tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post718175548992514834..comments2023-08-20T01:05:08.501-07:00Comments on Refuting Atheism: Refuting Barry Beyerstein's Consciousness Depends On The BrainPhoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-48830848874496335572015-04-22T00:58:22.439-07:002015-04-22T00:58:22.439-07:00@Phoenix
"The consciousness present in plants...@Phoenix<br />"The consciousness present in plants are obviously not as highly evolved as in animals and humans but they nonetheless are aware of their existence and environment,although they cannot reason and experience pain or suffering." All plants do is respond to stimulus from their environment - that's all. That is not consciousness - since to be conscious you need to be able to reason and think.<br /><br />"I did not make that claim and I'm not aware of such a study" We all know why their is no such study - because without a brain you will die and your consciousness will cease.<br /><br /><br /><br />John Nutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172216225753271915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-91694655652427091442015-04-17T06:52:48.258-07:002015-04-17T06:52:48.258-07:00John
I did not read your comment correctly.I thou...John<br /><br />I did not read your comment correctly.I thought you meantI thought you meant ba person declared clinically dead.<br />You said:Their is no such study.show me a person without a brain who is alive and conscious? Their is no such person.//<br /><br />I did not make that claim and I'm not aware of such a study<br /><br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-34207666637924860712015-04-17T06:49:54.973-07:002015-04-17T06:49:54.973-07:00I'm in my thirties and decided to do an online...I'm in my thirties and decided to do an online physics undergrad course later this year.The trigonometry course is simply a reminder and to improve my knowledge.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-25795545047133956422015-04-16T20:59:39.494-07:002015-04-16T20:59:39.494-07:00College level trigonometry? I didn't know you ...College level trigonometry? I didn't know you were that young, hopefully not high school ;-)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-2975602106348854832015-04-16T06:11:03.888-07:002015-04-16T06:11:03.888-07:00John
Like I told Hugo,It's been a while since...John<br /><br />Like I told Hugo,It's been a while since I checked my yahoo email.<br /><br />Geez,John I can't respond to your entire post right now,so I'll just tackle the last 2.<br />"Plants don't have brains and yet they're conscious." No their not conscious//<br /><br />The consciousness present in plants are obviously not as highly evolved as in animals and humans but they nonetheless are aware of their existence and environment,although they cannot reason and experience pain or suffering.<br /><br />http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/<br /><br />===<br />Their is no such study. show me a person without a brain who is alive and conscious? Their is no such person.//<br />I gave you numerous links geezPhoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-88006908171084077852015-04-16T06:09:47.766-07:002015-04-16T06:09:47.766-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-80869311537634209532015-04-16T05:58:53.927-07:002015-04-16T05:58:53.927-07:00Sorry guys,I haven't checked my yahoo email fo...Sorry guys,I haven't checked my yahoo email for a while now.I did not notice your comments.Plus my trigonometry course is occupying most of my time,unfortunately I'm not a math wiz yet.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-3325891713794405742015-04-12T16:39:46.454-07:002015-04-12T16:39:46.454-07:00What's also interesting with John's commen...What's also interesting with John's comment is that it relates to biology in general; the more we know the lese likely 'supernatural' causes become. The physical/natural world explains pretty much everything we need to know to understand how intelligence, and thus minds like ours, can evolved. Since your blog is supposed to "refute atheism", it's relevant to note that this doesn't disprove any god's existence. But we certainly don't get anything more by positing one; it's a superfluous hypothesis which explains nothing related to the mind.<br /><br />Any progress on the biology Crash Courses? World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-72653778157141556052015-04-11T14:22:36.581-07:002015-04-11T14:22:36.581-07:00Phoenix
"It's the mind that's acausa...Phoenix <br />"It's the mind that's acausal not the body" If the mind was acausal it couldn't be affected by the causal world - nor could it have any affect on it. But since it clearly is affected by the causal world and has an an effect on it it obviously is not acausal.<br /><br />Well I - along with many famous scientists and philosophers - reject mind-body dualism and hold that consciousness and qualia are not special and exist and function in exactly the same way as everything else in the universe//<br />"So your beliefs are based on appeal to authority then." No my views are based on reason and evidence. I just brought up famous people who share my view to show you your fallacy of appealing to famous people. <br />===<br />He says he believed in spinozas God, not a personal being but a "spirit" which reveals itself in the harmony of the cosmos. His view is pantheistic.//<br />"He explicitly rejects pantheism in the quote yet you still attribute pantheism to him." He says he believes in spinozas God - and Spinoza was certainly a pantheist.<br />===<br />"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. [Letter of 5 February 1921]"//<br />"This quote was from before he was introduced to Hubble's telescope." What on earth does hubble's telescope have to do with what Einstein is talking about here?<br />===<br />He stated many times he did not believe in a personal God and explained he used religious language as metaphor.//<br />"Sure but he hated Atheism." He was a atheist - since he did not believe in a God.<br />===<br />He rejected any notion of an afterlife "An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. [The World as I See It]"//<br />"I did not argue he believed in these things." You said he was agnostic about it - but he isn't as he clearly rejected any notion of the individual surviving death. <br />===<br />Yes which did not try to answer the question of how and why physical processes can produce conscious experience. (Or how the vehicle of consciousness allows consciousness to experience as you put it.)//<br />"The mechanization of consciousness is irrelevant just as many other things in our physical reality" It's not irrelevant - since we talking about consciousness and how it comes from physical processes.<br /><br />"We know it works through experimentation." Funnily enough we have never observed a soul.<br />===<br />"The evidence you seek is based on a fallacy" Yes providing actual evidence subject to the scientific method is a "fallacy" to people who believe in ascaual immaterial minds that survive death. John Nutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172216225753271915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-79773174099491843942015-04-11T13:30:22.951-07:002015-04-11T13:30:22.951-07:00Phoenix
No you didn't, and like I said if the...Phoenix <br />No you didn't, and like I said if their is no brain activity then the person won't be coming back.// "Well,until you can produce evidence of fraudulent activities by those researchers who provided us with evidence then I will have to side with them." Well are those scientists and doctors who deal who with brain death also liars? <br /><br />Try removing their brain stem and see what happens to their consciousness.// "You don't need to have your brain stem removed in order to be declared brain dead.You do know that do you?" The point is when the brain is dead it's dead and their is no possibility that the person can regain consciousness. <br /><br />Yes we are talking about a part of the brain/mind not all of it. If you lose an eyeball does this mean your sight will be gone? No, also your sight will be effected for the worse//. "Also this analogy is false because removing the whole object cannot be equated with removing a fraction of an object.It's mathematically contradictory." Yes and we was talking about part of the mind - not all of it. If you damage the part responsible for reasoning and impulse control that function is gone - but it doesn't mean your dead. <br /><br />One day we may have -for all intents and purposes - a complete understanding of the electrical and chemical processes in the brain and know roughly what a person is experiencing.// "Bu that day is not today.So no empirical evidence is forthcoming." Your the one claiming consciousness is not physical so you need to prove it. Just because we don't have 100% knowledge of a what's going on in the brain and all of the processes and mechanism involved in consciousness doesn't mean our mind is a magical entity which someone exists completely independent of the rest of the universe<br /><br />. "Sure, but say the "on" switch is broken,then the flashlight is as good as dead even with brand new batteries." Yes and that's what death is - when the "on" switch is permanently gone with no possibility of repair.<br /><br /> No it's not, inanimate objects don't have a brain - that's why their not conscious.// "Plants don't have brains and yet they're conscious." No their not conscious.<br /><br />These links don't provide any evidence of any experience with no brain activity at all.// "And yet they are studies with positive results published in peer reviewed medical journals." Their is no such study. show me a person without a brain who is alive and conscious? Their is no such person.John Nutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04172216225753271915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-40278463201387095062015-04-06T11:02:55.798-07:002015-04-06T11:02:55.798-07:00"You made no positive claim,merely that your ..."<i>You made no positive claim,merely that your rejection is due to unbelievable Theist claims.Thus the fallacious argument from incredulity is an accurate charge.<br />Here it is again:We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims.</i>"<br />Ok, so what's the problem with this? I am merely explaining you why you are generalizing, wrongly, when you claim that Atheists reject God because of certain beliefs about the nature of reality. As you said, it's not a positive claim about anything; I am just stating facts. It does not say anything about the reasons why people reject the God hypothesis, it does not mean that everyone has good reasons, it does not mean that Theists claims are false. It means very little yet you read into that and see an 'argument from incredulity', but what would that fallacy attempt to argue for? A fallacy is an attempt to prove a point with bad reasonning. Where is the bad reasonning here?<br /><br />"<i>I have argued for the non-physical aspects of reality,namely intuition,morality and I hinted at free will,hoping to take you down that path.You have failed to give sufficient evidence or logic on why it's material.</i>"<br />Can you define these things without refering to the material?<br /><br />"<i>What is required,is a rational argument that does not involve self-validation and circular reasoning on why there is nothing else beyond what our 5 senses can detect.</i>"<br />Why? I don't believe that...<br /><br />"<i>does nothing to refute my initial argument,since I was referring to the sub-nuclear level and not macroscopic level</i>"<br />Then you agree with me. It makes no sense to pretend that because we cannot explain a certain macroscopic thing in terms of smaller microscopic elements, then that macroscopic thing must be in a different real of existence. So your request that "morals should be predicted by physics" is an absurd request.<br /><br />"<i>Your analogy is fallacious because you have wildly equivocated the meanings of value.</i>"<br />Value is a broad term; in this case it was money. But it can be something else and it still works. The white cat may be prettier; that's another kind of value. It does not matter for the analogy. You are trying to avoid it for some reason...<br /><br />All I can cover for now...<br /><br />Cheers<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-58620888918679522562015-04-04T10:17:46.927-07:002015-04-04T10:17:46.927-07:00Part2 (continued)
To give a more concrete example...Part2 (continued)<br /><br /><i>To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to buy a cat. The store has 20 cats for sale. They are all black except 1 albino cat. The salesperson tells me that the white cat is rare and is thus $100 but all the others are $50. Physically, we can explain that the white cat looks different because of the light that reflects on its fur, hitting our retina, processed by our brains, etc... but we will never ever be able to say that the <b>waveleght of 'white' gives this cat more value</b>. It's an absurd question because it relates to how we humans, interact with each other and ascribe values to things</i>.<br />Your analogy is fallacious because you have wildly equivocated the meanings of value.<br /><br />http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monetary+value<br />Your use of the term value,refers to the property of material worth<br /><br />My use of the term has to do with the principles of behavior of right and wrong<br />http://www.thefreedictionary.com/values<br />4. often values A principle or standard, as of behavior, that is considered important or desirable: "The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility" (Jonathan Alter).<br />===<br /><i>This has nothing to do with what I was referring to; sorry if my statements were not clear for you. I am not even sure what your 'X is true' or 'Y is false' are because I was not using 'X' nor 'Y' as statements, but as group of objects. What claim states that 'X is true'?</i><br />This was in response to your charge that my reasoning is based on an argument from ignorance.But clearly this is false because I gave you a valid chain argument that followed the rules of inference.<br /><br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-29668936706564015932015-04-04T10:17:16.272-07:002015-04-04T10:17:16.272-07:00This has nothing to do with what I just explained....<i>This has nothing to do with what I just explained. What are you talking about; which part of my comment was not clear? Who is making an argument from incredulity according to you?</i><br />You made no positive claim,merely that your rejection is due to unbelievable Theist claims.Thus the fallacious argument from incredulity is an accurate charge.<br />Here it is again:<i>We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims</i>.<br />===<br /><i>Nature is all there is' but now you are asking to argue for it? Or you mean the first sentence; but then it's up to you to argue that something non-natural exists... what would that be? How can you even define such a thing and justify its existence?</i><br />But I have,I have argued for the non-physical aspects of reality,namely intuition,morality and I hinted at free will,hoping to take you down that path.You have failed to give sufficient evidence or logic on why it's material.You simply assert that Naturalism posits nothing beyond nature.But I'm already aware of the beliefs of Naturalists.What is required,is a rational argument that does not involve self-validation and circular reasoning on why there is nothing else beyond what our 5 senses can detect.<br />===<br /><i>Over-simplification. Even if it certainly is possible that all of nature is either a particle or a wave, that's not how we talk about macroscopic objects. A mountain is not defined as either particles or waves, yet it certainly exists as a natural thing</i>. <br />You've omitted the part where I said <b>fundamentally</b>.Meaning,at the most base,elementary level or foundation.<br /><br /><i>he way a mountain is formed, through movement of tectonic plates for example, is a natural process, but is 'moving tectonic plates' made of particle or wave? No, it does not even make sense to use these words to describe a natural phenomenon</i>.<br />This is clearly a straw man argument and does nothing to refute my initial argument,since I was referring to the sub-nuclear level and not macroscopic level<br />===<br /><i>Correct me if I am wrong, but the implication here seems to be that until we can do what you ask for, value-laden or normative properties are to be accepted as being non-natural. Right?</i><br />What I'm implying is that there is no reason to believe that an objective moral values exists in a world that is purely material.<br /><br /><i>But this is absurd because they are, by definition, describing the physical properties of physical objects, not their value. So how could we even talk about quarks giving value to something?</i><br />Exactly! If only the material exists which is posited by physicalists/materialist/naturalists/atheists then morals should be predicted by physics.<br /><br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-6461512342045915152015-04-03T13:04:25.937-07:002015-04-03T13:04:25.937-07:00I said:
No, it's not. For the vast majority of...I said:<br />No, it's not. For the vast majority of Atheists, rejecting the belief in God is just that: rejection, disbelief. It does not imply any positive beliefs.We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims.<br />You replied:<br />"<i> This is essentially an argument from incredulity,since it has no standard point of reference to compare against the concept that's being rejected.</i>"<br />This has nothing to do with what I just explained. What are you talking about; which part of my comment was not clear? Who is making an argument from incredulity according to you?<br /><br />I said:<br />Naturalism simply posit that we have no reason to believe in something more. We can take 1 more step and conclude that the Natural is all there is, but it's not needed, unprovable and thus useless.<br />You replied:<br />"<i> Naturalists need to argue for this,and not just assert it.</i>"<br />It's exactly the same as the point above; you are super vague... what needs to be argue for? What is just being asserted? The second sentence clearly state that it's useless to argue for the claim that 'Nature is all there is' but now you are asking to argue for it? Or you mean the first sentence; but then it's up to you to argue that something non-natural exists... what would that be? How can you even define such a thing and justify its existence?<br /><br />"<i> Because all of nature is fundamentally either a particle or a wave.</i>"<br />Over-simplification. Even if it certainly is possible that all of nature is either a particle or a wave, that's not how we talk about macroscopic objects. A mountain is not defined as either particles or waves, yet it certainly exists as a natural thing. The way a mountain is formed, through movement of tectonic plates for example, is a natural process, but is 'moving tectonic plates' made of particle or wave? No, it does not even make sense to use these words to describe a natural phenomenon.<br /><br />"<i>our physical laws specify only physical and chemical properties,not value-laden or normative properties.Thus the burden of proof is on the naturalist to demonstrate how quarks and electromagnetic fields/waves exhibit these moral values.</i>"<br />Correct me if I am wrong, but the implication here seems to be that until we can do what you ask for, value-laden or normative properties are to be accepted as being non-natural. Right?<br />But this is absurd because they are, by definition, describing the physical properties of physical objects, not their value. So how could we even talk about quarks giving value to something?<br />To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to buy a cat. The store has 20 cats for sale. They are all black except 1 albino cat. The salesperson tells me that the white cat is rare and is thus $100 but all the others are $50. Physically, we can explain that the white cat looks different because of the light that reflects on its fur, hitting our retina, processed by our brains, etc... but we will never ever be able to say that the waveleght of 'white' gives this cat more value. It's an absurd question because it relates to how we humans, interact with each other and ascribe values to things.<br />This is exactly the same thing you are asking here, I suppose. You want to get explanations as to how we humans see value in things, in anything, based on their quarks. It's not a valid question/request.<br /><br />"<i>My claim is that X is true because it follows logically.Y is false because it has been disproven.</i>"<br />This has nothing to do with what I was referring to; sorry if my statements were not clear for you. I am not even sure what your 'X is true' or 'Y is false' are because I was not using 'X' nor 'Y' as statements, but as group of objects. What claim states that 'X is true'?<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-32787829696764675952015-04-03T10:25:57.091-07:002015-04-03T10:25:57.091-07:00No, it's not. For the vast majority of Atheist...<i>No, it's not. For the vast majority of Atheists, rejecting the belief in God is just that: rejection, disbelief. It does not imply any positive beliefs.We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims</i>.<br />This is essentially an argument from incredulity,since it has no standard point of reference to compare against the concept that's being rejected.<br />===<br /><i>Nature exists, right? We can all agree on that</i><br />Correct,dualists and materialists agree nature exists.<br />===<br /><i>Naturalism simply posit that we have no reason to believe in something more. We can take 1 more step and conclude that the Natural is all there is, but it's not needed, unprovable and thus useless</i>.<br />Naturalists need to argue for this,and not just assert it.<br />===<br /><i>Morality is natural. It's that simple... It exists among human beings. It's a pretty well define term. I don't think it's quantifiable, true, but why would that make it non-natural?</i><br />Because all of nature is fundamentally either a particle or a wave.our physical laws specify only physical and chemical properties,not value-laden or normative properties.Thus the burden of proof is on the naturalist to demonstrate how quarks and electromagnetic fields/waves exhibit these moral values.<br />===<br /><i>I don't see the inference you are making. It sounds like an argument from ignorance where we say "I cannot explain X in terms of Y, therefore X is of the category Not-Y". Please explain</i>. <br />Argument from ignorance states that "X is true because it cannot be proven false.Or X is false because it cannot be proven true."I made no such claim.My claim is that X is true because it follows logically.Y is false because it has been disproven.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-41217598880780622692015-04-02T12:41:02.576-07:002015-04-02T12:41:02.576-07:00"Yes,but Atheists' rejection of God is ba..."<i>Yes,but Atheists' rejection of God is based on specific beliefs about the nature of reality</i>"<br />No, it's not. For the vast majority of Atheists, rejecting the belief in God is just that: rejection, disbelief. It does not imply any positive beliefs. We all hear about people talking about God and we, Atheists, simply don't believe their claims. Just like the vast majority of Theists do not believe in God because of philosophical arguments.<br /><br />"<i>metaphysical naturalism (a highly conjectural and extrapolatory projection of nature without empirical evidence.)</i>"<br />Nature exists, right? We can all agree on that. Naturalism simply posit that we have no reason to believe in something more. We can take 1 more step and conclude that the Natural is all there is, but it's not needed, unprovable and thus useless.<br /><br />"<i>you did equate morality with an artificial substitute.So what exactly is the artificial substitute for morals,since this is what its rejection implies?Either supernatural or artificial.</i>"<br />...<br />"<i>1)Morality exists and is quantifiable<br />...<br />You have already rejected 1,so you're left with 2 or 3.Which is it?</i>"<br />Morality is natural. It's that simple... It exists among human beings. It's a pretty well define term. I don't think it's quantifiable, true, but why would that make it non-natural?<br /><br />"<i>Leap of faith... there is no good reason to believe that there literally exists things independent of the material worlds.<br /><br />It's a valid inference,until proven otherwise.A logical response to the previous dilemma should solve this.</i>"<br /><br />I don't see the inference you are making. It sounds like an argument from ignorance where we say "I cannot explain X in terms of Y, therefore X is of the category Not-Y". Please explain. <br /><br />CheersWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-47831690783302931952015-04-02T10:34:01.946-07:002015-04-02T10:34:01.946-07:00Atheism is a rejection of an existence claim: &quo...<i>Atheism is a rejection of an existence claim: "God exists"</i><br />Yes,but Atheists' rejection of God is based on specific beliefs about the nature of reality,which they believe cannot accomodate God,namely metaphysical naturalism (a highly conjectural and extrapolatory projection of nature without empirical evidence.)<br /><br /><i>Why would it be a "concession" anyway? If I "concede" that Splenda is not natural sugar, did I just concede that the supernatural exists?</i>"<br />No you did not concede that Splenda is supernatural but you did equate morality with an artificial substitute.So what exactly is the artificial substitute for morals,since this is what its rejection implies?Either supernatural or artificial.<br />===<br /><i>Why should they? Natural laws describe the world around us. They do not tell the world what to do or how people should behave. If they cannot account for something, it does not mean that this 'something' is supernatural. Not having an explanation is not the same</i>.<br />Hugo,you are correct,science is descriptive,not prescriptive,thus morality has no empirical value and therefore not related to Atheism/Materialism.But if it's not natural then it either does not exist or it is transcendent if it does exist.If you have another option,do share.<br />1)Morality exists and is quantifiable<br />2)Morality does not exist<br />3)Morality does exist but is transcendent<br /><br />You have already rejected 1,so you're left with 2 or 3.Which is it?<br />===<br /><i>Leap of faith... there is no good reason to believe that there literally exists things independent of the material worlds</i>.<br /><br />It's a valid inference,until proven otherwise.A logical response to the previous dilemma should solve this.<br />===<br /><i>Confessions again? You simply do not understand what they were referring to. You quoted the following: ''Theists commonly rely upon criteria like intuition. Atheists common reject these criteria in favor of correspondence, coherence, and consistency.' And I agree with that because here intuition means that you believe things because they 'feel' right, because your guts tell you so, because it fits with your pre-conceived ideas. It's not the philosophical 'intuition' that the 'intuitionists' of the Stanford article talk about. You presented an inaccurate caricature of the Atheists you pretend to analyze</i>.<br /><br />Hugo,the Stanford article mentions the connection between morality and intuition.Morality is either true or false,exist or does not exist per the law of excluded middle.It was an example of self evident truths which exists and is intuitevly known.Your primary objection is that it is not true and does not exist<br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-67422611800397560422015-04-02T09:06:24.104-07:002015-04-02T09:06:24.104-07:00"Hugo,this is a very interesting concession.Y..."<i>Hugo,this is a very interesting concession.You concede:<br />a)Morality is not natural,<br />b)Morals are not self evident truths<br />c)Morality is not related to existence</i>"<br /><br />No I was referring to the article. The article does not talk about morality being natural or not, and does not discuss existence. Atheism is a rejection of an existence claim: "God exists".<br />Why would it be a "concession" anyway? If I "concede" that Splenda is not natural sugar, did I just concede that the supernatural exists?<br /><br />"<i>these things cannot be accounted for nor be exhibited by our natural laws.</i>"<br /><br />Why should they? Natural laws describe the world around us. They do not tell the world what to do or how people should behave. If they cannot account for something, it does not mean that this 'something' is supernatural. Not having an explanation is not the same.<br /><br />"<i>They either exist or do not.If they do exist,then they are transcendent.</i>"<br /><br />By transcendent you mean things that exist regardless of the real/material/natural world existing? I find these claims to be meaningless since you will always fall back to the material to explain what you claim exists non-materially. Hence, it refers to nothing that exists on its own. All you have is still just material existence described using abstract objects which can have objective meaning but still depend on material objectivity to be defined and understood.<br /><br />"<i>thus implicating dualism</i>"<br /><br />Leap of faith... there is no good reason to believe that there literally exists things independent of the material worlds.<br /><br /><br />"<i>I have made myself abundantly clear and even provided what is practically confessions from Atheist sites that intuition is undesirable and unacceptable.</i>"<br /><br />Confessions again? You simply do not understand what they were referring to. You quoted the following: ''Theists commonly rely upon criteria like intuition. Atheists common reject these criteria in favor of correspondence, coherence, and consistency.' And I agree with that because here intuition means that you believe things because they 'feel' right, because your guts tell you so, because it fits with your pre-conceived ideas. It's not the philosophical 'intuition' that the 'intuitionists' of the Stanford article talk about. You presented an inaccurate caricature of the Atheists you pretend to analyze.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-59053993307298978622015-04-02T01:12:03.653-07:002015-04-02T01:12:03.653-07:00Which self-evident truths?
Besides our moral codes...<i>Which self-evident truths?</i><br />Besides our moral codes like the Golden Rule,there is also free will and of course the Laws of Logic are all self evident truths.<br /><br /><i>The (very interesting) <b>link specifically talk about morality</b>, how it's not a widespread view and how <b>it says nothing about what's natural or not. It is thus not related to existence</b> as far as I can tell</i>,<br /><br />Hugo,this is a very interesting concession.You concede:<br />a)Morality is not natural,<br />b)Morals are not self evident truths<br />c)Morality is not related to existence<br /><br />From a complete Philosophical Materialism and naturalistic position I do agree,these things cannot be accounted for nor be exhibited by our natural laws.They either exist or do not.If they do exist,then they are transcendent,thus implicating dualism.<br /><br /><i>so why do you use this unclear foundation to build arguments claiming that Atheism is irrational</i>? <br /><br />I have made myself abundantly clear and even provided what is practically confessions from Atheist sites that intuition is undesirable and unacceptable.<br /><br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-43890713470299886452015-03-31T11:15:32.803-07:002015-03-31T11:15:32.803-07:00Which self-evident truths? Which 'something...Which self-evident truths? Which 'something' to know or understand? The (very interesting) link specifically talk about morality, how it's not a widespread view and how it says nothing about what's natural or not. It is thus not related to existence as far as I can tell, so why do you use this unclear foundation to build arguments claiming that Atheism is irrational? World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-1066825120837567392015-03-31T07:13:47.653-07:002015-03-31T07:13:47.653-07:00I really don't understand your usage of the wo...<i>I really don't understand your usage of the word 'intuition'. What truth can you find purely based on intuition?</i><br /><br />What truths? Self-evident truths of course,as I stated in my previous comment:<b>Intuition is a clear justification for accepting a self-evident proposition as stated by my first link</b><br /><br /> <i>Perhaps you can define it better?</i><br /><br />This link gives an excellent definition of intuition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intuition<br /><br /><b>The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof</b>Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-82423423468191212562015-03-30T12:58:52.853-07:002015-03-30T12:58:52.853-07:00Hi,
I'll be quick...
"Because intuition...Hi,<br /><br />I'll be quick...<br /><br />"<i>Because intuition is our ability to grasp truths without empirically testing</i>"<br />I really don't understand your usage of the word 'intuition'. What truth can you find purely based on intuition? Perhaps you can define it better?<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-62532378644405169212015-03-30T05:53:36.644-07:002015-03-30T05:53:36.644-07:00I forgot to embed the links.
1.Self evident truth...I forgot to embed the links.<br /><br />1.<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/index.html#SelEvi" rel="nofollow">Self evident truths and intuition,</a><br />2.<a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Epistemology.htm" rel="nofollow">What is Epistemology? Philosophy of Truth, Knowledge,Belief"</a><br /><br />Okay so there are a few things that these links confirm:<br />a)Atheists/Materialists place primary importance on Empiricism.<br />b)Empricism is the thesis that all knowledge begins with sensory experience.<br />c)Atheist emipricists deny intiuition as a sort of mysticism per my 2nd link<br />d) Intuition is a clear justification for accepting a self-evident proposition as stated by my first link<br />e)Is it still illogical to conclude after these facts that Atheism based on empiricism which explicitly rejects intuition and criteria based on intuition is irrational?The only thing these empiricists did count on,is that First Principles are also based on intuition.Hence they deny their own rationality in the processPhoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-58732638510507182542015-03-30T05:22:17.344-07:002015-03-30T05:22:17.344-07:00Hi Hugo
You said:Agreed. But why do you think tha...Hi Hugo<br /><br />You said:<i>Agreed. But why do you think that this means they are intuitive</i><br />Because intuition is our ability to grasp truths without empirically testing<br />===<br />But the last one is obviously false; how can you say that a position denies the Principles of Logic? I wouldn't know how to do that...//<br /><br />Atheism denies intuition as seen here:Scroll down to the subheading <b>Epistemology, Truth, and Why We Believe What We Believe</b>:<i>Theists commonly rely upon criteria like tradition, custom, revelation, faith, and intuition. <b>Atheists common reject these criteria</b> in favor of correspondence, coherence, and consistency</i>.<br /><br /><br /><i>how can I deny the law of identity? Whatever you see me write, right now on this blog, is what it is. It's not what it's not. It cannot both be something and not something at the same time</i>.<br /><br />But Hugo,what you personally reject and accept has no bearing on the general consensus among Atheists/Matreialists/Physicalists,which is that sensory experience is the only true source of knowledge.<br />Scroll down to the bottom of that same link:<br /><br /><i><b>Atheists tend to be either exclusively or primarily empiricists</b>: they insist that truth-claims be accompanied by clear and convincing evidence which can be studied and tested...<br />...Empiricism, on the other hand, is more uniform in the sense that it denies that any form of rationalism is true or possible. Empiricists may disagree on just how we acquire knowledge through experience and in what sense our experiences give us access to outside reality;<b>nevertheless, they all agree that knowledge about reality requires experience and interaction with reality</b></i>.<br /><br />As you can see,rejection of intuition in favor of empiricism is an Atheist position.And since Atheists reject all knowledge derive from intuition,they therefore reject the principles upon which it is based too.Therefore my syllogism remains structurally valid and sound<br />===<br /><i>See? We just agreed, as 2 sentient human beings that there is some shared reality, which we share, where the First Principles of Logic apply. Regardless of what we think: an objective base reality. We observe that; we learned about it. So it's not intuition. I don't know why you think it is</i>...<br /><br />I'm not aware of any other reliable technique on how to grasp self-evident truths other than intutition.<br /><br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8730395108016836751.post-56145449240460774382015-03-28T01:48:22.940-07:002015-03-28T01:48:22.940-07:00Hi Phoenix,
Quick note first; thanks for taking t...Hi Phoenix,<br /><br />Quick note first; thanks for taking the time to reply with proper sentences devoid of ad hominem and insult of the "other", well me in this case, of being irrational/illogical/... That's what I prefer, and use myself, but sometimes I can use rhetoric to mirror the style of my interlocutor, so sorry if you saw something else, on some other place ;)<br /><br />"<i>But axioms are self-evident,meaning they are obvioiusly true and do not require any explanation or proof.</i>"<br />Agreed. But why do you think that this means they are intuitive?<br /><br />"<i>my conclusion was also used as a premise in my syllogism.I cannot find such an instance.Which premise exactly are you refering to?</i>"<br />I was not explicit that's true, because I thought it was self-evident from what I already told you that your conclusion, regardless of any premise, is false. On its own. You wrote:<br />'IF <br />All knowledge,logic and rational thought are based on axiomatic principles and therefore intuitively known<br />THEN<br />Materialism rejects the First Principles of Logic and it is therefore an irrational worldview.'<br />But the last one is obviously false; how can you say that a position denies the Principles of Logic? I wouldn't know how to do that... how can I deny the law of identity? Whatever you see me write, right now on this blog, is what it is. It's not what it's not. It cannot both be something and not something at the same time.<br /><br />See? We just agreed, as 2 sentient human beings that there is some shared reality, which we share, where the First Principles of Logic apply. Regardless of what we think: an objective base reality. We observe that; we learned about it. So it's not intuition. I don't know why you think it is...<br /><br />Moreover, I would not think that Materialism is a worldview; so I may be wrong about exactly what you mean? To me, it means the belief that nothing non-material has been proven to exist independently of the material world. The non-material world is always defined in terms of the material world. It's the realm of the conceptual; whatever we can think about. We think about numbers, descriptions, links, relations, meaning, beauty, and a lot more adjectives, or even entire field, which do exist and are not material. <br /><br />Looking forward to know what you think about the videos! It is really long indeed. These have been made over several years after all.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com