Any proofs yet?

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Hello Agnostics, Atheists, and Theists,

I have been away from the boards for awhile. Whaat did I miss? Did anyone prove God's existance while I was away?

[Viti]

Welcome Back!

[Darwin's Finch]

We had a Missouri lawyer (Atticus Finch)try to prove that (a) there is a god and (b) it is the Christian god. However, he seems to have disappeared. I have it on good authority that his law school professors abducted him and are alternately beating him with heavy tomes and re-explaining the concept of hear-say.

Welcome back.

[Samhain]

Douglas J. Bender proved that god exists because of noises on his roof, which were obviously demons, and since he prayed and they went away, god therefore exists. HIS god too.

Too read more on his incredible and persuavive proofs read here: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000272" target="_blank">Topic: The Pointlessness of Theist/Atheist Debate</a>

His argument is very compelling. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[BibleBelted]

In this thread here <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000245" target="_blank">for the blah blah blah</a> WJ is in the process of proving that god exists because nobody in our solar system but him understands the definition of the word "atheist."

A classic (troll)

[ManM]

Assume naturalism, then prove God? No thanks. :D

[Synaesthesia]

Yep, God has been proven to exist if,
1. A necessary being with all the qualities of God exists.
2.Intelligence can only be created by an uncreated intelligence.
and
3.The bible is the word of God.

Several proofs to this effect have been put forward.

[Automaton]

[quote]1. A necessary being with all the qualities of God exists.<hr></blockquote>Bzzzzt. The concept of "necessary being" and a priori proofs to demonstrate that x is as such are all circular, and hence, unsound.
[quote]2.Intelligence can only be created by an uncreated intelligence.<hr></blockquote>Bzzzzt. Nothing has demonstrated intelligence is contingent upon itself. Evolutionary biological science tells us otherwise.
[quote]3.The bible is the word of God.<hr></blockquote>Bzzzzt. Only the stupid fundies claim this. Sensible Christians admit it is the errant work of man, albeit in their interpretation, God spoke through man. If I were God, I personally would have chosen a more reliable transciption device.
[quote]Several proofs to this effect have been put forward.<hr></blockquote>By who, and when? Should I alert the proper authorities?

Sorry Synaesthesia, I dunno if you're just joking around or not. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Pomp]

I'm pretty sure Syn is joking.

[case]

Wait a minute?! You mean god doesn't exist?! :eek:

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Automaton:
<strong>2.Intelligence can only be created by an uncreated intelligence.</strong>

Bzzzzt. Nothing has demonstrated intelligence is contingent upon itself. Evolutionary biological science tells us otherwise.<hr></blockquote>I'm inclined to wonder about this one. Nothing has demonstrated intelligence is contingent upon itself certainly... but doesn't it seem like it might be a self-evident truth?
To me, intelligence, consciousness etc seems irreducible... I just can't grasp how intelligence, be it illusory or otherwise, could be produced by anything other than itself. Like Descartes, I am left to think that we are minds in a machine...
It seems to me that the greatest challenge that has ever been presented to Descartes' line of thought was that of determinism as outlined effectively in the laws of Newton. Though I understand Newton himself denied this conclusion, the determinism implied by his laws seemed to rule out the existence of any sort of interface between the mind and the machine. And so the dualistic ideas posited by Descartes became difficult to hold.
But it seems Quantum Mechanics has undone this conclusion, as it removes the problem of determinism and provides a possible dualistic interface...
Given this, does there remain any compelling reason for the rejection of a dualistic mind-body view?

You make the point that "Evolutionary biological science tells us otherwise", but I am inclined to think you somewhat misguided in this. Why does evolution of the body necessarily imply evolution of the mind? Could not God, for example, have waited until the physical bodies had reached a satisfactory stage of development and then placed a mind within them? Or, for example, could not the mind already be there and it merely acts increasingly powerfully as the physical beings develop sufficiently?

That's my ramblings for the day anyway...
Tercel

[Automaton]

[quote]Nothing has demonstrated intelligence is contingent upon itself certainly... but doesn't it seem like it might be a self-evident truth?<hr></blockquote>Nah. :p
[quote]You make the point that "Evolutionary biological science tells us otherwise", but I am inclined to think you somewhat misguided in this. Why does evolution of the body necessarily imply evolution of the mind? Could not God, for example, have waited until the physical bodies had reached a satisfactory stage of development and then placed a mind within them? Or, for example, could not the mind already be there and it merely acts increasingly powerfully as the physical beings develop sufficiently?<hr></blockquote>Yes, this could be an explanation, it would just be a very bad one. For example, the mind can be damaged/altered by physical influence, and certain parts of consciousness appear regiospecific to the brain.
[quote]That's my ramblings for the day anyway...<hr></blockquote>What would we do without Tercel's ramblings? :D

[Foxhole Atheist]

From Tercel:
“To me, intelligence, consciousness etc seems irreducible …”

Without the brain, human or otherwise, there is no intelligence; there is no consciousness. Isn’t that a reduction?

[Synaesthesia]

Tercel,

[quote]But it seems Quantum Mechanics has undone this conclusion, as it removes the problem of determinism and provides a possible dualistic interface...
Given this, does there remain any compelling reason for the rejection of a dualistic mind-body view?<hr></blockquote>

Although there is admittedly considerable leeway still existing in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, I think it's important to note that naturalistic theories of the mind are as compatible with the seemingly acausal determinism of Quantum mechanics as with the more intuitive determinism of newtonian physics.

If there are intelligent homunculi causing quantum effects within our brains, the onus lies upon the dualist to produce them. As the situation stands, the evidence has increasingly suggested that between stimuli and response, prosaic explations suffice. The matter in our brains follows the same rules as any other bit of matter. Exactly what goes on is still an outstanding scientific problem, but the gods of the gaps have yet to show their faces.

[quote]Why does evolution of the body necessarily imply evolution of the mind? Could not God, for example, have waited until the physical bodies had reached a satisfactory stage of development and then placed a mind within them? Or, for example, could not the mind already be there and it merely acts increasingly powerfully as the physical beings develop sufficiently?<hr></blockquote>

There is no a priori reason why any of this should not be the case. However, we have to understand the capacities and limitations of biological systems (including the brain) in light of their evolutionary development. Evolution does rule out a cartesian style discontinuity between "intelligent" creatures such as primates and "mere autonomatons" such as sea cucumbers.

The evolutionary perspective suggests, if not implies, that what abilities we have are very much the product of our evolutionary history rather than abrupt saltation, divine or otherwise.


Regards,
Synaesthesia

PS. IF the premises in my original post are granted, the existence of God has been proven. If if if.

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Automaton:
<strong>You make the point that "Evolutionary biological science tells us otherwise", but I am inclined to think you somewhat misguided in this. Why does evolution of the body necessarily imply evolution of the mind? Could not God, for example, have waited until the physical bodies had reached a satisfactory stage of development and then placed a mind within them? Or, for example, could not the mind already be there and it merely acts increasingly powerfully as the physical beings develop sufficiently?</strong>

Yes, this could be an explanation, it would just be a very bad one. For example, the mind can be damaged/altered by physical influence,<hr></blockquote>I keep getting told by poster here that this is evidence against mind-body dualism but I have yet to understand how. Surely if you have a two part system and one part is damaged, the functionality of the system as a whole is damaged? That is, if mind-body dualism is true, and the physical brain was damaged/altered, would it then follow that there would be would be damage/alteration to the system as a whole.
I like to use the analogy of a radio. It's somewhat similar to a dualistic system, insofar as the "non-material" radio waves interact through the material radio. If I damage or alter the physical component of a radio, what happens to the noise it produces? It gets similarly damaged and altered.
Since mind-body dualism would seem to predict the observed effect, I can't see why I should take the observed effect as evidence against the theory...
But perhaps I'm just slow, can you explain it?

[quote]and certain parts of consciousness appear regiospecific to the brain.<hr></blockquote>Similarly I don't exactly see why this should count as evidence against dualism. Doesn't dualism predict this?
Clearly at some place in the system, the various commands and thoughts of the mind must be separated into the various physical functions they are responsible for. eg A system that made me do a handstand just 'cos I was thinking about what time I'm going to get up tomorrow wouldn't be very helpful...
Since physically speaking, independence means not physically occupying the same space each other, doesn't it make sense that the different spatial areas of the brain are responsible for different things?
Or am I just being slow again? If so, please explain...

[quote]What would we do without Tercel's ramblings? :D <hr></blockquote>Have very boring discussions probably. :p

[Automaton]

[quote]I keep getting told by poster here that this is evidence against mind-body dualism but I have yet to understand how. Surely if you have a two part system and one part is damaged, the functionality of the system as a whole is damaged? That is, if mind-body dualism is true, and the physical brain was damaged/altered, would it then follow that there would be would be damage/alteration to the system as a whole. I like to use the analogy of a radio. It's somewhat similar to a dualistic system, insofar as the "non-material" radio waves interact through the material radio. If I damage or alter the physical component of a radio, what happens to the noise it produces? It gets similarly damaged and altered.<hr></blockquote>Because dualists claim that the mind is a completely distinct entity, independent of the brain. Given that our thoughts happen within our mind, how would brain damage affect our thoughts and not merely the physical manifestation of those thoughts (speech, etc.) Damaging the radio does not damage the radiowaves.
[quote]Similarly I don't exactly see why this should count as evidence against dualism. Doesn't dualism predict this?
Clearly at some place in the system, the various commands and thoughts of the mind must be separated into the various physical functions they are responsible for. eg A system that made me do a handstand just 'cos I was thinking about what time I'm going to get up tomorrow wouldn't be very helpful...
Since physically speaking, independence means not physically occupying the same space each other, doesn't it make sense that the different spatial areas of the brain are responsible for different things?<hr></blockquote>Note I said consciousness is regiospecific. Consciousness = our thoughts = our mind. If consciousness were a spiritual entity, it would have no specific locations in the brain except to seperate it from motor controls and lower neural functions.

[Synaesthesia]

Automaton,
[quote]If consciousness were a spiritual entity, it would have no specific locations in the brain except to sperate it from motor controls and lowr neural functions. <hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily. You see, dualism doesn't actually predict anything independent of the "facts" it attempts to explain. It's merely the insistence that we cannot imagine how mere matter could produce a thinking, feeling human being. I suspect that it's predictions and addiction to the cartesian theater is a reflection of it's folk psychological roots.


Tercel,
[quote]I keep getting told by poster here that this is evidence against mind-body dualism but I have yet to understand how. Surely if you have a two part system and one part is damaged, the functionality of the system as a whole is damaged? That is, if mind-body dualism is true, and the physical brain was damaged/altered, would it then follow that there would be would be damage/alteration to the system as a whole.
I like to use the analogy of a radio. It's somewhat similar to a dualistic system, insofar as the "non-material" radio waves interact through the material radio.<hr></blockquote>

The study of leisons (brain damage) has proven important in understanding the capacities our brains provide. It provides important hints as to, for example, what is broadly classified as "consciousness" does and does not do in the mind.

I think a radio makes a good analogy in some ways. You are right in saying that studying leisons is of limited value unless it is accompanied by a broader, multidiciplinary approach to the brain's structure.

We could, as with the brain, study a radio and discover the principles of it's operation, it's infomation storage mechanisms and limitations. In that event, we may adduce that it required an external source of information, that detectable, measurable and theoretically sound radio waves provide the signal.

Where are the radio waves of the pineal glands? Why exactly do we need them at all?

[quote]Smilarly I don't exactly see why this should count as evidence against dualism. Doesn't dualism predict this?<hr></blockquote>

Yes, the pineal gland is the point of interaction :) . If dualism does indeed make any independently testeable predictions where is this place where the laws of physics are suspended.

[quote]Since physically speaking, independence means not physically occupying the same space each other, doesn't it make sense that the different spatial areas of the brain are responsible for different things?<hr></blockquote>

Spatial division is proving to be a poor and fuzzy criterion by which to parse it functionally. It seems evident that there are many levels of interlaced organization within the mind/brain.

[Automaton]

[quote]Not necessarily. You see, dualism doesn't actually predict anything independent of the "facts" it attempts to explain. It's merely the insistence that we cannot imagine how mere matter could produce a thinking, feeling human being. I suspect that it's predictions and addiction to the cartesian theater is a reflection of it's folk psychological roots.<hr></blockquote>I agree. Tercel, care to give us a non-plastic definition on what dualism is exactly, on aspects of; what consciousness is, and how it relates to the brain, and what the brain is and how it relates to consciousness?

[Timmy]

No proofs as yet

[MollyMac]

Rather than revive a thread more than three years old, please start a new one.

MollyMac - Moderator