The Great Illusion

[Iacchus]

Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

[Pentagram]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?


Essentially correct.

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.


Some of us will leave a lasting legacy and be remembered for generations to come while others will pass away and the world will continue as if they never existed. Some people find this terrifying.

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...


Life is not an illusion. Just because I'm an illusion to you doesn't mean I'm an illusion. I exist independently from your observations.
You hypothesis makes no sense anyway. If I'm an illusion, why should there be a god who can recognize this?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

Unfounded assertion. Illusions don't spring from greater illusions.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pentagram

Some of us will leave a lasting legacy and be remembered for generations to come while others will pass away and the world will continue as if they never existed. Some people find this terrifying.But what difference would that make to an entity which no longer exists? Indeed, who's to say that that entity ever existed in the first place (to the entity that is) if it no longer exists? And what's the difference between saying no longer exists and doesn't exist? For they both express non-existence.


Life is not an illusion. Just because I'm an illusion to you doesn't mean I'm an illusion. I exist independently from your observations.Actually I agree. But this is not what I'm disputing.


You hypothesis makes no sense anyway. If I'm an illusion, why should there be a god who can recognize this?But what happens to the notion of you when you die?


Unfounded assertion. Illusions don't spring from greater illusions. Which, is the whole point. Is God merely a concept or, an illusion?

[NeverByte]

Difference is, if I had the time, energy, inclination, and your address, I could visit you, shake your hand and satisfy myself that you are not an illusion . Whereas your great illusionist doesn't have an address to visit or a hand to shake, making him little more than a delusion ...:D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by NeverByte

Difference is, if I had the time, energy, inclination, and your address, I could visit you, shake your hand and satisfy myself that you are not an illusion . Whereas your great illusionist doesn't have an address to visit or a hand to shake, making him little more than a delusion ...:D Yes, but what if you had a revolver and blew my brains out, what then? Would my life have been an illusion to the me which no longer exists? Indeed, I would suggest somebody is trying to fool someone here.

[Mad Zur]

Let me see if I understand this...

1. Some people might consider some people/things illusions.
2. Thus, everything is definitely an illusion in a completely objective sense.
3. Every illusion comes from a greater illusion.
4. Therefore, everything comes from a great illusion.
5. That great illusion is called God.
6. ...?

First of all, two is a big huge non sequitur.
Three is totally unsupported.
Now, if those two weren't fallacious, four and five would be all well and good, though even then it wouldn't say anything about God's attributes.

As for six, I'm not sure whether it's "Therefore, God exists," in which case I would point out the difference between illusion and reality, or "Therefore, God doesn't exist" in which case I'm quite confused about your reasons for believing otherwise. Either way it doesn't seem to make sense.
:confused:

Sorry if I've misinterpereted your argument. If that is the case, please provide clarification, including a definition of illusion.

[Iacchus]

First of all, you have to ask what happens to this illusion of yourself when you die? Is that the end of it or, does it continue? If so, then perhaps it's not an illusion afterall? ;)

[NeverByte]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what if you had a revolver and blew my brains out, what then? Would my life have been an illusion to the me which no longer exists? Indeed, I would suggest somebody is trying to fool someone here.

The you that no longer exists isn't able to ponder metaphysical constructs - you don't exist. Therefore your life would not be an illusion, or anything other than a memory, at this point. I would consider myself most fortunate, however, if the police considered your life an illusion, cos I'd probably get off scott-free. :D

[Mad Zur]

Originally posted by Iacchus
First of all, you have to ask what happens to this illusion of yourself when you die? Is that the end of it or, does it continue? If so, then perhaps it's not an illusion afterall? ;)
How is that relevant?

[The Bearded One]

Originally posted by Iacchus
First of all, you have to ask what happens to this illusion of yourself when you die? Is that the end of it or, does it continue? If so, then perhaps it's not an illusion afterall? ;)

I have to say, I think you're using the term 'illusion' rather glibly. Let me give you an example: My grandfather passed away in 1997. He no longer exists, he no longer senses, anything. But his life was not an illusion to me because I interacted with him and my memories of him are a part of who I am. As I write this post, I am passing on a little bit of the knowledge of my grandfather to all of you.

None of this is illusion unless you consider that all minds are illusory. That would be a misconception because "I think therefore I am" demonstrates that at least one mind exists: your own.

-- The Bearded One

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by NeverByte

The you that no longer exists isn't able to ponder metaphysical constructs - you don't exist. Therefore your life would not be an illusion, or anything other than a memory, at this point. I would consider myself most fortunate, however, if the police considered your life an illusion, cos I'd probably get off scott-free. :D And yet what's the difference between what once was and what never was? If you no longer exist, then how could you ever tell you were here in the first place? Therefore, you must have been a figment of your own imagination.

[Pentagram]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet what's the difference between what once was and what never was? If you know longer exist, then how could you ever tell you were here in the first place? Therefore, you must have been a figment of your own imagination.

The difference is that, what once was, can have an impact on the future while something, that never was, can't (although the existing concept of something never-existant certainly can).

When I no longer exist I can't tell whether I ever existed, of course, but that doesn't mean others can't, and although it doesn't matter for ME in a century, it pleases me TODAY that I can matter to OTHERS in a century.


Hitler doesn't exist today. Does the world look like it would have done, had he never existed at all?
What about Gandhi? or the 80's?

[Mad Zur]

My existence does not depend on people knowing of it, Iacchus. Neither does yours. If no one thinks I exist, what does that mean? It means that no one thinks I exist. It doesn't mean I don't exist. It does not make me an illusion. The Bearded One's grandfather did not become more or less of an illusion when we were told about him.

[Darth Dane]

I can just hear "God" speaking here: "My existence does not depend on people knowing of it, Iacchus. Neither does yours."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mad Zur

My existence does not depend on people knowing of it, Iacchus. Neither does yours. If no one thinks I exist, what does that mean? It means that no one thinks I exist. It doesn't mean I don't exist. It does not make me an illusion. The Bearded One's grandfather did not become more or less of an illusion when we were told about him. And when you die? What will have happened to the meaning which was imparted to you? If it no longer exists, does that mean your life was but a mere illusion? I guess what I'm asking is how can we go from nothing, to something, and back to nothing again, without something having been there in the first place? And I don't mean other people here.

[Pentagram]

Darth Dane
God's existence isn't dependent on our perceptions either. If he exists, he will do that regardless of me and other non-christians thinking he doesn't.

The reverse if of course also true. Just because some people think a certain god exists, it doesn't mean that such a god actually exists.


Reasoning probably void when entering quantum physics... :)

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me? In your mind, yes, since you know so little about me that you'd need to draw on imagination and extrapolation to fill in the blanks. But let's stick with reality here, shall we? I exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether you believe in me or not.So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? Once again, you display an appalling lack of grasp of reality. "people knowing you exist" and actually existing are two completely different areas. It doesn't matter if people believe in me or not because reality does as it damn well pleases no matter what they believe.

I think I can see where you're heading with this... a blind cave fish could probably see where you're heading with this... it's right around here that we'd get the
'Then what right do you have to deny god ROFLOLOL :D :D :p :banghead:'
right?

The difference is that, if I want someone to know I exist, I can bloody well demonstrate it. Like this (http://www.sneddens.net/images/Corona688.jpg), and this (http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=fp-pull-web-t&p=Tyler+Montbriand), and this (http://burningsmell.dyndns.org/). If not convinced by electronic documents I could phone you. If not convinced by phoning, I could arrange to meet you. If not convinced by that, I could start breaking out legal records, introduce you to my parents and relatives, etc. If not convinced by that, then you're either nuts or a liar.

Now god, on the other hand... I see lots of pages talking about god, but I don't see god's page anywhere. Lots of people say they've talked to god, but they're either demonstratably insane or their claims can't stand up to close scrutiny. God certainly has not spoken to me. He doesn't have a phone number either, nor email, or in fact, any means of contact; I'm just supposed to assume that he knows my mind, think hard, then assume that the next mood fluctuation that comes along is more than just my medication kicking in. Let's face it, the evidence for god's existence is really piss-poor.How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Because I affect the environment around me, in ways I cannot predict. I certainly couldn't make this whole world up, now could I? I don't consider it useful to debate how 'real' we are, anyway; it could be a perfect illusion of actually existing, but if it were there'd really be no difference so who cares? And if it's not a perfect illusion, then we'll be able to find out.Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self. Incorrect. Once I pass away, this 'self' will no longer be here to know if it was ever here or not. I will be gone.So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ... So.. life is impermanent, therefore it's worthless? 'self' doesn't last forever, therefore it never existed? This is not an argument, but a belief; I certainly don't agree, and if this is what you think, that's your problem, not mine.Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? Umm, no, that's just special pleading again. If you're arguing from a logical standpoint then god is not exempt from your rules; from whence came this even greater illusion from which all illusions sprang?But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ... I'm glad we've had this little talk. Hopefully you understand the difference between your mind and reality a little better now.

[Pentagram]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I guess what I'm asking is how can we go from nothing, to something, and back to nothing again, without something having been there in the first place? And I don't mean other people here.


I bake a cake, I eat it, it's gone. Do you find this impossible? (Aside from doubting my baking skills, that is)

There was no cake. Then there was a cake. Then there was no cake again. This is something we experience every day and I think I can accept that things go from non-existance, to existance and back to non-existance. What's your problem with it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pentagram

I bake a cake, I eat it, it's gone. Do you find this impossible? (Aside from doubting my baking skills, that is)

There was no cake. Then there was a cake. Then there was no cake again. This is something we experience every day and I think I can accept that things go from non-existance, to existance and back to non-existance. What's your problem with it? Was the cake aware of you while you were eating it? In fact I doubt the cake sensed anything, real or otherwise.

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But what difference would that make to an entity which no longer exists? Indeed, who's to say that that entity ever existed in the first place (to the entity that is) if it no longer exists? And what's the difference between saying no longer exists and doesn't exist? For they both express non-existence. The difference is that things that no longer exist did exist at one point, interacting with and affecting the world around them. In modern society this is easy to demonstrate; the simple act of existing in our society generates an enormous flurry of paper documents that will point to their existence at some point in time even when they are gone.But what happens to the notion of you when you die? What happens to a piece of art when you burn the canvas? There is nothing supernatural about either the pigments nor the canvas, yet the two together can have subjective meaning. Burn it and the remaining material no longer possesses this particular subjective meaning.

This is related to why physicality is needed for something to exist as more than a raw concept. The subjective meaning is what's created by the arrangement of physical materials, materials without which it cannot affect and/or be perceived by the world.

This is what death is like.. your brain - the 'canvas' for your thoughts, self, and conciousness - breaks down rapidly once the body can no longer maintain it; the subjective arrangement of neurons and the circulating electric charges ceases to be. It doesn't go to a "better place". It's just gone.

[Pentagram]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Was the cake aware of you while you were eating it? In fact I doubt the cake sensed anything, real or otherwise.

Ok, I won't give you an example of me eating a raw chicken, but you seem to hinting to there being a difference for living things...or is it strictly humans who can't go from non-existance, to existance, and back to non-existance.
I'm certain you're familiar with basic biological procreation techniques and they obviously seem to work quite well, considering the present state of affairs, so I still don't see the problem. I think we can consider it a well-established fact that we go from non-existance, through a period of existance (life) and back to non-existance, unless you want to postulate some hitherto unknown details in the cycle of life.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Pentagram
Some of us will leave a lasting legacy and be remembered for generations to come while others will pass away and the world will continue as if they never existed. Some people find this terrifying.

Of all the illusions we have, this is by far my favorite. We are terrified that people won't remember us. LOL. Well...either we are in heaven and we could care less or we are dead and we could care less. This is a classic demonstration of the lunacy of the human mind. And we always walk around thinking we are so logical, so reasonable. Doesn't look like it in this case.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.


So what are the survivors supposed to do with the photographs of me? Burn them because I never existed?

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And when you die? What will have happened to the meaning which was imparted to you? If it no longer exists, does that mean your life was but a mere illusion? I guess what I'm asking is how can we go from nothing, to something, and back to nothing again, without something having been there in the first place? And I don't mean other people here. I think you're asking what is known as "the hard problem" in neuroscience. That is, "What is consciousness?"

Do you remember when you were in the womb? Do you remember being an infant? Most people's earliest memories don't go back much before age 2. Why not? Perhaps because their brain wasn't quite finished, and it didn't really work yet. The transition from non-conscious zygote to fetus, to non-remembering infant to obviously-conscious child is very gradual. There is no moment in time we can point to as a sharp boundary between non-conscious and conscious. So apparently as far as we can observe, consciousness does come from non-conscious matter, and at death, disappears. You can ask the question "How does this happen?" or, "How did it come to be that things happen this way?" but if nobody is able to provide an answer, this does not mean no answer exists, or that an answer must be made up, it only means that we don't know.

You can make up an answer, and say "God did it," or "it is the eternal soul" but these are only guesses, and guesses which are not supported by any evidence, and as answers go, they are not a particularly satisfying ones, since they don't really explain anything at all, they are just names given to the still unexplained. In fact they only make the questions more and bigger. You posit the existence of something even more complicated than a purely materialistic explanation, an entire extra "plane of existence" for which there is no evidence, and about which we can observe nothing. Where did that come from? "It was always there." isn't really an answer. If this consciousness is labelled "magic" it has not been expleined, only labelled.

It's not possible for me to accept an answer such as this, because I know that it's just a poor guess, it's just made up. I don't have any problem saying "I don't know." I have a problem with people saying they do know, when I know damn well they don't know, and their knowledge consists only of labels for their unknowns.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Corona688

In your mind, yes, since you know so little about me that you'd need to draw on imagination and extrapolation to fill in the blanks. But let's stick with reality here, shall we? I exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether you believe in me or not. I never said you didn't exist. In fact I'm arguing in favor that you do.


Once again, you display an appalling lack of grasp of reality. "people knowing you exist" and actually existing are two completely different areas. It doesn't matter if people believe in me or not because reality does as it damn well pleases no matter what they believe.Of course.


Now god, on the other hand... I see lots of pages talking about god, but I don't see god's page anywhere. Lots of people say they've talked to god, but they're either demonstratably insane or their claims can't stand up to close scrutiny. God certainly has not spoken to me. He doesn't have a phone number either, nor email, or in fact, any means of contact; I'm just supposed to assume that he knows my mind, think hard, then assume that the next mood fluctuation that comes along is more than just my medication kicking in. Let's face it, the evidence for god's existence is really piss-poor.And when the earth gets blown away? Will there be any record of our existence here? Dust in the wind dude!


Because I affect the environment around me, in ways I cannot predict. I certainly couldn't make this whole world up, now could I? I don't consider it useful to debate how 'real' we are, anyway; it could be a perfect illusion of actually existing, but if it were there'd really be no difference so who cares? And if it's not a perfect illusion, then we'll be able to find out.So when you die, do you think you could even begin to sound like you give crap then? ;)


Incorrect. Once I pass away, this 'self' will no longer be here to know if it was ever here or not. I will be gone.Isn't that what I just got through saying?


So.. life is impermanent, therefore it's worthless? 'self' doesn't last forever, therefore it never existed? This is not an argument, but a belief; I certainly don't agree, and if this is what you think, that's your problem, not mine.No, actually I believe there is a pupose in life. However, I don't think any of us wishes to address where it might come from?


Umm, no, that's just special pleading again. If you're arguing from a logical standpoint then god is not exempt from your rules; from whence came this even greater illusion from which all illusions sprang?But doesn't it seem kind of weird how it all should come to an abrupt halt? You know, as if it wasn't real in the first place?


I'm glad we've had this little talk. Hopefully you understand the difference between your mind and reality a little better now. Yes, why do we appear and then vanish, as if life were just an illusion?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by haverbob

So what are the survivors supposed to do with the photographs of me? Burn them because I never existed? Maybe they could practice Voo Doo with them? :D Actually, I'm speaking in reference to the illusion of oneself here.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I never said you didn't exist. In fact I'm arguing in favor that you do.


Of course.


And when the earth gets blown away? Will there be any record of our existence here? Dust in the wind dude!


So when you die, do you think you could even begin to sound like you give crap then? ;)


Isn't that what I just got through saying?


No, actually I believe there is a pupose in life. However, I don't think any of us wishes to address where it might come from?


But doesn't it seem kind of weird how it all should come to an abrupt halt? You know, as if it wasn't real in the first place?


Yes, why do we appear and then vanish, as if life were just an illusion?

Well, here is the old classic "if a tree fell in the woods and you didn't see it, did it fall?". Answer is "yes" it fell. Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't fall. Just because you are no longer aware of your existence, because you are dead, doesn't mean that the photos of you vanish into thin air. This gets in to this concept of evidence that everybody harps on. According to the rules of evidence, nothing becomes truth until "WE" see evidence of it. So when we do see evidence of it, was this truth created at the moment we saw it, or did it exist before? It existed before. However, based on this system of evidence, that truth did not exist until we saw it. The tree did not fall in the woods until we see the fallen tree. Microwave particles or (waves) did not exist in the seventeenth century. But now we have evidence that they do exist. So when did they come into existence? When we learned of them. You say no? Well then, why didn't they exist in the seventeenth century?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pentagram

Ok, I won't give you an example of me eating a raw chicken, but you seem to hinting to there being a difference for living things...or is it strictly humans who can't go from non-existance, to existance, and back to non-existance.
I'm certain you're familiar with basic biological procreation techniques and they obviously seem to work quite well, considering the present state of affairs, so I still don't see the problem. I think we can consider it a well-established fact that we go from non-existance, through a period of existance (life) and back to non-existance, unless you want to postulate some hitherto unknown details in the cycle of life. Hey, there's no denying that there's a material side to existence. I think just about all of us would agree upon that. However, what is it about consciousness that would even hint that there was something more to it than that?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder

I think you're asking what is known as "the hard problem" in neuroscience. That is, "What is consciousness?"

Do you remember when you were in the womb? Do you remember being an infant? Most people's earliest memories don't go back much before age 2. Why not? Perhaps because their brain wasn't quite finished, and it didn't really work yet. The transition from non-conscious zygote to fetus, to non-remembering infant to obviously-conscious child is very gradual. There is no moment in time we can point to as a sharp boundary between non-conscious and conscious. So apparently as far as we can observe, consciousness does come from non-conscious matter, and at death, disappears. You can ask the question "How does this happen?" or, "How did it come to be that things happen this way?" but if nobody is able to provide an answer, this does not mean no answer exists, or that an answer must be made up, it only means that we don't know.

You can make up an answer, and say "God did it," or "it is the eternal soul" but these are only guesses, and guesses which are not supported by any evidence, and as answers go, they are not a particularly satisfying ones, since they don't really explain anything at all, they are just names given to the still unexplained. In fact they only make the questions more and bigger. You posit the existence of something even more complicated than a purely materialistic explanation, an entire extra "plane of existence" for which there is no evidence, and about which we can observe nothing. Where did that come from? "It was always there." isn't really an answer. If this consciousness is labelled "magic" it has not been expleined, only labelled.

It's not possible for me to accept an answer such as this, because I know that it's just a poor guess, it's just made up. I don't have any problem saying "I don't know." I have a problem with people saying they do know, when I know damn well they don't know, and their knowledge consists only of labels for their unknowns. But doesn't this suggest that life is an illusion if, in fact this is all there is? How could we even construe otherwise if, there wasn't something more to it than that?

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But doesn't this suggest that life is an illusion if, in fact this is all there is? How could we even construe otherwise if, there wasn't something more to it than that? Maybe it's an illusion, maybe not. Depends on what you thought it was, and if what it actually is corresponds with that. If the disparity between the two is great, then yes, it's an illusion in the sense that perhaps it's not really what it appeared to you to be. If what it actually is is not so far from what it appeared to you to be, then it's not an illusion... Maybe you're making too much of the label "illusion."

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, there's no denying that there's a material side to existence. I think just about all of us would agree upon that. However, what is it about consciousness that would even hint that there was something more to it than that?

Well...maybe this might help you out a little bit. Consciousness would appear to be the ability of our minds to ask "what is it?", "how does it work?" "where did it come from?" "when did it begin" "do I exist?" "where did I come from?" These are all questions that demonstate consciousness. However, there is one question i left out. It's the "why" question. The strangest question of all. We can find some tiny semblance of a root for all the other mental gymnastics we do in more intellligent animals, and hence our evolutionary connection to them. But we can't find a trace of this "why?" thingee. Does asking "Why" i exist constitute consciousness? It has nothing to do with what we see, hear...It's actually a pointless question because the answer wouldn't change anything or solve any tangible problems. It just would give rest to our unique inner conflict that we have (one that we can't seem to trace back to animals (where we supposedly came from). So maybe this "why" thingee might be that "something more" that you are trying to grasp and /or explain. "Why" is very weird.

[Mad Zur]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, why do we appear and then vanish, as if life were just an illusion?
What makes you think temporary things have to be illusions? And was Pentagram's cake as much of an illusion as The Bearded One's grandfather? They both appeared and then vanished...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mad Zur

What makes you think temporary things have to be illusions? And was Pentagram's cake as much of an illusion as The Bearded One's grandfather? They both appeared and then vanished... However, I doubt that the cake was an illusion to itself because the cake probably wasn't conscious. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by haverbob

Well...maybe this might help you out a little bit. Consciousness would appear to be the ability of our minds to ask "what is it?", "how does it work?" "where did it come from?" "when did it begin" "do I exist?" "where did I come from?" These are all questions that demonstate consciousness. However, there is one question i left out. It's the "why" question. The strangest question of all. We can find some tiny semblance of a root for all the other mental gymnastics we do in more intellligent animals, and hence our evolutionary connection to them. But we can't find a trace of this "why?" thingee. Does asking "Why" i exist constitute consciousness? It has nothing to do with what we see, hear...It's actually a pointless question because the answer wouldn't change anything or solve any tangible problems. It just would give rest to our unique inner conflict that we have (one that we can't seem to trace back to animals (where we supposedly came from). So maybe this "why" thingee might be that "something more" that you are trying to grasp and /or explain. "Why" is very weird. That's because "why" implies purpose or, intent.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, there's no denying that there's a material side to existence. I think just about all of us would agree upon that. However, what is it about consciousness that would even hint that there was something more to it than that?
Nothing.

Consciousness is a function of brain. Damage the brain and you damage consciousness. This has been demonstrated.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Nothing.

Consciousness is a function of brain. Damage the brain and you damage consciousness. This has been demonstrated. Damage a radio and you no longer receive a signal.

[Godless Wonder]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Nothing.

Consciousness is a function of brain. Damage the brain and you damage consciousness. This has been demonstrated. The counter argument is the radio. Damage the radio you damage the music. But... the signal is still there. No evidence of any similar thing happenning with consciousness, however, and a good amount of evidence against. (e.g. artificial neural nets appear to be actually useful for pattern recognition, speech recognition, and other "brain-like" purposes, and do not appear to be receiving any kind of psychic signals in doing these tasks, because they can be taken apart and examined and it can be understood what's happenning in a purely material way that explains their behavior.)

I suspect that the only sure way to prove materialism to a soul-believer would be to build a giant atomic simulator and simulate the soul-believer himself, and let him ask his own simulation questions, and I'm not sure even that would convince some people.

[Iacchus]

This is from another thread, regarding the analogy between a radio and a CD player ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

Actually what we're speaking about here is the difference between the mechanism and the medium. Either way, be it the CD player or the radio, the medium (the music itself) has to be converted into a signal (and there's the key) which can then be broadcast by the speakers. In which case the brain becomes the mechanism and consciousness becomes the medium.

Therefore, I would suggest it's possible for consciousness to exist outside of an earthly brain. However, how would we know, without a brain to play it back?

[pope fiction]

Wow, I want whatever Iacchus is smoking.

First off, an illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. How is my existence an erroneous perception? There's no mistaking that I exist. If i'm just an illusion to you, then how am I replying to your post? I think this topic is a waste of time, but I just had put my $.02 in.

By the way, when I die, my surviving relatives will mourn my death. Last I checked, no one mourned the death of an erroneous perception of their reality.:banghead:

[Pentagram]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's because "why" implies purpose or, intent.

Note that the question itself, our asking it, doesn't show that there actually IS a purpose.

I don't agree with haverbob that "why?" is a basically pointless questions. By understanding why something happens we get a better understanding on how the world around us works and what we can expect from it. This helps us not only to survive for the moment but to foresee potential threats and prepare for survival in the future.

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is from another thread, regarding the analogy between a radio and a CD player ...

How many times must it be said that when you quote an excerpt from another thread, you must include a link to that thread?

[Pentagram]

Originally posted by pope fiction
Last I checked, no one mourned the death of an erroneous perception of their reality.:banghead:

Actually, some people do. E.g mourning the loss of childhood innocence or regretting becoming an atheist.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by pope fiction
Wow, I want whatever Iacchus is smoking.

Ditto. After I get done eating God and sucking his blood, I want to smoke him to.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Pentagram
Note that the question itself, our asking it, doesn't show that there actually IS a purpose.

I don't agree with haverbob that "why?" is a basically pointless questions. By understanding why something happens we get a better understanding on how the world around us works and what we can expect from it. This helps us not only to survive for the moment but to foresee potential threats and prepare for survival in the future.

I knew somebody would do this, just didn't know who. Your example of "why it works" is actually "how it works, what makes it work". The "why" I was pointing to involved "purpose" or "intent" as Iacchus accurately put it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pope fiction

Wow, I want whatever Iacchus is smoking.LOL! :D


First off, an illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. How is my existence an erroneous perception? There's no mistaking that I exist. If i'm just an illusion to you, then how am I replying to your post? I think this topic is a waste of time, but I just had put my $.02 in.How do you know that you're not just a hologram on the holodeck which thinks it's real? And when someone flips the switch (and you die) then what? What's the difference between that and the life you think you know? Of course the image on the holodeck is just an illusion, right?


By the way, when I die, my surviving relatives will mourn my death. Last I checked, no one mourned the death of an erroneous perception of their reality.:banghead: Actually my mother might. Because she sees what she wants to see, and treats me like I were a little child (which I'm not).

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How do you know that you're not just a hologram on the holodeck which thinks it's real? And when someone flips the switch (and you die) then what? What's the difference between that and the life you think you know? Of course the image on the holodeck is just an illusion, right?
Because (I think someone else here touched on this) I can interact with my environment. Unless, of course, you think that our whole universe is just a mere hologram. The difference between when I die (certainly not by someone "flipping a switch") I won't exist anymore, and in my life I can interact with things and people in my environment. I don't see how you can confuse the two. :confused:

Actually my mother might. Because she sees what she wants to see, and treats me like I were a little child (which I'm not). Haha, maybe that child treatment is appropriate? Just kidding Iacchus. ;) Her thinking that you're a child may be a delusion of who you are, but not an illusion of if you are.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pope fiction

Because (I think someone else here touched on this) I can interact with my environment. Just as you can on the holodeck (apparently).


Unless, of course, you think that our whole universe is just a mere hologram.Let me put it this way, if we were to die, and come to find out that our consciousness lived on, then what else would you call it?


The difference between when I die (certainly not by someone "flipping a switch") I won't exist anymore, and in my life I can interact with things and people in my environment. I don't see how you can confuse the two. :confused:Well, if all there is afterdeath is non-existence, wouldn't that be comparable to switching the light off?


Haha, maybe that child treatment is appropriate? Just kidding Iacchus. ;) Her thinking that you're a child may be a delusion of who you are, but not an illusion of if you are. Well she's treated me that way for a long time now, even before I started acting that way. :D

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Iacchus
LOL! :D


How do you know that you're not just a hologram on the holodeck which thinks it's real? And when someone flips the switch (and you die) then what? What's the difference between that and the life you think you know? Of course the image on the holodeck is just an illusion, right?


Actually my mother might. Because she sees what she wants to see, and treats me like I were a little child (which I'm not).

Come on Iacchus. Pony up. Hook us up with your spleef dealer or roll us a phatty. If you don't, we're telling your mom, and you will be grounded. No Internet Infidels for a whole week.

If YOU were a hologram, then how could you "THINK" you were real? How does an illusion think? The moment it does, there has to be some sort of concreteness, right? A holideck illusion is actually "something" if you think about it. It is a projected image created by a computer. So a holideck image is actually "something", it's just something other than it "appears" to be. BTW, if you didn't exist, then how did you come up with the notion of a holideck as a comparison (or how did the writers of Star Trek come up with this notion)? How do non existent things create notions such as this?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by haverbob

Come on Iacchus. Pony up. Hook us up with your spleef dealer or roll us a phatty. If you don't, we're telling your mom, and you will be grounded. No Internet Infidels for a whole week.She caught me with a couple of pot plants in my closet once, but that was a long long time ago. :D


If YOU were a hologram, then how could you "THINK" you were real? How does an illusion think? The moment it does, there has to be some sort of concreteness, right? A holideck illusion is actually "something" if you think about it. It is a projected image created by a computer. So a holideck image is actually "something", it's just something other than it "appears" to be.Except that when we're in the holodeck we interact with these images as if they were real, with little or no means to differentiate.


BTW, if you didn't exist, then how did you come up with the notion of a holideck as a comparison (or how did the writers of Star Trek come up with this notion)? How do non existent things create notions such as this? I guess what I'm trying to say is how do we really know, that we, our conscious selves -- not to say we're just holograms -- are not trapped inside this holodeck of a contraption called a body?

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Iacchus
She caught me with a couple of pot plants in my closet once, but that was a long long time ago. :D


Except that when we're in the holodeck we interact with these images as if they were real, with little or no means to differentiate.


I guess what I'm trying to say is how do we really know, that we, our conscious selves -- not to say we're just holograms -- are not trapped inside this holodeck of a contraption called a body?

Relative to something else or something greater than us, perhaps we could be said to not exist. However, relative to ourselves (or this world), I think we can surely say that we exist, and therefore can even ask the question of whether we exist or not. The moment we ask, we affirm "some" sort of concreteness.

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just as you can on the holodeck (apparently).
haverbob responded appropriately to that.

Let me put it this way, if we were to die, and come to find out that our consciousness lived on, then what else would you call it?
Well, not saying that I believe in it, but it'd probably be called a soul? Certainly not an illusion though. I think once you die, you die and all your consciousness dies with you, and you become decaying organic matter.

Well, if all there is afterdeath is non-existence, wouldn't that be comparable to switching the light off?
I was just saying that there isn't anyone to just "flip the switch" on me. There will have to be a cause for my death.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by haverbob

Relative to something else or something greater than us, perhaps we could be said to not exist. However, relative to ourselves (or this world), I think we can surely say that we exist, and therefore can even ask the question of whether we exist or not. The moment we ask, we affirm "some" sort of concreteness. And yet if we just died, and that was the end of it, then it would be as if we never existed, right? (at least our selves) ... which, would have just been an illusion?

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I never said you didn't exist. In fact I'm arguing in favor that you do. Then you're arguing against yourself, because I don't see anyone here asserting that people don't exist but you.And when the earth gets blown away? Will there be any record of our existence here? Dust in the wind dude! So what? We're not going to be around to care when the sun goes nova.So when you die, do you think you could even begin to sound like you give crap then? ;) ...I think I've been insulted, but I'm not quite sure. Whatever you're saying here, it's not a response to my valid points.Isn't that what I just got through saying? Actually, no. You twisting terms in order to claim - and don't deny it, nobody here but you is saying it - that there is no difference between having existed at one point and never existing. Since I have already demonstrated why this is nonsense, I will not repeat myself.No, actually I believe there is a pupose in life. However, I don't think any of us wishes to address where it might come from? "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -Philip K. Dick

You may believe that life is worthless if there isn't some almighty sky fairy poofing you into existence and telling you what to do, but frankly, I don't see the connection. From a universal point of view there's no inherent value to our particular arrangement of atoms and ions, but that's unsuprising considering the universe doesn't appear to care about anything. If we want something to care about what happens to us that's our job.

I also bet you were hoping I would ignore the mountain of hidden assumptions in that complex question. No, I am NOT going to ask where the ultimate purpose for all life came from since there is absolutely no evidence that there IS one in the first place. Feel free to staple the ultimate purpose of life to my forehead should you happen to have any idea just what this thing you believe in actually is.But doesn't it seem kind of weird how it all should come to an abrupt halt? Not really, no, unless you are claiming it is possible for one to half-exist.You know, as if it wasn't real in the first place? That's your assumption, not mine.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pope fiction

Well, not saying that I believe in it, but it'd probably be called a soul? Certainly not an illusion though. I think once you die, you die and all your consciousness dies with you, and you become decaying organic matter.Okay, let's say you do have a soul, and your soul lives on, then what would you call the material reality you live in now -- if, not an illusion?


I was just saying that there isn't anyone to just "flip the switch" on me. There will have to be a cause for my death. Except it would be as if someone had flipped the switch from existence (on) to non-existence (off).

[davidm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if we just died, and that was the end of it, then it would be as if we never existed, right? (at least our selves) ... which, would have just been an illusion?

No, it won't be "like" anything for you, because "you" will be "dead."

See? You will be in a state of nonexperience, so, by definition, you won't be able to experience your "self" as having been an illusion, or anything else.

Moreover, under your strange reasoning, we should assume that you think of yourself as an illusion now, because you did not exist before you were born.

Your whole argument, such as it is, is an argument from wishful thinking: I wish that I will continue to exist after death; therefore, I will.

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay, let's say you do have a soul If we're doing make-believe now, I'd personally rather have a million bucks, but, OK. and your soul lives on, then what would you call the material reality you live in now -- if, not an illusion? Why would I call it an illusion? It would be more like a reverse death; from my point of view(the only point of view available to me), it would appear the universe had ceased to exist. I don't know what I would conclude in this circumstance, but it would depend a lot on where I ended up.

OK. Can you demonstrate the existence of souls now? This whole line of thought is a waste if you can't, sadly.

[Mad Zur]

Dictionary.com defines illusion as an erroneus concept or perception of reality. So I'd actually have to agree with you, Iacchus, that once we're gone, the belief that we're here would be such an erroneus perception. The cake is an illusion. It is no longer here. Once we're dead, we are in fact dead. But "X is false" does not necessarily imply that "X has always been and always will be false." One can have something that's true and then false or false and then true.

Change happens. Is that so hard to accept?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidm

No, it won't be "like" anything for you, because "you" will be "dead."

See? You will be in a state of nonexperience, so, by definition, you won't be able to experience your "self" as having been an illusion, or anything else.

Moreover, under your strange reasoning, we should assume that you think of yourself as an illusion now, because you did not exist before you were born.

Your whole argument, such as it is, is an argument from wishful thinking: I wish that I will continue to exist after death; therefore, I will. Try thinking of yourself as having never been here; then try thinking of yourself for the short time you have; then try thinking of yourself as if you no longer were. So basically what we have is a whole lot of non-existence and the slightest sliver of existence in between which, you will never know about as soon as you die.

So from non-existence we came, to non-existence we go, to non-existence which will always be, from here on out.

[davidm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So from non-existence we came, to non-existence we go, to non-existence which will always be, from here on out.

Right.

And the problem is?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidm

Right.

And the problem is? Because it suggests we were never here, at least to this self which no longer exists. Now doesn't that sound the least bit illusory?

[Biff the unclean]

Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?
Are you saying that you can't tell fact from fiction? That would explain a lot.
One way you could tell is to check the details of the stories. I have a story about the time that I built a boat. God has one about the time he built the sky. You can compare our stories against the actual boat and the actual sky. My story is about marine plywood and fiberglass. God's story is about a solid firmament and divided ocean water. By checking the details of the story against the observable facts you can rule out some stories as being fiction right away.

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.
Because you can actually verify the facts of my existence.
But if you couldn't verify that I existed…if no one had ever seen me; if I left no record at all; I never owned anything, I was on no tax records. Then you would have reason to doubt. But if you looked at my life story and were able to recognize that it was a combination of the stories of James Bond and Indiana Jones (or the demigods Mithra and Dionysus in Jesus' case) you would be foolish to think that I was nonfiction.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...
What you are doing here is trying to discredit reality itself to support your God story. And admittedly that is the only way that you can support it, because it simply isn't real. As you have just demonstrated.

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right?
Wrong, illusions spring from the human brain.

But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...
But we are not talking about illusions (Webster's Pocket 1 false idea 2 misleading appearance) we are talking about delusions (delude' v. mislead) You have had the wool pulled over your eyes.
You have not produced God Himself only stories about God which are obvious and poorly written works of fiction. God is just another superhero in just another novel

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So from non-existence we came, to non-existence we go, to non-existence which will always be, from here on out. Not quite. My conciousness is only borne of a peculiar arrangement of atoms and ions, and these atoms and ions are still there even when the complex feedback loop that is conciousness is broken. These atoms will never be ME again, but nothing's preventing them from being taken up in the water and carbon cycle and being bits of someone else. Not that there was ever a specific 'me', I am always changing just like everything else.

In fact, conciousness REQUIRES change; if it was eternal, it wouldn't be concious.

As for the tiny sliver of life bit, I don't think I'll mind not existing after I'm dead. I didn't mind not existing before I was alive, afterall. In the time betwixt these two events, I've got better things to do than yell at this world without ears for not making this particular arrangement of itself eternal, or praying to invisible things that never answer in the hope that I won't die like everyone else does.

[davidm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because it suggests we were never here, at least to this self which no longer exists. Now doesn't that sound the least bit illusory?

Um ... no.

Why don't you go back and reread my first post in this thread?

When the self no longer exists, then nothing can be suggested to it. When dead, there is no self and no experience. That's sort of what being "dead" means.

What is so hard to grasp about this? Before you were born, you did not exist, right? Do you deny this? Then, you existed. When you die, you will cease to exist. "You" will be in the same state that "you" were in before birth: nonexistence.

What does any of these rather obvious observations have to do with your continued misuse of the word illusion? (and in red, no less!)

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay, let's say you do have a soul, and your soul lives on, then what would you call the material reality you live in now -- if, not an illusion?
Well, it's hard to carry on this part of the debate because I don't believe in souls.

Except it would be as if someone had flipped the switch from existence (on) to non-existence (off).
Ok, whatever. :rolleyes:

[Shadowy Man]

That word illusion. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[breathilizer]

Does he think that the absense of knowledge is equivelent to "illusion"

[breathilizer]

Originally posted by pope fiction
Well, it's hard to carry on this part of the debate because I don't believe in souls.

In fairness, he said "Let's say you have a soul" much like we sometimes say "Let's say God exists"

[The Bearded One]

Originally posted by Corona688
[snip]As for the tiny sliver of life bit, I don't think I'll mind not existing after I'm dead. I didn't mind not existing before I was alive, afterall. In the time betwixt these two events, I've got better things to do than yell at this world without ears for not making this particular arrangement of itself eternal, or praying to invisible things that never answer in the hope that I won't die like everyone else does.

While I am reasonably confident that death is the end of consciousness, Iacchus does demonstrate the powerful psychological instinct for survival. This instinct is so strong that billions of people have utterly convinced themselves that death is only a transition to another state of being, rather than an extinguishment. There is no reason to doubt that humans as a whole want to survive and continue. The only problem is that there is no evidence to suggest that these hopes are in any way based in reality.

-- The Bearded One

[maddog]

Do arguments work better in color?
(Ooh, rats, davidm already pointed that out)

[pope fiction]

Originally posted by breathilizer
In fairness, he said "Let's say you have a soul" much like we sometimes say "Let's say God exists"
Yes, I acknowledge that, but I don't know how to argue for something I strongly disagree with. He put me between a rock and a hard place. Besides, this thread isn't really getting anywhere.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man

That word illusion. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. I understand what you're saying here, yet it's the only word which seems most applicable.

While I'm also reminded of the The Wizard of Oz, where everyone was under the grand illusion that what they were experiecing was nothing other than real. That is until they unmasked the grand illusionist behind it all.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Are you saying that you can't tell fact from fiction? That would explain a lot.Actually the first few questions are more rhetorical and coincide with the original thread I posted this on, My Problems With God (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80175&perpage=25&pagenumber=4) ... You should know as your post here is a duplicate of one of the last posts on that thread. While the whole thing was meant to fall upon the notion that once we pass it will be as if we were never here, to the illusion we call self. And from there it's a matter of speculating why this illusion exists.

What you are doing here is trying to discredit reality itself to support your God story. And admittedly that is the only way that you can support it, because it simply isn't real. As you have just demonstrated.However, as I'm trying to say, if there is a greater reality beyond our current (physical) reality which, we go on to experience in the ultimate sense, then what are we to conclude about our current reality, except perhaps that it's an illusion?

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if we just died, and that was the end of it, then it would be as if we never existed, right? (at least our selves) ... which, would have just been an illusion?

I think you mean "at least to our selves", right? No, if we died, we would not have existed to ourselves or accorrding to ourselves, because ourselves wouldn't exist to do any "according or not according". But what about everybody else? Like I said, photographs of you do not vanish into thin air. People remember you. Illusions can't be photographed, can they?

So you're idea works under one assumption. That you are the center of everything. If you do not perceive it, it doesn't exist. If you do not perceive or remember you're life after you die, it did not exist.

Here's the really ironic part. You're idea is actually in agreement with atheism (I have no idea how this twist happened). Nothing exists or is true unless you can perceive or detect it (and the atheist would go further by saying "unless you have evidence for it"). A truth only becomes a truth if at the time you can detect it (and subsequently prove it, from the atheist POV). And, on the end side, as you are saying, it is only true as long as you continue to perceive or detect it. So in this thinking, truth exists in the mind. There is no truth external to or independent of the human mind. The mind is the final judge.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by haverbob
Here's the really ironic part. You're [sic] idea is actually in agreement with atheism (I have no idea how this twist happened). Nothing exists or is true unless you can perceive or detect it (and the atheist would go further by saying "unless you have evidence for it"). A truth only becomes a truth if at the time you can detect it (and subsequently prove it, from the atheist POV). And, on the end side, as you are saying, it is only true as long as you continue to perceive or detect it. So in this thinking, truth exists in the mind. There is no truth external to or independent of the human mind. The mind is the final judge.

No, actually atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Though many atheists may feel the way you describe here, that philosophy is not intrinsic to atheism and it is presumptuous to believe that all atheists will adhere to it.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
No, actually atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Though many atheists may feel the way you describe here, that philosophy is not intrinsic to atheism and it is presumptuous to believe that all atheists will adhere to it.

That's fine. Wasn't the real point anyway. But let me ask you. Do you believe in the existence of anything without sufficient evidence?

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
While I'm also reminded of the The Wizard of Oz, where everyone was under the grand illusion that what they were experiecing was nothing other than real. That is until they unmasked the grand illusionist behind it all. News flash: The Wizard of Oz is fiction. Try stubbing your toe then telling me that it ain't real. If you still don't think it's real, stub it again, harder.

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, as I'm trying to say, if there is a greater reality beyond our current (physical) reality which, we go on to experience in the ultimate sense, then what are we to conclude about our current reality, except perhaps that it's an illusion? And if we were to experience that there is no greater reality beyond our current (physical) reality, what could we conclude about you except that you're full of shit? Neither thing has been experienced, of course, so this whole argument is a pointless waste of air.

Get real, Iacchus. Your argument is nothing but a word game.

[Corona688]

Originally posted by haverbob
Nothing exists or is true unless you can perceive or detect it (and the atheist would go further by saying "unless you have evidence for it"). Hold your horses. "Can percieve or detect it" and "have evidence for it" are exactly the same thing. If you don't have evidence for something, that means you haven't percieved or detected it. Sorry.A truth only becomes a truth if at the time you can detect it (and subsequently prove it, from the atheist POV). I'm getting awfully tired of telling you to stop telling us what our worldview is. I don't want proof... I want any evidence at all.So in this thinking, truth exists in the mind. There is no truth external to or independent of the human mind. The mind is the final judge. Hardly. As I've said before many times before and been ignored about many times before and will no doubt have to say many times again, the universe does as it damn well pleases no matter what we believe.

The difference between us and the unconcious stuff around us is that we are capable of judging truth.

[haverbob]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I understand what you're saying here, yet it's the only word which seems most applicable.

While I'm also reminded of the The Wizard of Oz, where everyone was under the grand illusion that what they were experiecing was nothing other than real. That is until they unmasked the grand illusionist behind it all.

Well...that wasn't really what the Wizard of Oz was really about. It had nothing to do with whether she was dreaming or not, people do that all the time. The Wizard of Oz was about people seeing the word or title for something as the thing itself. They seek titles from God (the Wizard) or other people, based on what they want, without realizing that they already have what they want. So the Wizard just gives them the title and suddenly everything changes for them, when in fact nothing at all has changed, except their mind. They had it all the time.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by haverbob
Well...that wasn't really what the Wizard of Oz was really about. It had nothing to do with whether she was dreaming or not, people do that all the time. The Wizard of Oz was about people seeing the word or title for something as the thing itself. They seek titles from God (the Wizard) or other people, based on what they want, without realizing that they already have what they want. So the Wizard just gives them the title and suddenly everything changes for them, when in fact nothing at all has changed, except their mind. They had it all the time.

My goodness, how can the two of you Theists miss the allegory of something so heavy handed as the Wizard of Oz? Perhaps it hits too close to home.

All the characters believed in the supernatural being Oz. They also all considered themselves to be lacking, unworthy in some way. The only way they think they can achieve salvation is through the supernatural grace of Oz.
Gold bricks were a famous fraud in the 1850-70's so they follow the road of fraud to find their god. Their god orders them into danger, he being concerned only with Himself and not their welfare. They get through the danger by sheer luck.
But then they find that there is no God/Oz. There is only a pathetic little man living in the lap of luxury by telling everyone a story about God and afraid someone will find the truth. Further more once they realize that there is no God/Oz they also realize that they themselves are not lacking. They are not unworthy. Not only couldn't God/Oz offer them salvation, they didn't even need salvation. They were never actually lost to begin with. And once they realize that they are home.

[capnkirk]

Originally posted by Corona688
And if we were to experience that there is no greater reality beyond our current (physical) reality, what could we conclude about you except that you're full of shit? Neither thing has been experienced, of course, so this whole argument is a pointless waste of air.

Get real, Iacchus. Your argument is nothing but a word game. Actually it seems closer to a rehash of the Hindu concept of "maya"...and as such belongs on the Non-Islamic Religions Forum. :D

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by haverbob

I think you mean "at least to our selves", right? No, if we died, we would not have existed to ourselves or accorrding to ourselves, because ourselves wouldn't exist to do any "according or not according". But what about everybody else? Like I said, photographs of you do not vanish into thin air. People remember you. Illusions can't be photographed, can they?And when the sun goes super nova then what? Dust in the wind dude!


So you're idea works under one assumption. That you are the center of everything. If you do not perceive it, it doesn't exist. If you do not perceive or remember you're life after you die, it did not exist.If all I am is flesh and blood, and when I die, I cease to exist, period. Albeit, it doesn't really explain the nature of consciousness now does it? ;)


Here's the really ironic part. You're idea is actually in agreement with atheism (I have no idea how this twist happened). Nothing exists or is true unless you can perceive or detect it (and the atheist would go further by saying "unless you have evidence for it"). A truth only becomes a truth if at the time you can detect it (and subsequently prove it, from the atheist POV). And, on the end side, as you are saying, it is only true as long as you continue to perceive or detect it. So in this thinking, truth exists in the mind. There is no truth external to or independent of the human mind. The mind is the final judge. Precisely! Except this is not my belief. I don't believe that life ends at the brick wall. Got that Truman? (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:161628) Hey, no offense. ;)

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
My goodness, how can the two of you Theists miss the allegory of something so heavy handed as the Wizard of Oz? Perhaps it hits too close to home.

All the characters believed in the supernatural being Oz. They also all considered themselves to be lacking, unworthy in some way. The only way they think they can achieve salvation is through the supernatural grace of Oz.
Gold bricks were a famous fraud in the 1850-70's so they follow the road of fraud to find their god. Their god orders them into danger, he being concerned only with Himself and not their welfare. They get through the danger by sheer luck.
But then they find that there is no God/Oz. There is only a pathetic little man living in the lap of luxury by telling everyone a story about God and afraid someone will find the truth. Further more once they realize that there is no God/Oz they also realize that they themselves are not lacking. They are not unworthy. Not only couldn't God/Oz offer them salvation, they didn't even need salvation. They were never actually lost to begin with. And once they realize that they are home.
This is a good post and shame theists can't see the point for themselves. There is nothing wrong with you, or me, or anyone else! We don't need "God" to cure us of a disease that we don't have.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

My goodness, how can the two of you Theists miss the allegory of something so heavy handed as the Wizard of Oz? Perhaps it hits too close to home. Actually, I thought it had something to do with the whirlwind of hysteria brought on by the beginning of World War II. And in effect was saying, Okay America, it's time to wake up from la la land and take into account this imminent threat which rapidly approaches our doorstep. ;)

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, I thought it had something to do with the whirlwind of hysteria brought on by the beginning of World War II. And in effect was saying, Okay America, it's time to wake up from la la land and take into account this imminent threat which rapidly approaches our doorstep. ;)

L. Frank Baum's book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was originally published in 1900.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Corona688

And if we were to experience that there is no greater reality beyond our current (physical) reality, what could we conclude about you except that you're full of shit? Neither thing has been experienced, of course, so this whole argument is a pointless waste of air.

Get real, Iacchus. Your argument is nothing but a word game. Dust in the wind dude!


Originally posted by Mageth

L. Frank Baum's book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was originally published in 1900. And when did the movie come out? In 1939 I believe ...

[davidm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Dust in the wind dude!


And the problem with this is?

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And when the sun goes super nova then what? Dust in the wind dude!

The sun won't go supernova. It isn't massive enough. It will puff out into a red giant, expanding its outer layers to envelope the Earth, eventually turning into a white dwarf and cooling away into obscurity.

If all I am is flesh and blood, and when I die, I cease to exist, period. Albeit, it doesn't really explain the nature of consciousness now does it? ;)

You're right, it doesn't explain it. Consciousness is quite inexplicable. However, that alone is not a reason to assume it is supernatural. And it certainly isn't a good reason so suspect that consciousness would continue on once the brain that creates it seizes to function.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, I thought it had something to do with the whirlwind of hysteria brought on by the beginning of World War II. And in effect was saying, Okay America, it's time to wake up from la la land and take into account this imminent threat which rapidly approaches our doorstep. ;)
No, the characters in the story were all working under the assumption that they lacked an important virtue, courage, intelligence and the capacity to love. They thought that the only source of these virtues for them was from a supernatural quasi-God. Just as Christianity teaches.
The quasi-God demands obedience from them and promises rewards in return. Just like Christianity.
The obedience demanded is fulfilled and when the characters come to collect the promised reward they are met with apologetics instead. Just like Christianity.
The characters find that the quasi-God is just a humbug, nothing but smoke and mirrors. Just like the Bible.
They find that the perpetrator of this hoax is a pathetic little man who has gained power and wealth from the victims of this hoax. Just like Christian Ministers.
When cornered and pressed for the truth he admits that he could not, as he had claimed he could, bestow any virtues on anyone. Further he confesses that they were never actually missing these virtues to begin with.
All of the Wizards power and Glory was only a story the people of the Emerald City were foolish and desperate (in their fear of the Wicked Witch) enough to believe. Just like Christianity and your fear of death.

[Biff the unclean]

Dorothy, by the way, thinks that she has no home. She is without a base, her life has no meaning, it isn't grounded. She thinks that the only way she can have meaning to her life is through the Wizard/God. But in reality she is in her own bed, in her own room, all the time.

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Dust in the wind dude! You keep saying this as if it means anything to anyone. For the record, it doesn't. You can stop saying it now. Thank you.And when did the movie come out? In 1939 I believe ... The symbolism, plot, and characters were established long before either war occured; you are committing the fallacy of coincidence.

[breathilizer]

Trivia:

In the novel, what did the Cowardly Lion receive from the Wizard?

[davidm]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man

You're right, it doesn't explain it. Consciousness is quite inexplicable. However, that alone is not a reason to assume it is supernatural. And it certainly isn't a good reason so suspect that consciousness would continue on once the brain that creates it seizes to function.

It has been my observation that many people function as if in the throes of brain seizures. It would explain a lot about their behavior.

[Thugpreacha]

Originally posted by The Bearded One
I have to say, I think you're using the term 'illusion' rather glibly. Let me give you an example: My grandfather passed away in 1997. He no longer exists, he no longer senses, anything. But his life was not an illusion to me because I interacted with him and my memories of him are a part of who I am. As I write this post, I am passing on a little bit of the knowledge of my grandfather to all of you.-- The Bearded One

And as a Theist, I would assert that God is to me in a sense as your grandfather was to you. I cannot prove that He exists except to state that His prescence is not an illusion to me because I interact with Him and some memories of His influence on a day to day are a part of who I am.
As I have said before, Theists believe that reality originates with God. Others think that reality originates with the human mind.
Were you to ask me my "point", I would assert that my point is the point of belief and where it originates. BTW.....illusion \i-lu-zhen\ n [ME, fr. MF, fr. LL illusio, fr. L, action of mocking, fr. illudere to mock at, fr. ludere to play, mock] 1 : a mistaken idea : misconception 2 : a misleading visual image; also : hallucination
1real \rel\ adj [ME, real, relating to things (in law), fr. MF, fr. ML & LL; ML realis relating to things (in law), fr. LL, real, fr. L res thing, fact] 1 : of or relating to fixed or immovable things (as land) <~ property> 2 : not artificial : genuine; also : not imaginary realness n for real 1 : in earnest 2 : genuine

Note the definition of "real". relating to things in law....I ask anyone where law originated from. Hint: Two types of answers....1) from an external absolute...or 2) From human agreement

[davidm]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha

Note the definition of "real". relating to things in law....I ask anyone where law originated from. Hint: Two types of answers....1) from an external absolute...or 2) From human agreement

From human agreement, yeah.

[Thugpreacha]

Originally posted by davidm
From human agreement, yeah.

From an external Absolute..fo sho!:p

[davidm]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
From an external Absolute..fo sho!:p

Prove (1) that an external absolute is necessary for evolved social animals to construct laws (i.e., rules for behavior in a social setting).

Prove (2) that your particular God is this "absolute external source," rather than, say, Allah, or a nonsentient Platonic realm of perfect forms, or even genetic hard-wiring predisposing human animals to intersubjective agreement on laws, rights and wrongs.

Good luck.

[Thugpreacha]

Originally posted by davidm
Prove (1) that an external absolute is necessary for evolved social animals to construct laws (i.e., rules for behavior in a social setting).

Prove (2) that your particular God is this "absolute external source," rather than, say, Allah, or a nonsentient Platonic realm of perfect forms, or even genetic hard-wiring predisposing human animals to intersubjective agreement on laws, rights and wrongs.

Good luck.

Here we go again...:rolleyes: As a Christian, my external absolute is the Trinitarian God. He is NOT necessary for "evolved social animals" (I assume you mean humans) to construct rules for behavior. My point was that much of Western Civ law came from English Common Law and the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were either a product of social evolution (you believe) or divine impartation (which I believe.

My God is the source? He is my source. Can you prove that my source is evolution from social animals? If so, trace my beliefs to the source that wrote them. This evidence for or against is not conclusive. As for Good Luck, I do not believe in luck. Nothing happens by random chance. All actions have meaning. ;)

[davidm]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
Here we go again...:rolleyes: As a Christian, my external absolute is the Trinitarian God. He is NOT necessary for "evolved social animals" (I assume you mean humans) to construct rules for behavior. My point was that much of Western Civ law came from English Common Law and the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were either a product of social evolution (you believe) or divine impartation (which I believe.)

The Argument from Rolling Eyes is rarely persuasive.

The existence of the Trinitarian God cannot be assumed. It must be proved. But you can't prove it, because your god is a fictional character in a book. As for English Common Law and the Ten Commandments, they had their roots in earlier sources. All of these laws were made up by humans. They might have made some of them in conjunction with a belief in a deity, but that does not mean that their belief was correct.

My God is the source? He is my source. Can you prove that my source is evolution from social animals? If so, trace my beliefs to the source that wrote them. This evidence for or against is not conclusive. As for Good Luck, I do not believe in luck. Nothing happens by random chance. All actions have meaning. ;)

Evolution is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is the theory that explains the fact. So far the theory is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. As for your request that I trace your beliefs to the source that wrote them, I've no idea what you are asking. Perhaps you could clarify.

Humans have untold numbers of different laws and moral concepts. This is precisely what you would expect if there were no absolute ground to morals.

[Thugpreacha]

Originally posted by davidm
The Argument from Rolling Eyes is rarely persuasive.

The existence of the Trinitarian God cannot be assumed. It must be proved. But you can't prove it, because your god is a fictional character in a book. As for English Common Law and the Ten Commandments, they had their roots in earlier sources. All of these laws were made up by humans. They might have made some of them in conjunction with a belief in a deity, but that does not mean that their belief was correct. Now, now..you cannot prove that my God is a fictional character in a book. Even if you drag out the tired arguments from a minority of critical scholars( who have a bias against religion,BTW) you cannot say that millions of changed lives are a fluke. You may suggest that there are many ways to have a life changed. I could agree with that. But you cannot call God fictional except to your own satisfaction. Evolution is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is the theory that explains the fact. So far the theory is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. As for your request that I trace your beliefs to the source that wrote them, I've no idea what you are asking. Perhaps you could clarify. I don't want to challenge evolution. My question was this: My Belief is that the Bible was written by men under supernatural inspiration. All you can say is that by tracing my belief, you will observe that early humans believed in supernatural things. Not all myths have been proven to be myths. You say God is fictional. I say He is real. I have personally observed supernatural phenomena. Perhaps I could not convince you any more than you can convince me that God is a work of human fiction!

Humans have untold numbers of different laws and moral concepts. This is precisely what you would expect if there were no absolute ground to morals. :p

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
And as a Theist, I would assert that God is to me in a sense as your grandfather was to you. I cannot prove that He exists False analogy. My grandfather existed. For one thing, he left descendants. And I have photographs of him, my surviving grandparents have memories of them, and there are government records, all sorts of things.

But god? Absolutely-friggin-NOTHING. I have never met him despite me wanting to meet him and him purportedly wanting to meet me. I ask why he's playing invisible, and I'm told that's what he does; plays invisible unless you imagine that he's there. And yet these people that talk with him, what god says sounds a lot more like what they think; in fact, god never tells them anything they don't "know" already. Is it really so suprising that I find it unconvincing?I interact with Him and some memories of His influence on a day to day are a part of who I am. You interact with god on a daily basis? Tell me how I can find him. And none of this 'belief' crap, I've tried it.Others think that reality originates with the human mind. If you had read any of this thread at all you would know that that is a complete falsehood. Reality does as it damn well pleases regardless of what we believe. This has to be at least the fourth time I have said this in this thread but you still try and tell me what my beliefs are? I should know what they are; I happen to be me. You are not.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Mageth
L. Frank Baum's book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was originally published in 1900.
Mere facts cannot affect a theist, Mageth. Surely you know that by now.

Iacchus apparently does not grasp the concept that a book written in 1900 cannot be about events in 1939. After all, maybe it was prophecy!

[The Bearded One]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
And as a Theist, I would assert that God is to me in a sense as your grandfather was to you. I cannot prove that He exists except to state that His prescence is not an illusion to me because I interact with Him and some memories of His influence on a day to day are a part of who I am. [snip]

When people tell me about their grandparents, I don't usually ask for proof of their existance. Grandparents are fairly normal things to have; most folks have around four of them, some alive, some not. The reason I don't ask for evidence of the existance of your grandparent is that I have a fairly good idea of what a grandparent is and what interacting with one is like. I occasionally (less often now than in my youth) ask people for a bit more detail about their sisters, because I have no sisters and am unsure what it might be like to grow up with a female sibling.

When I went to college and happened to learn that a classmate had a pet ferret, I was very interested and asked a lot of questions. Ultimately, I visited her place and met her pet ferret in person. I didn't actually doubt that she had a ferret, but in my experience, that living condition is so unusual as to be very noteworthy.

If someone told me that they had a pet unicorn, I would be much more skeptical. I have some idea of what unicorns are supposed to be like (from myth), but my current understanding is that there are no actual unicorns. I would probably require some significant evidence before I would put my doubt behind me and accept that this person really had a pet unicorn.

How much more skeptical should I be when I hear someone saying that they have a personal relationship with a 2,000 year dead Jewish carpenter? That doesn't seem to make much more sense than saying that I have a personal relationship with Plato or Aristophanes. What kind of evidence should I be looking for? At minimum, I'd want to examine the stigmata wounds in the same way that "doubting" Thomas did; why should I settle for less?

I can't have faith in unicorns, and I won't have faith in any god.

-- The Bearded One

[Biff the unclean]

Now, now..you cannot prove that my God is a fictional character in a book.
Sure we can, it's no problem at all. In fact I have a copy of the novels he appears in right here. You can tell he's fictional by the same standards you use to tell if any other character is fictional. First he can do the impossible, only in fiction can any one do that. In his imaginary world there are superpowers and magic works, not so in the real world. And he has short comings that only fictional characters have. For instance he's supposed to be the greatest thing in the universe but he can't get anybody to see or hear him. All fictional characters have that same failing, but not even inanimate objects in the real world are bothered by that.

Even if you drag out the tired arguments from a minority of critical scholars( who have a bias against religion,BTW)
The bias is being in favor of truth over lies. It's not a bad bias to have.
But you cannot call God fictional except to your own satisfaction.
And you cannot produce a God at all. Just a story that you cannot support.

My Belief is that the Bible was written by men under supernatural inspiration. All you can say is that by tracing my belief, you will observe that early humans believed in supernatural things.
Yeah it's a primitive myth hardly more than a children's fairytale.
Not all myths have been proven to be myths.
No, all myths are myths which is why they call them myths and not facts.
You say God is fictional. I say He is real. I have personally observed supernatural phenomena. Perhaps I could not convince you any more than you can convince me that God is a work of human fiction!
So now you are boasting that you have superpowers and can see things that no one else in the world can see. Your delusions do not a "supernatural" make. People suffering from a psychosis are not being possessed by demons. You and your minister playing that the mentally ill have some kind of medieval religious/boogey man experience are criminally abusing people who already have problems enough. Shame on you, these people deserve real help.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Corona688

You interact with god on a daily basis? Tell me how I can find him. And none of this 'belief' crap, I've tried it. Treat it like a crossword puzzle (or jigsaw puzzle), where you work with what you know and build on it (through reason), and sooner or later the picture will come into view. The important thing here is not to force the issue and to maintain an open mind about it.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Treat it like a crossword puzzle (or jigsaw puzzle), where you work with what you know and build on it (through reason), and sooner or later the picture will come into view. The important thing here is not to force the issue and to maintain an open mind about it.

How can you expect us to swallow this baloney when if anyone told you to do this song and dance for any other subject you would laugh at them? Why do you throw away all your standards of gullability when we talk about God?

Hey is there dog poop on the carpet? Treat it like a crossword puzzle (or jigsaw puzzle), where you work with what you know and build on it (through reason), and sooner or later the picture will come into view. The important thing here is not to force the issue and to maintain an open mind about it.

No, you'd never do it for dog poop. Why do you hold dog crap to a higher standard of proof than you do God?

[Iacchus]

Do you know what reason is? How else do we establish reason except that we build upon what we already know?

Hmm ... "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed."

[Randy X]

Greetings Iacchus

Do you know what reason is?

Yes.

How else do we establish reason except that we build upon what we already know?

You do not know that the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.;) Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Christ

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Christ

You do not know that the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed.;) Thanks for your time. However it's the tiniest of seeds, and when it's grown, it becomes the greatest of herbs, even a tree, so that the birds will come to lodge in its branches.

[davidm]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
:p

That's a powerful counterargument you've mooted, Thugpreacha. I'll have to ponder it extensively before forumulating a reply.

[Thugpreacha]

Originally posted by davidm
That's a powerful counterargument you've mooted, Thugpreacha. I'll have to ponder it extensively before forumulating a reply.


:notworthy

[davidm]

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
:notworthy

My response:

:boohoo:

To which I predict Thugpreacha will reply:

:cool:

And then I will be forced to respond:

;)

Argument From Smileys Only, with no actual words: It's new, it's hip, it's now. Deal with it.

[Randy X]

However it's the tiniest of seeds, and when it's grown, it becomes the greatest of herbs, even a tree, so that the birds will come to lodge in its branches

O-K-A-Y.

Sincerely,

Christ

[Philosoft]

May I ask that the content-free, smiley-laden posts give way to something more substantive? Thanks.

[Wayne Delia]

However it's the tiniest of seeds, and when it's grown, it becomes the greatest of herbs, even a tree, so that the birds will come to lodge in its branches.It's not the tiniest of seeds. Orchid seeds are uniformly smaller than mustard seeds. You're making the same mistake Jesus made in the Gospel of Mark.

WMD

[Ellis14]

Now, now..you cannot prove that my God is a fictional character in a book.
Argument from Ignorance
Even if you drag out the tired arguments from a minority of critical scholars( who have a bias against religion,BTW)...
They are only tired because theists insist of making us use them. If theists would not conveniently ignore the refutation of their beliefs only to return the next day and preach again, our argument wouldn't get "tired".

The only bias critics have against religion is their search for the truth.
...you cannot say that millions of changed lives are a fluke. You may suggest that there are many ways to have a life changed. I could agree with that. But you cannot call God fictional except to your own satisfaction.
It is certainly no fluke that lives are changed through religion. Some are changed for the good, some are changed for the bad. In many parts of the world like Northern Ireland, the Middle East etc, religion has changed millions of lives in untold terrible ways. Therefore the argument that religion changes lives for the good is irrelevant, since it also changes lives for the bad. And in neither case does the effect a belief have prove anything about its veracity.
I don't want to challenge evolution. My question was this: My Belief is that the Bible was written by men under supernatural inspiration. All you can say is that by tracing my belief, you will observe that early humans believed in supernatural things.
You are correct, all we can say is that early humans believed in supernatural things. That's all. Unfortunately, some modern day humans do as well.
Not all myths have been proven to be myths.
Argument from Ignorance again.
You say God is fictional. I say He is real. I have personally observed supernatural phenomena.
Begging the question. To assume that you have observed supernatural phenomena would be to assume that the events you witnesses could have had no other cause and also to assume that the supernatural exists in the first place. This is the problem with anecdotal "evidence"; it assumes the conclusion it is trying to prove.
Perhaps I could not convince you any more than you can convince me that God is a work of human fiction!
Au contrairé! Atheists would all-too-willing to accept evidence for God and believe in him, if there was "convincing" evidence of him.

God is a character in a book written by humans. So is Gandalf. Both of them remain fictional characters until there is some proof that they are real. Of course, no one in their right mind would suggest that Gandalf is in fact real and the Lord of the Rings is a history book. Yet even though the LOTR is better written by the bible, it is ok for people to venerate the bible and suggest that a fictional character in it is real and alive today, and can be seen everywhere, if only we look hard enough!

[Thugpreacha]

The song remains the same. The song and dance, that is. We theists are guilty of it as well as the atheists. Theists have lots of websites that they use to pull information from. In defense of this, I would assert that I believe most of what the sites state. Specifically, I believe in God. (3.0-Christian version) I believe that He cannot be proven to those who have already decided not to believe in Him, because they have that right that He Himself gave them. Atheists in general have a few issues as well. Specifically:
1) They also have their little pet websites on how to argue, how to refute common theist questions, how their set of scholars(who are not the only authority, by the way) have "exposed" Biblical errors. My problem with these conclusions is that:
a) I am as unconvinced in the truth of the secular scholars as the atheists are unconvinced of the Bible. My main criteria for the evidence of Biblical divinity is in the personal lives that I have seen changed...and I mean, changed thoroughly! Not brainwashed, mind you. transformed. Perhaps the fact that many atheists are unimpressed or unconvinced by Christianity is because so few of their close friends and family have ever been (or allowed) change.(d)
2) Atheists have a different worldview entirely than do theists. atheists believe that human wisdom is the ultimate source, focus, and judge of reality.
How obvious, right? How ignorant to believe otherwise, UNLESS there were an alternative. Theists believe that they have found God, or, rather, that God has found them. Atheists refuse to even entertain what many of them would call an "ancient and deplorable myth which has been responsible for untold human misery!" May I say that human misery would have been none the less without religion. Humans are as they are. The fact that so many still believe in God is not merely the result of widespread ignorance. Some of us have seen a good God and not a deplorable myth. To get back on topic, I assert that one mans illusion is another mans reality, and that reality is more than can be quantified, measured, and seen. No smileys needed here!
Ellis10, you say that you would need "convincing" evidence. I have known a friend like you in that he wanted the same proof. I told him that even if the proof were there, he would never surrender his throne in his own mind. God would have to knock him off of it. I say that if God is real, He can have my mind whereas many would never allow this to happen, fearful of being controlled. I would say that by controlling your own interpretation of reality, you are not necessarily any safer IF God is real and He is safe. That is the real question.

[The Evil One]

Thugpreacha, what's all of this? Not to interrupt your dialogue with others, but I wanted to point out some unwarranted generalisations:


a) I am as unconvinced in the truth of the secular scholars as the atheists are unconvinced of the Bible.
A scholar can't be "true", only a statement can be true (or flase). I assume you mean "correct". In any case, whether any scholar is correct or not depends only on how good their arguments and evidence are. Similarly wehther or not the Bible is true is dependent only on how good the arguments and evidence in favour of its truth are.

My main criteria for the evidence of Biblical divinity is in the personal lives that I have seen changed...and I mean, changed thoroughly! Not brainwashed, mind you. transformed.
No one contests the fact of changed lives. But other religions have changed lives. Some of these religions contradict Christianity directly. Therefore, even if Christianity is true, it is possible for a false religion to produce changed lives. Since it is possible for a false religion to produce changed lives, it follows that nothing about the truth of a religion can be deduced from the fact that it has changed lives.


2) Atheists have a different worldview entirely than do theists. atheists believe that human wisdom is the ultimate source, focus, and judge of reality.
How obvious, right?
This may be true of some atheists, but it is not necessarily true of all atheists.


Atheists refuse to even entertain what many of them would call an "ancient and deplorable myth which has been responsible for untold human misery!"

Many of us have entertained it. Many of us have gone further than entertaining it and actually believed it for some part fo our lives. You are mischaracterising many of the atheists here by your generalisation.

[davidm]

You're right, thugpreacha. You've converted me.

Know how?

It was the Argument from Smiley Faces.

Specifically, it was this:

:notworthy

Last night, I had a blinding insight while on the road to my local market, the Damascus Bodega. I understood that the Not Worthy smiley is Jesus. In its "up" state, hands flanking the face, it represents the Lord on the cross. In its "down" state, it stands for fallen Man, as well as the Lord in his tomb. Then it reverts to "up" state again. That's resurrection.

Now that I'm a follower of the trinitarian God, I feel it is up to me to muster sound arguments to convert the atheists on this board. I suspect most of them, cynical and full of man-centered hubris as they are, will not be persuaded by the Argument From Not Worthy. Therefore, it will be up to me to persuade them with arguments, evidence and logic. I therefore will become:

davidm, defense lawyer for God.

I will make my opening arguments as soon as I can think of one. :o

[Corona688]

I believe that He cannot be proven to those who have already decided not to believe in Him, because they have that right that He Himself gave them. What about those like me, who are withholding judgement until there is absolutely any evidence at all available on the subject? The bible and the Christian god, yes, I actively do not believe in because they contradict reality and themselves. The concept of god by itself, without all the Christian baggage, might be possible, but the complete and total lack of any evidence at all for any god of any kind of tells me there's not much point trying to decide one way or the other at this point.how their set of scholars(who are not the only authority, by the way) Well, duh. We do our best to deal with their arguments on their arguments merits, not on who they are and whether we want to agree with them or not. How kind of you to reject them, not because you find any flaws in their arguments, but because they are "atheist scholars" btw.have "exposed" Biblical errors.[/b] Yes, I know, kind of like "exposing" the fact that the sea is wet, not much to brag about.a) I am as unconvinced in the truth of the secular scholars as the atheists are unconvinced of the Bible. You don't like them, so you don't accept their arguments? How eminently logical of you. How about accepting or rejecting their arguments on the merit of their arguments instead of whether you like the people who say them or not?My main criteria for the evidence of Biblical divinity is in the personal lives that I have seen changed...and I mean, changed thoroughly! Not brainwashed, mind you. transformed. Perhaps the fact that many atheists are unimpressed or unconvinced by Christianity is because so few of their close friends and family have ever been (or allowed) change. that, and because Christianity is not the only religion that can change people. Muslim theology can change people. Hinduism can change people. Paganism can change people. Hell, atheism can change people and it isn't even a religion. I see nothing special about christianity in any respect.atheists believe that human wisdom is the ultimate source, focus, and judge of reality. Okay, this has to be at least the FIFTH time now. STOP TELLING ME WHAT MY BELIEFS ARE WHEN I HAVE EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU THAT THEY ARE SOMETHING ELSE! It is rude and dishonest for you to ignore me and/or lie about me like that.

I don't believe that human wisdom is the ultimate source of reality. Reality does as it damn well pleases no matter what we believe. Theists believe that they have found God, or, rather, that God has found them. Do they have any evidence for this? No? Then they have no reason to believe this. Sorry.Atheists refuse to even entertain what many of them would call an "ancient and deplorable myth which has been responsible for untold human misery!" Well, I have to say that you've made a good call; It IS an ancient and deplorable myth that has been responsible for untold human misery. About refusing to entertain it, well, no, no I haven't refused to entertain it. I used to believe, you know, until I slowly realized that the universe was continuing to do as it damn well pleased no matter what me and my fellow believers believed. From that point on I started looking outward rather than inward, and found that this god I had been so certain of didn't really appear to be there. Should he start to appear to be there, then I will investi