As the topic states, could someone give me one piece of significant evidence of the existence of a god? I find that a lot of religious believers are so blinded, that they believe things without pre-conditions. It's been discovered that the bible states nowhere did god make the Earth, with religious scholars translating Hebrew properly, yet, people choose to believe otherwise, if at all.

So, this thread is for those people (that don't say "look at the sun", or "look at the moutains" which can give me anything significant that I can measure, proving the existence of a god.

Although this might get me banned from this forum (yawn) let's see how it goes.

triple yawn @ topic and post

An expected response. You clearly have no significant evidence

What's funnier is there's suitable evidence for the evolution of species. Yet, religious believers think that Scientists have an "agenda" -- clearly, the proof by actual fossils aren't good enough, but a magician in the sky controlling your successes and failures is.

iarm:

As the topic states, could someone give me one piece of significant evidence of the existence of a god?

What is the sum of 0 + 0?

I find that a lot of religious believers are so blinded, that they believe things without pre-conditions. It's been discovered that the bible states nowhere did god make the Earth, with religious scholars translating Hebrew properly, yet, people choose to believe otherwise, if at all.

Why is what the bible states important?

So, this thread is for those people (that don't say "look at the sun", or "look at the moutains" which can give me anything significant that I can measure, proving the existence of a god.

Have you ever studied spiral DNA? Or a snowflake?

Although this might get me banned from this forum (yawn) let's see how it goes.

Clearly you are new here. This will not get you banned. There are millions of more brazen atheists or agnostics on this Forum.

Answer my questions.

The word, "god", is such a broad loosely used term.Anything or anybody can be a bloody god.
But if the threadstarter is referring to a CREATOR of the universe, then the creation is the proof of the creator.A better proof is hardly possible.Evolution is hardly a disprove of the creator because evolution is merely the process of creation seen or better still speculated from our own limited perspective of the moment.
The term "god", whether with small G or capital G, is such a cheap and bastardized word these days . . .

jagunlabi:

The word, "god", is such a broad loosely used term.Anything or anybody can be a bloody god.
But if the threadstarter is referring to a CREATOR of the universe, then the creation is the proof of the creator.A better proof is hardly possible.Evolution is hardly a disprove of the creator because evolution is merely the process of creation seen or better still speculated from our own limited perspective of the moment.
The term "god", whether with small G or capital G, is such a cheap and bastardized word these days . . .

I would say the same thing about "creation". Temporal beings are accustomed to referring experiences to the limited perspective of a 'time line'. That gives rise to the speculation that "there must be a beginning of the 'universe' and it must have 'come' from somewhere." Man's own status with respect to other creatures then leads him to postulate a dominator or creator.

There is none. because there is no bloody God. . .nada, it's all in your head folks!

I think we need to stop searching for significant evidence of God and focus on the implications of Pascal's Gambit (or Pascal's Wager)

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

                                                                   God exists (G)                                                                       God does not exist (~G)
Living as if God exists (B)             +∞ (heaven)                                                            -N (none)
Living as if God does not exist (~B)      ?? not specified perhaps -N (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death)                  +N (none)
                                                            or −∞ (hell)

By probabilistic theory, Pascal's Wager (from the outlined table above) shows that a life lived believing in God has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The values in red are estimated values of gain due to the decision.

nice addendum.,.mavenbox

I know there are some JJC's on this forum and I am suprised to see that Mavenbox is still showing signs of that (pun intended)
Pascals wager is seriously flawed, how many people do you think will continue to take the rubbish they do in this country if not because they are sure of life after death? like it or not people lose a lot believing in gawd, money, sex . . . The list goes on.
Furthermore the wager fails to put into thought, what if God was allah and you were a christian? Or if it was the many other gods? What are the chances of the wager then huh?

Mavenb0x:

I think we need to stop searching for significant evidence of God and focus on the implications of Pascal's Gambit (or Pascal's Wager)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

                                                                   God exists (G)                                                                       God does not exist (~G)
Living as if God exists (B)             +∞ (heaven)                                                            -N (none)
Living as if God does not exist (~B)      ?? not specified perhaps -N (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death)                  +N (none)
                                                            or −∞ (hell)

By probabilistic theory, Pascal's Wager (from the outlined table above) shows that a life lived believing in God has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The values in red are estimated values of gain due to the decision.

Pascals wager is a silly theory that starts by begging the question. This assumption does not even provide any evidence at all to back it up. There are so many evidence to show that it is false. What part of the human consciousness survive bodily death? So far there is no evidence to show that any part of human consciousness survives bodily death. There is conclusive evidence to show that there is nothing that survives bodily death, once the brain(Which controls everything dies off). Brain damage (depending on the nature of the damage) results in loss of intelligence. Memories can be completely lost because of damage to our physical brain. Skills can also be lost. Even one's own personality can be altered permanently because of damage to the brain.

Worse yet, our brains are quite easily damaged. They are composed of very soft tissue that damages easily if disturbed. They are positioned in a vulnerable place atop our body where a projectile could hit it easily. They are vulnerable to cold and to overheating. They are vulnerable to oxygen and sugar deprivation. They are so physically large that mothers and babies often die in childbirth due to the size of the head.

Yet if the there is a soul that survives bodily death I think none of this would be necessary. No physical injury would be sufficient to turn a decent person into a psychopath. No damage to the brain will affect the "soul" that is alleged to exist.

Hello toneyb,

Been quite a while. Howdy?

toneyb:

What part of the human consciousness survive bodily death? So far there is no evidence to show that any part of human consciousness survives bodily death. There is conclusive evidence to show that there is nothing that survives bodily death, once the brain(Which controls everything dies off).

Please could you discuss the "conclusive evidence" that shows that nothing survives bodily death?

Second, could you show that it is the brain that controls "everything"?

I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to amke such assertions.

Yet if the there is a soul that survives bodily death I think none of this would be necessary.

You don't know for sure if a soul survives bodily death; nor would you already draw the conclusions about what is 'necessary' without showing how you arrived at that conclusion.

viaro:

Hello toneyb,

Been quite a while. Howdy?

It really has been, traveled out but now back in town, Missed you guys.

Please could you discuss the "conclusive evidence" that shows that nothing survives bodily death?

I think the discussion can be found in this video.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

Second, could you show that it is the brain that controls "everything"?

Sorry for making such a blanket statement and the use of the word "everything", Everything is really a big word to use.  In context when i say everything I mean both voluntary actions and involuntary actions. As you know, the brain controls out thoughts, emotions, moral judgments, memory and other things like heart beat etc. That is what I meant by everything. By everything I mean our entire consciousness.

I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to amke such assertions.

You don't know for sure if a soul survives bodily death; nor would you already draw the conclusions about what is 'necessary' without showing how you arrived at that conclusion.

Actually i don't even believe or accept that the soul exists because no body has been able to show or provide any conclusive evidence that it does. If the brain controls all our thoughts, emotions, moral judgments  and our entire consciousness etc then which part of our consciousness survives bodily dead after the brain dies off completely? Lets assume that the soul exist, Are memories stored in the brain or the soul? Some people partially or completely lose their memory when their brain is injured. This implies that the brain stores memories, in which case how does your soul remember anything after brain-death?

Thanks, toneyb.

toneyb:

Please could you discuss the "conclusive evidence" that shows that nothing survives bodily death?

I think the discussion can be found in this video.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

I'm sorry, that vid is NOT any "conclusive evidence" but someone trying to be funny with what he does not understand nor has carefully studied. Did you notice how he cleverly dodges critical issues at the onset? Sample:

* 'Substance dualism is one of a number of different dualist philosophies,
but they won't be the focus of this video'

Why does he avoid that? Does he assume that 'substance mononism' (which requires only one 'fundamental reality' in order to be 'true') is therfore "conclusive evidence"? Oh please.

What has happened in that vid is simple: the gentleman has violated the basics of the philosophy of science (more specifically the philosophy of mind). Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:

[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list]

If one is going to take seriously any philosophical approach to the study of "realities", such a researher should be willing to to avoid the reductionist approach where fundamental elements in such a research are reduced to "physicalist predicates" . To adopt the reductionist approach will not yield results for a "full description" of the realities of our world - and I'm afraid that is what has happened in the vid that you posted. Therefore, one cannot accept that as "conclusive evidence" for anything - that is a shame and will not score zilch in any journal of philosophy of mind.

I reckon that the real reason the author cleverly dodges critical philosophical underpinings is because those are issues that are the very core of the subject he sought to discuss. So for his own convenience, since he could not handle those grey areas that present serious problems to his narrow ideas, he quickly scuttles round them and proceeds to propound his own idealism. I'm sorry, toneyb, that kind of pretence is neither science nor philosophy - and such reductionist approach to studying reality is not what any informed thinker should present as "conclusive evidence" of anything, unless they simply want to be mischievous.

Sorry for making such a blanket statement and the use of the word "everything", Everything is really a big word to use. In context when i say everything I mean both voluntary actions and involuntary actions. As you know, the brain controls out thoughts, emotions, moral judgments, memory and other things like heart beat etc. That is what I meant by everything. By everything I mean our entire consciousness.

Thank you for correcting that use of 'everything'. However, I'm at odds with you maintaining that our brain controls our entire consciousness. without descending into long talks here, I leave you an ancillary question: have you ever seen the 'mind'? Yes, it's a reality no doubt, we agree on that; but have you ever seen the mind itself?

Actually i don't even believe or accept that the soul exists because no body has been able to show or provide any conclusive evidence that it does.

I understand; but I would say that no one has been able to provide conclusive evidence that the soul does not exist. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he has evidence for the non-existence of the soul would have been able to arrive at a "conclusive evidence" of ALL realities in our known universe. That is not a stopper on the subject or enquiry; but I tend to think that philosophers of mind-science are today not making assertive statements about 'realities' for the simple reason that the present paradigm of scientific studies is holistic and reductionist approaches are no longer tenable for any conclusions about "realities". That does not mean there are no answers to some problems of realities, but rather that philosophers of science are seeking new ways of approaching such subjects than they have done in the past.

If the brain controls all our thoughts, emotions, moral judgments and our entire consciousness etc then which part of our consciousness survives bodily dead after the brain dies off completely? Lets assume that the soul exist, Are memories stored in the brain or the soul? Some people partially or completely lose their memory when their brain is injured. This implies that the brain stores memories, in which case how does your soul remember anything after brain-death?

Like I said above, there is no "conclusive evidence" for the idea that the brain controls our entire consciousness; so I would not rest anything on just the brain.

iarm:

What's funnier is there's suitable evidence for the evolution of species. Yet, religious believers think that Scientists have an "agenda" -- clearly, the proof by actual fossils aren't good enough, but a magician in the sky controlling your successes and failures is.

Funnier still was the atheist, Richard Dawkins, delivering The Royal Institution Christmas Lecture in 1991. I think it was on this occasion that he was describing the multiverse theory -- a messy scientific contrivance forced upon quantum theorists to prevent the whole logical basis of science being shot to shreds. Dawkins, straight-faced, explained that there would be may Richard Dawkins's in a continuum of multiverses, and that one of them may "perhaps have a green beard." This is the same man who is continually making jokes about tooth-fairies at the bottom of the garden, flying spaghetti monsters and giant teapots orbiting Saturn.

viaro:

Thanks, toneyb.

I think the discussion can be found in this video.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

I'm sorry, that vid is NOT any "conclusive evidence" but someone trying to be funny with what he does not understand nor has carefully studied. Did you notice how he cleverly dodges critical issues at the onset? Sample:

* 'Substance dualism is one of a number of different dualist philosophies,
but they won't be the focus of this video'

Why does he avoid that? Does he assume that 'substance mononism' (which requires only one 'fundamental reality' in order to be 'true') is therfore "conclusive evidence"? Oh please.

What has happened in that vid is simple: the gentleman has violated the basics of the philosophy of science (more specifically the philosophy of mind). Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:

[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list]

If one is going to take seriously any philosophical approach to the study of "realities", such a researher should be willing to to avoid the reductionist approach where fundamental elements in such a research are reduced to "physicalist predicates" . To adopt the reductionist approach will not yield results for a "full description" of the realities of our world - and I'm afraid that is what has happened in the vid that you posted. Therefore, one cannot accept that as "conclusive evidence" for anything - that is a shame and will not score zilch in any journal of philosophy of mind.

I reckon that the real reason the author cleverly dodges critical philosophical underpinings is because those are issues that are the very core of the subject he sought to discuss. So for his own convenience, since he could not handle those grey areas that present serious problems to his narrow ideas, he quickly scuttles round them and proceeds to propound his own idealism. I'm sorry, toneyb, that kind of pretence is neither science nor philosophy - and such reductionist approach to studying reality is not what any informed thinker should present as "conclusive evidence" of anything, unless they simply want to be mischievous.

Viaro my man, How far? The guy's video is very elaborate in my opinion, I did not see you try to rebut any of the things he said instead you went along with your usual approach you fired on with along the usual route of accusing him of violating the basics of the philosophy of science and labeled his methodology a reductionist approach. Since i am not the creator of the video i will just let is pass. If you could make a video that addresses the substance of he has said and your concerns, I will very gladly pass it along to him.(I am a great fan of his and we do keep in touch sometimes).

Thank you for correcting that use of 'everything'. However, I'm at odds with you maintaining that our brain controls our entire consciousness. without descending into long talks here, I leave you an ancillary question: have you ever seen the 'mind'? Yes, it's a reality no doubt, we agree on that; but have you ever seen the mind itself?

I have not seen the mind, but I know that the brain controls all the process we attribute to the mind like reasoning, thinking, feeling, will, perception, judgment etc. There is NO evidence to show that anything besides the brain controls any part of our mind. Do you have any evidence of anything controlling the human consciousness/mind beside the brain? When I refer to consciousness I am talking about the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual. Do you have any evidence to show that there is any other thing that controls it outside the brain?

I understand; but I would say that no one has been able to provide conclusive evidence that the soul does not exist. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he has evidence for the non-existence of the soul would have been able to arrive at a "conclusive evidence" of ALL realities in our known universe.

No one has ever provided any evidence that humans have anything called the soul, By the way what do you mean by the soul? You will have to define and describe what you mean by the soul before we can move forward with this engagement about it. What is the soul?

That is not a stopper on the subject or enquiry; but I tend to think that philosophers of mind-science are today not making assertive statements about 'realities' for the simple reason that the present paradigm of scientific studies is holistic and reductionist approaches are no longer tenable for any conclusions about "realities". That does not mean there are no answers to some problems of realities, but rather that philosophers of science are seeking new ways of approaching such subjects than they have done in the past.

OK.

Like I said above, there is no "conclusive evidence" for the idea that the brain controls our entire consciousness; so I would not rest anything on just the brain.

I will like to see the scientific peer reviewed paper that says that there is no conclusive evidence that says that the brain controls a persons consciousness, remember by consciousness, I mean the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual.

I can easily predict that this topic will go on for at least 15 pages and by the time its finshed, the theists will not have provided any empirical evidence of a God, because there is no God.

Fossil evidence in my view is not the strongest evidence for biological evolution. The strongest evidence for biological evolution lies in the DNA. If you have the entire genome sequence of several organisms, you can produce a robust phylogenetic reconstruction that gives a fairly accurate picture of biological evolution. That fairly accurate picture still has gaps as biological evolution and the forces that drives it is not just based on natural selection alone. But even with the gaps, it has enough  statistically significant internal consistency to show that species do evolve. But do not expect to find that organism A evolved from organism B etc. In addtion, do not expect the present evolutionary biology to say precisely which organisms evolved from which, which species are evolutionary dead ends etc. What you will get is a prediction that organisms share a common ancestor and such analysis can give an accurate picture of which organisms are old or young in evolutionary terms, as well as phylogenetic relationship between organisms.

toneyb:

Viaro my man, How far?

I'm cool, thanks.

The guy's video is very elaborate in my opinion, I did not see you try to rebut any of the things he said instead you went along with your usual approach you fired on with along the usual route of accusing him of violating the basics of the philosophy of science and labeled his methodology a reductionist approach. Since i am not the creator of the video i will just let is pass. If you could make a video that addresses the substance of he has said and your concerns, I will very gladly pass it along to him.(I am a great fan of his and we do keep in touch sometimes).

Did you pay attention to the enquiry I posed? I had stated particularly: "I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to make such assertions", not so? And it was based on that same philosophical approcah that I posted my reply.

To be sure, that vid is an elaborate crap if we have to present it as "conclusive evidence" for reality. What you expected me to do was take every line he presented and then argue on endlessly, no?  I'm sorry to disappoint you; but if you were to present that in any solid academic institution of philosophy, you would fail the first class, I guarantee you that!

What did you actually try to counter in the fact that science is not about a reductionist approach but a holistic one? Why did he cleverly evade other dualist philosophies, toneyb? To reassure you, I had seen that vid long before now (it was one of those I viewed when researching for a paper on cosmology and came across Krauss' talk which I have also reviewed on this forum). I also here gave you an example of why philosophers of mind are not goons when it comes to philosophy of mind - and that link I gave about 'predicate dualism' is Philosophy resource at Stanford University.

If you have anything to say that is against the holistic approach for researches about realities of our world, please share the same. That is where that vid completely collapses, and he was clear from the onset that he was adopting the reductionist approach where "only one" fundamental reality is required. Toneyb, that is an attempt to cheat the gullible reader - and we know that any research for a "full description" of the world will involve fundamentals that are "not reducible to physicalistic predicates". Can you tell me why he was violating that very point that all sound philosophers ALREADY know??

I have not seen the mind, but I know that the brain controls all the process we attribute to the mind like reasoning, thinking, feeling, will, perception, judgment etc. There is NO evidence to show that anything besides the brain controls any part of our mind. Do you have any evidence of anything controlling the human consciousness/mind beside the brain? When I refer to consciousness I am talking about the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual. Do you have any evidence to show that there is any other thing that controls it outside the brain?

Yes, I could point out some studies that are pointers to types of consciousness outside the brain. If you could be patient, I will sort out some sound resources for you, so that I don't give you just about anything that fills the gaps.

However, although your use of the term 'mind' is quite limiting, there is no reason why everything about our consciousness should be narrowed to the parameters you listed for the mind. That again is playing to the reductionist who averse objectivity but only seeks physicalist fundamentals. If we're going to look at some other kinds of realities that are indices of our consciousness (such as the soul), where would the physicalist reductionist approach stand in such researches? The reason I asked you about the mind is one such indications that the physicalist who has not seen the mind is unwilling to admit that there are dualisms in philoslophies of reality that are NOT physicalist - that is an incontestable fact.

No one has ever provided any evidence that humans have anything called the soul, By the way what do you mean by the soul? You will have to define and describe what you mean by the soul before we can move forward with this engagement about it. What is the soul?

The soul is basically the non-material part of a living being which is not physicalist. If need be, I could expound on that later on.

I will like to see the scientific peer reviewed paper that says that there is no conclusive evidence that says that the brain controls a persons consciousness, remember by consciousness, I mean the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual.

Yes, I was careful to note 'consciousness'. There is no "conclusive evidence" that the brain controls our entire consciousness - if you do have a peer reviewed paper that asserts that all our consciousness is controlled by the brain, it would be great to see it. As far as I know, I have not come across any such review that says that our entire consciousness is controlled by the brain.

manmustwac:

I can easily predict that this topic will go on for at least 15 pages and by the time its finshed, the theists will not have provided any empirical evidence of a God, because there is no God.

I think you shld have ended it this way . . .

the theists will not have provided any empirical evidence of a God, because the atheist would never believe anyway.

^^ I would rather it like this. . .

~ the atheists will evidentially not have empirically discovered themselves.

davidylan:

I think you shld have ended it this way . . .

the theists will not have provided any empirical evidence of a God, because the atheist would never believe anyway.

This is false because the theist does NOT have ANY empirical evidence that any god exists at all, if he did he would have provided it long time ago and the atheist will believe. Actually things that are self evident do not require belief. If you want people to believe that which you believe exists but does not, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realm of the unknown. So that you will not be forced to provide empirical evidence for it. That is what most of you guys are doing here. Does god exist point to it and show how and where it exist, else don't expect any body to take your special pleadings about the god you imagine exits seriously.

toneyb:

This is false because the theist does NOT have ANY empirical evidence that any god exists at all, if he did he would have provided it long time ago and the atheist will believe. Actually things that are self evident do not require belief. If you want people to believe that which you believe exists but does not, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realm of the unknown. So that you will not be forced to provide empirical evidence for it. That is what most of you guys are doing here. Does god exist point to it and show how and where it exist, else don't expect any body to take your special pleadings about the god you imagine exits seriously.

Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

davidylan:

Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

That won't do. They'd want to shake hands.

Now, how such can qualify to be God in anyone's view beats me.

toneyb:

This is false because the theist does NOT have ANY empirical evidence that any god exists at all, if he did he would have provided it long time ago and the atheist will believe.

That bold part is false - the atheist is committed to atheism and will not believe anything he or she is shown that contradicts his worldview. Please stop peddling this idea that 'the atheist will believe', that's a crude joke to play on yourself.

Actually things that are self evident do not require belief.

Why do you have atheists who believe in spirits? Please answer me that one.

If you want people to believe that which you believe exists but does not, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realm of the unknown.

If you want people to believe that which you believe does not exist but does, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realms of denials.

So that you will not be forced to provide empirical evidence for it.

So that you will not be forced to explain it within the matrix of atheism.

That is what most of you guys are doing here. Does god exist point to it and show how and where it exist, else don't expect any body to take your special pleadings about the god you imagine exits seriously.

If you're willing to discuss philosophically about the metaphysics of non-physicalist realities, please let us know - but be willing to demonstrate that you are philosophically sound to do so.

viaro:

I'm cool, thanks.

Did you pay attention to the enquiry I posed? I had stated particularly: "I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to make such assertions", not so? And it was based on that same philosophical approcah that I posted my reply.

To be sure, that vid is an elaborate crap if we have to present it as "conclusive evidence" for reality. What you expected me to do was take every line he presented and then argue on endlessly, no?  I'm sorry to disappoint you; but if you were to present that in any solid academic institution of philosophy, you would fail the first class, I guarantee you that!

What did you actually try to counter in the fact that science is not about a reductionist approach but a holistic one? Why did he cleverly evade other dualist philosophies, toneyb? To reassure you, I had seen that vid long before now (it was one of those I viewed when researching for a paper on cosmology and came across Krauss' talk which I have also reviewed on this forum). I also here gave you an example of why philosophers of mind are not goons when it comes to philosophy of mind - and that link I gave about 'predicate dualism' is Philosophy resource at Stanford University.

If you have anything to say that is against the holistic approach for researches about realities of our world, please share the same. That is where that vid completely collapses, and he was clear from the onset that he was adopting the reductionist approach where "only one" fundamental reality is required. Toneyb, that is an attempt to cheat the gullible reader - and we know that any research for a "full description" of the world will involve fundamentals that are "not reducible to physicalistic predicates". Can you tell me why he was violating that very point that all sound philosophers ALREADY know??

Actually I am not interested in any philosophical mumbo jumbo. Philosophy as I have come to understand it is NOTHING other than opinions and counter opinions. I am more interested in empirical conclusions in matters like this and he has more leg to stand on.

Yes, I could point out some studies that are pointers to types of consciousness outside the brain. If you could be patient, I will sort out some sound resources for you, so that I don't give you just about anything that fills the gaps.

I will love to see them.

However, although your use of the term 'mind' is quite limiting, there is no reason why everything about our consciousness should be narrowed to the parameters you listed for the mind. That again is playing to the reductionist who averse objectivity but only seeks physicalist fundamentals.

I was very careful to elaborate and explain what I mean by the mind so that we do not get into a broad argument, that keeps us moving in circles.

If we're going to look at some other kinds of realities that are indices of our consciousness (such as the soul), where would the physicalist reductionist approach stand in such researches? The reason I asked you about the mind is one such indications that the physicalist who has not seen the mind is unwilling to admit that there are dualisms in philoslophies of reality that are NOT physicalist - that is an incontestable fact.

I am not interested in endless philosophical arguments that lead no where at all. The brain exists and there is empirical and objective evidence to show that it exists and is the what controls our feelings, Judgment, memory etc. Its existence does not depend on philosophical arguments and counter arguments. Its existence and how it operates is self evident. Does the soul exists? If it does then there should be empirical evidence that shows that it exists. Its existence does NOT need to rely on endless philosophical arguments that have no empirical evidence at all.

The soul is basically the non-material part of a living being which is not physicalist. If need be, I could expound on that later on.

There are other parts of a living been that are non material, Our feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc are all non material are these things what you mean by the soul?

Yes, I was careful to note 'consciousness'. There is no "conclusive evidence" that the brain controls our entire consciousness - if you do have a peer reviewed paper that asserts that all our consciousness is controlled by the brain, it would be great to see it. As far as I know, I have not come across any such review that says that our entire consciousness is controlled by the brain.

There is conclusive evidence to show that the brain controls our consciousness  the way i defined it.

viaro:

That bold part is false - the atheist is committed to atheism and will not believe anything he or she is shown that contradicts his worldview. Please stop peddling this idea that 'the atheist will believe', that's a crude joke to play on yourself.

No, its your assumptions that are false. I was a theist and when I was provided with evidence to show that my beleifs were false. I accepted. Provide empirical evidence to show that there is a god that exists on its own independent of human culture, stories, societal acceptance and influence as mazaje loves putting it and I will believe and accept.

Why do you have atheists who believe in spirits? Please answer me that one.

So what if there are atheist that believe in spirits? Does that make their beliefs true? There are people that belief in alien abduction all over the place. People believe in Scientology, Hinduism, Islam, flat earth. Does that make their beliefs true?

If you want people to believe that which you believe does not exist but does, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realms of denials.

Your evidence that god exist on its own is what?

So that you will not be forced to explain it within the matrix of atheism.

If you're willing to discuss philosophically about the metaphysics of non-physicalist realities, please let us know - but be willing to demonstrate that you are philosophically sound to do so.

Actually I am not interested in philosophical rigmarole.

davidylan:

Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

I may not be able to prove the nonexistence of your undefined and untestable god but I can damned well show how the quaint ideas of your god have been created by people out of nothing and that they are verifiable false. All the gods have all evolved from ancient ignorant people and their superstitions. But it still depends on which "god" you're talking about. Most "god" concepts are either logically incoherent or cognitively vacuous and don't even require a preponderance of evidence to prove their non-existence.

toneyb:

I may not be able to prove the nonexistence of your undefined and untestable god but I can damned well show how the quaint ideas of your god have been created by people out of nothing and that they are verifiable false. All the gods have all evolved from ancient ignorant people and their superstitions. But it still depends on which "god" you're talking about. Most "god" concepts are either logically incoherent or cognitively vacuous and don't even require a preponderance of evidence to prove their non-existence.

and why are you interested in doing that? Has anyone forced you to believe these quaint ideas? Cant you just ignore them and move on with your own clearly "superior" ideas?

toneyb:

Actually I am not interested in any philosophical mumbo jumbo. Philosophy as I have come to understand it is NOTHING other than opinions and counter opinions. I am more interested in empirical conclusions in matters like this and he has more leg to stand on.

That's okay with me. You knew you were not interested in philosophy (which was specifically what I asked for), and you are the same fellow to have posted a vid trying to gull the public with 'dualism in philosophy'? I wonder why you atheists are very scared of this thing called 'philosophy', though. Bro, if you were not comfy with what I specifically asked for, why try to cheat with that vid? I'd say next time that you carefully check and weigh your atheistic assertions before trying to blow smoke in our eyes about "conclusive evidence" about realities.

I will love to see them.

In due course.

I was very careful to elaborate and explain what I mean by the mind so that we do not get into a broad argument, that keeps us moving in circles.

While I appreciated your elborations, it was narrow - that was my point, unless you're saying that your own limited elaborations should be taken as the totality of all that can be known about mind and consciousness. Remember: if it was a simply case of chatting about these things, we would long have been done - but when you make very broad assertions about "conclusive evidence", someone would just have to call you up on that!

I am not interested in endless philosophical arguments that lead no where at all. The brain exists and there is empirical and objective evidence to show that it exists and is the what controls our feelings, Judgment, memory etc. Its existence does not depend on philosophical arguments and counter arguments. Its existence and how it operates is self evident. Does the soul exists? If it does then there should be empirical evidence that shows that it exists. Its existence does NOT need to rely on endless philosophical arguments that have no empirical evidence at all.

I'm not here to force you into philosophical discussions - but next time to be so quick to post a vid about dualist philosophy as your answer for 'conclusive evidence' when you're not quite prepared to stand up for anything philosophical. Atheists who make very careless assertions about realities with such finality in their tone should be smarted up for what they brazenly claim.

There are other parts of a living been that are non material, Our feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc are all non material are these things what you mean by the soul?

No. I was not talking about abstract qualities of human experiences, for the soul if not an experience. Our feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc. are not 'part of' a living being, in so far that they are experience. However, I said simply that the soul is a part of a living being because it does not occur as a sponteneous experience of the brain such as feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc.

There is conclusive evidence to show that the brain controls our consciousness  the way i defined it.

Please let us see the reviews asserting such, thanks.

davidylan:

and why are you interested in doing that? Has anyone forced you to believe these quaint ideas? Cant you just ignore them and move on with your own clearly "superior" ideas?

Do you have anything to say beside this nonsense drivels of yours? Has any one forced you to believe in Allah? Why don't you just move with your superoir arguments and leave the Moslems alone?