depend on the physical, the tangible. They want things shown to them using our senses, measurements, or the ability to replicate. To atheists, science rules. Much of science, though, and most atheist arguments against God rely on reason.

Atheism does not imply physicalism. I'm not quite sure which of reason or physicalism you are discussing. Roy has already pointed out the observability of reason, which is basically all that needs to be said.

If you remove someone's scalp you can see brain activity, but you can't see reason, inside that brain. You can't measure it. So how does reason fit into the atheist's requirement that all things must be provable by physical means??

I don't think you actually consider this an argument, but in case you do, this can be devolved since you are using reason in order to detract from reason. If atheists shouldn't rely on it, why are you? Regardless, atheism =/= physicalism.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 10:19:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 9:34:18 AM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/16/2012 5:14:30 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/16/2012 3:07:54 AM, TheJackel wrote:

The Spade and The Jack. p3

The Jackel:: I only need one question to utterly dismiss that GOD concept..

The Fool: A question is a question? Nothing more nothing less.

The Jackel: What is GOD without existence?

The Fool: I claim to be a Fool nothing more nothing less.

TheJackel:: It's nothing, non-existent, meaningless, irrelevant, pointless, and at best a fallacy imagined.

The Fool: A wise man once told me two things. The first: Is that we can actually think without physcaly observing our thought. But if this is true then there was no need to write down your questions here and give your self an answer. But as a fool I assume you have a much more intellegant explanation then I do about such matters.

I am still quite confused though, because the other thing I was told, is that, what does not exist, is not there to even think about. But according your you reasoning this must be false. But if the wise man it true and I know him to be wise then it follows by necessity that you have no 'Idea' of what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>sizzle>>>>>>>>>>>Boom! <(80)
But I am but a Fool, so don't blame me blame logic. >>>>>>>>>>splush <(XD)

TheJackel:: As far as immateriality is concerned.

The Fool: Is it really concerned? Now I am concerned about its concerns. <(86)
But enough about my foolish concerns. What are your concerned about its concerns, and what is this concerning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Zing!
<(8I)

TheJackel: It (seems) theists would {[be offended if (they) were more than nothing,] (or) [offended of being made of something tangible, existent,] (or) [of actual value greater than zero...]}

The Fool: I can say one thing, "it does not "seem" possible from a fools point of view." Because Insofar as "They" is a reference to something it not possible to be nothing. Foolish Tips: Becarefull all things are not always what they "seem" to be. But that is what it means to be Fooled.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh Oh>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>oops!! <(8F)

TheJackel: Even [if] {(they can't handle immateriality being a fallacy,) or (physicality being the only tangible reality)}, [Then] (that simple little question utterly destroys such a concept of GOD..)

The Fool: Please enlighten us on this the immaterial fallacy. So far its a Bold assumption fallacybased from an appeal to authority fallacy. But if this is true then all your claims here are an appeal to ignorance. But that would be foolish for a jackel.

TheJackel:: The only GOD of existence is existence itself to which is the totality of everything in and of existence, every force to cause, every rule and law, every property, every system, every state and function, every place, and is the sole governor of all that exists to which includes any conscious entity.

The Fool: I once met a wise Jew who had the same opinion. But I always thought he just was just labeling the universe as God. He told me that we were like little pieces of God, like small worm living in blood. He spoke as though everthing had minds. I thought that was absurd. I said to him, 'if we are one part of Gods infinite being" then we don't exist. Because 1 out of infinity is 0. Therefore such a God is false, because we need to exist even know such a think. Poor basterd, he died from ingestisting glass, at the place of his work. Or maybe it was all a dream in my mind. Still an intresting dream I say.

TheJackel::Existence determines what is and isn't possible. Existence determines what will be, become, or is now.

The Fool: hmm, but what IS is already existing, it can't determine it self, for it is itself all ready. no? who knows about such matters.

TheJackel:: Sorry, true origins doesn't come from a magical pixie fairy in the sky.

The Fool: Who are you responding to here?

TheJackel: And if existence is GOD (pantheism), that makes everything "GOD".
That makes you, me, that pile of steamy dog poop "GOD".

The Fool: Try thinking in your mind first. If it is complicated then see if it is easier to write it down in a forum. Maybe. I don't these matters.

I'm so confused.... Fool, you know he's an atheist too, right? WTF IS GOING ON HERE??? IM SO CONFUSED!!

It's called troll diversion. Since they can't answer the question, they're afraid that the theist might make a good point, so they troll the thread hoping no one will want to read through all that crap and move on to something else.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's called troll diversion. Since they can't answer the question, they're afraid that the :theist might make a good point, so they troll the thread hoping no one will want to :read through all that crap and move on to something else.

He's definitely trolling the fora and he should get banned for it. It's like watching a 2 year toss a tantrum to get a rise out of people. Such people aren't taken seriously, and they usually have psychological issues the feed off causing problems.. And one that speaks in 3rd person is a good sign of Narcissism. So there is no sense in feeding the troll here, just ignore him and report him when he's trolling the fora.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:15:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No no no. You are making a false dichotomy between extreme empiricism and extreme rationalism. Atheists base their beliefs on what can be observed and replicated because any other metaphysical system other than objective reality is really stupid. Whereas the foundation for these beliefs may lay in our senses, inferences are completely logical to do, which juxtaposes empiricism. For example, even though we can't prove that outside the knowable universe everything exists as it does inside of it, we can infer based on our observations within our universe that it is the same, and not made of tiny green goblins. Atheists, at least me, base their core beliefs on observation and experience and offshoots from that on inference and Occam's Razor.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:15:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reasons without observation is purely mental, which atheists can't simply accept.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 2:57:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheism does not imply physicalism. I'm not quite sure which of reason or :physicalism you are discussing. Roy has already pointed out the observability of :reason, which is basically all that needs to be said.

Now this is true as there are many Atheists whom are not entirely in line with Physicalism. However, those that are, understand that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of things made of nothing, or the existence of nothing so you can have something of nothing exist. Most people don't even comprehend the definition of nothing to understand why that is a self-refutation, or the absolute example of an absolute negative to which proves itself false by the consequence of it's premises, or the nature of the argument. Hence, if nothing existed, it would nullify the definition of nothing.. So no you can't have your cake and eat it to. Things of nothing do not exist, and anything you imagine to which doesn't exists only exists as something imagined, or as a pattern of information produced by your brain. Like a toss salad of words, shapes, colors ect..

So how does reason fit into the atheist's requirement that all things must be :provable by physical means??

Depends on the Atheist.. And yes it's provable by physical means.. People whom get their heads blown off in war aren't getting back up... G-lock, deep water blackout, drugs and alcohol event physically effect the brain and the conscious state, pressure to the brain, dehydration, EEG, our ability to extract images from the brain, cure blindness by decoding how the brain communicates and displays visual information in mice and now possibly humans, how neural pathways work, how information in the brain is ion based vs electron based, or how we develop cognitive systems theory and cybernetics based on the brain and brain activity.

Simply put, there is no evidence of immateriality at play.. NONE! If the mind was immaterial, we could no effect on the state of consciousness.. And it's pretty difficult to have nothing have a structure and the systems needed to be capable of processing information to actualize a conscious state into an emergent property or existential frame of reference. So if you think the mind is immaterial, you need to explain to the rest of us how you think nothing can be the essence value of a mind, and how nothing works..Especially when it's the theist argument that you can't get something from nothing.

I don't think you actually consider this an argument, but in case you do, this can :be devolved since you are using reason in order to detract from reason. If atheists :shouldn't rely on it, why are you? Regardless, atheism =/= physicalism.

I can't consider what doesn't exist, or what is a self-refutation as something I should seriously consider. And why am I? because I have maybe actually studied these subjects and currently attend computer science to get into cybernetics? I have to study information science, and I have up to date on current knowledge regarding it. Information is no longer regarded as "immaterial" anymore. Just to give you an idea, here is another example out in the field dealing with this subject:

* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization
http://www.sourceintegralis.org...
Abstract

The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution :in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the :same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system :in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich :complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. :The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in :the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least :chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood :as chaotic attractors

See Kenneth Sayre's Cybernetics and the Philosophy of Mind (Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1976) for a more technical discussion of information, matter and energy, including the concepts of entropy.

You can also watch this video on cybernetics and chaos theory:

And if you read this post, and actually read it, you might get a basic understanding of why it's all regarded as physical:

* http://technology-science.newsvine.com...

* http://technology-science.newsvine.com...

Abstract:

Q:
Can you read them impulses and tell what they are thinking?

A:
Well, yes we can:

http://science.slashdot.org...

However, the problem they are having is the conversion to digital binary is difficult, and difficult for several reasons. The brain works differently, and is considered both a quantum and neural computer to which also deals with Ion information flow and processes within brain cells to which are not very compatible with electron information processes or binary systems such as what you find in modern computing... But we are getting closer to that as well:

http://singularityhub.com...

Besides word reading, this abstract is worthy of addressing:

Neuroscience is slowly making progress with translating brain signals into useful information. We've seen how the firing of motor neurons can be used to control a computer cursor and mechanical devices with Braingate, neurons in the Broca's area of the brain (another speech center like Wernicke's) have been used to delve into how we process language, and scientists have had some luck[url] translating brain activity into vowel sounds as well[/url]. Each of these techniques, however, have required researchers to place electrodes within the brain itself. Pushing wires into your grey matter has a host of associated risks and limitations including brain damage. The University of Utah experiment used microelectrodes on the surface of the brain. While still under the skull, these electrodes do not penetrate the brain and only use surface signals to guess at activity deeper in the brain.

And with quantum computing around the corner, we could possibly start seeing Blockbuster movies created straight from the imaginations of people like Spielberg ect. Ok, that might be a while yet...:P However, there are definitely ethical issues with such tech.. And I know what everyone here is thinking in regards to that.. And I'm sure some of you might go into science is evil.. But that isn't our focus here atm. So lets move on. So in relation to ion processing systems such as the human brain, here is nice little guide on Nero Transmissions:

http://science-education.nih.gov...

And here is some other fun learning material:

http://www.cerebromente.org.br...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://www.mind.ilstu.edu...

http://www.google.com...

Interesting? Well, taking note of what you can learn from the above, we can now learn about a Transistor that could communicate with living things and open the door to biological communication systems that might even allow for wifi telepathy (yeah wifi telepathy would be awesome..maybe):

http://www.science20.com...
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:13:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ill just post the rest here too:

nd lets address the following as well:

Reaction kinetics in living systems PNAS 1981 78 (9) 5549-5553
...barriers in biological systems act like transistors in making the driving forces more...Biochemistry Reaction kinetics in living systems (rate process/irreversible..placed in one-to-one correspondence with appropriate electri- cal and mechanical..consumption and coupling effect in living systems. It is likely that a small...barriers in biological systems act like transistors in making the driving forces more...myth that the chemistry of living things involved vital forces not found in...

Abstract
Full Text (PDF) Biological Sciences - Applied Biological Sciences
http://www.pnas.org...
Tsung-Wu Lin,
Po-Jen Hsieh,
Chih-Lung Lin,
Yi-Ya Fang,
Jia-Xun Yang,
Chia-Chang Tsai,
Pei-Ling Chiang,
Chien-Yuan Pan,
and Yit-Tsong Chen

--

Label-free detection of protein-protein interactions using a calmodulin-modified :nanowire transistor PNAS 2010 107 (3) 1047-1052; published ahead of print :December 23, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0910243107
...neuronal signals with high-density nanowire transistor arrays . Science 313 : :1100 - 1104...electrical detection of cancer markers with nanowire sensor arrays . :Nat Biotechnol...detection of chromogranin a released from living neurons with a :single-walled carbon-nanotube field-effect transistor . Small 3 : 1350 - 1355 . 13 :Delves..
Full Text (PDF)
Physical Sciences - Engineering
http://www.pnas.org...
Tsuyoshi Sekitani,
Yoshiaki Noguchi,
Ute Zschieschang,
Hagen Klauk,
and Takao Someya

--

From the Cover: Organic transistors manufactured using inkjet technology with :subfemtoliter accuracy PNAS 2008 105 (13) 4976-4980; published ahead of print :March 24, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0708340105
...single-crystal silicon field-effect transistors with a gate length of 32 nm :are...of the organic thin-film transistors with patterned Al gates, ultrathin...ink, and :electric pulses with a voltage of <200 V are applied...0708340105SI.txt Organic :transistors manufactured using inkjet...

Full Text (PDF) Physical Sciences - Engineering
http://www.pnas.org...
Takao Someya,
Yusaku Kato,
Tsuyoshi Sekitani,
Shingo Iba,
Yoshiaki Noguchi,
Yousuke Murase,
Hiroshi Kawaguchi,
and Takayasu Sakurai

--

Conformable, flexible, large-area networks of pressure and thermal sensors :with organic transistor active matrixes PNAS 2005 102 (35) 12321-12325; :published ahead of print August 17, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0502392102
...12) of field-effect transistors with a pentacene ( 19 - 21...drain electrodes of :the transistors. The channel length...manufactured organic transistors active :matrixes on 10...and thermal sensors with organic transistor active...
Full Text PDF Biological Sciences - Applied Biological Sciences - Physical :Sciences - Applied Physical Sciences
http://www.pnas.org...
Quan Qing,
Sumon K. Pal,
Bozhi Tian,
Xiaojie Duan,
Brian P. Timko,
Tzahi Cohen-Karni,
Venkatesh N. Murthy,
and Charles M. Lieber

As well as:

Nanowire transistor arrays for mapping neural circuits in acute brain slices :PNAS 2010 107 (5) 1882-1887; published ahead of print January 19, 2010, :doi:10.1073/pnas.0914737107
Nanowire transistor arrays for mapping neural...action potential signals, with :additional features detected...populations of neurons with both high position :accuracy...MEAs) (2) and active transistor arrays on silicon substrates...could only :be achieved with reduced recording sites...for interfacing with living tissues, for :example...
Full Text (PDF)
http://www.pnas.org...

But all of that seems very complicated doesn't it? We kind of need a more basic understanding of all that don't we? Well, lets provide some basic understanding of information theory here:

Links:

http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...
http://www.wordiq.com...

Thus we can get a deeper understanding of information science in relation to cognitive systems as you can reference these abstracts from the above provided links:

Information theory is closely associated with a collection of pure and applied :disciplines that have been investigated and reduced to engineering practice under :a variety of rubrics throughout the world over the past half century or more: :adaptive systems, anticipatory systems, artificial intelligence, complex systems, :complexity science, cybernetics, informatics, machine learning, along with systems :sciences of many descriptions. Information theory is a broad and deep :mathematical theory, with equally broad and deep applications, amongst which is :the vital field of coding theory

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:21:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Too much to post without flooding the fora.. just visit the link to the article on my Newsvine page.

And here are more fun videos and links as to why we know it's all physical:

Computer chips fused with brain cells:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/_news/2011/11/05/8660058-should-religious-fundamentalism-be-considered-a-mental-illness-and-would-that-include-some-politicians-poll&__utmv=154396583.|8=Earned%20By=newsvine|newsvine=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.newsvine.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Internal%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=48344550#.UC1VraNN1hE

Video 1: Robots with a rat brain

Video 2: Cultivating brain cells to learn about neural networks
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:23:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow, that post above came out weird lol.. Long URLS not liked on this website lol.. If messed up on your end, scroll right to see videos :)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:26:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 2:14:44 PM, TheJackel wrote:

The Fool presents: <strongA Discussion of Reason:special edition.

The very best of medic and Jackel

medic : :It's called troll diversion. Since they can't answer the question, they're afraid that the :theist might make a good point, so they troll the thread hoping no one will want to :read through all that crap and move on to something else.

The Foolish Judge: I don't know Jackel he has quite alot of ad hominins. Do you really think you can pack more hate in such small set of sentences? Medic is our current Hater champion. This is going to be Tough. Ready.. Go!

Jackel : He's definitely trolling the fora and he should get banned for it. It's like watching a 2 year toss a tantrum to get a rise out of people. Such people aren't taken seriously, and they usually have psychological issues the feed off causing problems.. And one that speaks in 3rd person is a good sign of Narcissism. So there is no sense in feeding the troll here, just ignore him and report him when he's trolling the fora.

The Foolish Judge: Ladies and Gentilmen, a decision has been made.

And the NEW Hater champion of DDOoooooo . The...Jackal. ..!!!

The Fool: The views held in this competition, relfect those of the Haters and the haters alone. The Fool, is not responible for any brain damage you recieve from reading this Garbage.

The Fool on the Hill. <(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:34:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 3:32:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This thread is moronic. Reason can be demonstrated whether or not you can see what "it" actually is.

The Fool: I know. <(8I)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:40:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Despite the troll, I agree, any thread that tries to argue immateriality is in itself is a self-refutation. So yes it is moronic to argue for self-refuting concepts.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 3:52:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 12:05:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When discussing God or religion, atheists contend that they prefer to depend on the physical, the tangible. They want things shown to them using our senses, measurements, or the ability to replicate. To atheists, science rules. Much of science, though, and most atheist arguments against God rely on reason.

If you remove someone's scalp you can see brain activity, but you can't see reason, inside that brain. You can't measure it. So how does reason fit into the atheist's requirement that all things must be provable by physical means??

Rationalism (Plato) vs Empiricism (Aristotle) merged into a foundation from which we get modern science (thanks to Kant et al).

Atheists flip flop. They go from empirical means, then once it's shown more reasonable to believe in God they move to rational means (God is an impossibility, so we may as well not presuppose him over naturalism)... But then Rationalism vindicates theism, and oh back to empiricism we go!

... No wonder folks are agnostic.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 4:59:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/16/2012 12:05:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When discussing God or religion, atheists contend that they prefer to depend on the physical, the tangible. They want things shown to them using our senses, measurements, or the ability to replicate. To atheists, science rules. Much of science, though, and most atheist arguments against God rely on reason.

If you remove someone's scalp you can see brain activity, but you can't see reason, inside that brain. You can't measure it. So how does reason fit into the atheist's requirement that all things must be provable by physical means??

Rationalism (Plato) vs Empiricism (Aristotle) merged into a foundation from which we get modern science (thanks to Kant et al).

Atheists flip flop. They go from empirical means, then once it's shown more reasonable to believe in God they move to rational means (God is an impossibility, so we may as well not presuppose him over naturalism)... But then Rationalism vindicates theism, and oh back to empiricism we go!

... No wonder folks are agnostic.

Yes, and many theists contributed to science.. I often even quote them. And most theistic scientists, especially physicists and cosmologists do not believe in immateriality, they simply can't rule out, scientifically, conscious transcendence as the energy beings we are. Lots of spiritualists hold this position as well. And btw, immateriality used to be an argument between solid matter and energy until science realized matter and energy are the same thing as energy in different states. At this point we start seeing a sudden emergence of immateriality in the form of nihilism in such religions as Christianity.. Once science explains something, they have to move the goal post even if it is to move it to literally being a self-refutation.. It's like when I told a Christian that the Pantheist GOD is existence itself and asked them why their GOD needs their GOD to exist.., the answer I got was :

God exists outside and beyond existence

And all you can do is just sit there an laugh.. Defecting to the other side to try and win the debate..It's basically self-admitting their GOD doesn't exist and only at best exists as an imagined concept in their head..A tossed salad of words..

This guy even exposes why such terms are essentially appeals to ignorance or self-refuting concepts in a way I didn't even bother to address:

Broken Concepts
http://www.rationalresponders.com...

Btw, Physicality does not rule out the possibility of a plausible entity capable of inducing a big bang either by intention or by freak accident. It doesn't rule out natural occurrence..After all, it's just a matter of physics. And even some physicists suggest we could some day do the very same thing. Hence, we already created light from a vacuum...:

http://www.labmate-online.com...

"let there be light"..

It's rather odd to see theists need to invent logical fallacies and reduce themselves to meaningless nothing and still think they exist.. It's like they don't comprehend there own arguments, or that they are intentionally being ignorant for sake of preserving faith.. If their GOD isn't impossible to exist, it's not a GOD...That is the kind of mindset and logic we are dealing with here. Hence, once it becomes possible and explainable.., it suddenly loses that mystical divinity, magic, or luster if you will.

Cure blindness miracle of washing eyes out with water Jesus? Well, we can one up that here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Abstract:
Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College have deciphered a mouse's retina's :neural code and coupled this information to a novel prosthetic device to restore :sight to blind mice. The researchers say they have also cracked the code for a :monkey retina -- which is essentially identical to that of a human -- and hope to :quickly design and test a device that blind humans can use.

Dr. Sheila Nirenberg, a computational neuroscientist at Weill Cornell, envisions a :day when the blind can choose to wear a visor, similar to the one used on the :television show Star Trek. The visor's camera will take in light and use a computer :chip to turn it into a code that the brain can translate into an image.

Way cooler too!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 5:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/16/2012 3:52:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 8/16/2012 12:05:00 AM, medic0506 wrote:
When discussing God or religion, atheists contend that they prefer to depend on the physical, the tangible. They want things shown to them using our senses, measurements, or the ability to replicate. To atheists, science rules. Much of science, though, and most atheist arguments against God rely on reason.

If you remove someone's scalp you can see brain activity, but you can't see reason, inside that brain. You can't measure it. So how does reason fit into the atheist's requirement that all things must be provable by physical means??

Rationalism (Plato) vs Empiricism (Aristotle) merged into a foundation from which we get modern science (thanks to Kant et al).

Atheists flip flop. They go from empirical means, then once it's shown more reasonable to believe in God they move to rational means (God is an impossibility, so we may as well not presuppose him over naturalism)... But then Rationalism vindicates theism, and oh back to empiricism we go!

... No wonder folks are agnostic.

The Fool: God has never in the history of time been a reasonable or rational option.
Supernatural is a claim beyond natural human reason. It is always been faith Based. There is nothing nore has there ever been emprical information, that could ever be related to any kind of support whatsoever for God. The Word God has never even had any kind of stable or coherent meaning as a whole. All powerfull infinite, divine perfection, infinite being or whatever are not testible options nor even plausable theories. There is not even a definition of Holy Ghost or spirit in anyway that Theist could even know that they were ever actually communitcating about anything at all. You couldn't even describe it now in any possible way to even recognize the features.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2012 5:18:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Explain the physicality of reason. How does reason itself, for you, qualify as one of the physical proofs that you expect to see from us?? How do we know that reason even exists, or is cogent??

Can you answer either of those questions...without using reason?? If reason truly exists, then there would be some means of proving it without having to use it to prove itself, right?? We hear this about God, so the same standard should apply.

If I say, "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the word of God", does that suffice as a credible argument?? You say that it's a circular argument, with neither of the parts independently proven so that it can be used as proof of the other. Therefore, the atheist should be willing to argue using the same ground rules that they set for theists.

Since we all admit that God can't be physically proven, Christians are left to argue, and defend their position, based on what they've learned from the Bible.

Atheist argue using science, logic, and physically provable facts, right?? Those things are the atheist's Bible, comparitively speaking. However, none of those things could exist without the existence of reason, so reason is comparable to the atheist's God.

Atheists assert that reason, for all intent and purpose their God, exists, and base their worldveiw on it, just like we base ours on God. That's a positive assertion of existence of something, which puts the entire burden of proof on you. With the argument framed in a way that forces atheists to defend their own worldveiw, rather than give an opinion on ours, we switch places. I'm an areasonist. Can you prove that your God exists, without using your God, or your Bible, to prove itself??