Religious

[Light]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Interesting post, Light.... And I'll concede that you do make sense when it comes to the brain's unconscious function over our body parts...but this concept of a universal mind is tough to swallow.... First of all, this so-called Universal Mind (UM) has no physical body to sustain it....it does not reside in a brain.... I challenge you to present any physical evidence for a UM....that is just like proving the existence of a god....so I really don't know what you are talking about here...

Just because you can't see something does not mean it does not exist. I cannot see your thoughts and neither can anyone else. Does that mean your thoughts don't exist? Obviously not. If scientists didn't tell you that an invisible magnetic field shields the Earth from the Sun's harmful radiation that is also invisible and would destroy this planet, you wouldn't believe it either. So it looks like you need a majority of scientists to tell you what to believe and what not to believe. As Donald Trump would tweet, SAD.

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I could say that there is a UM that does nothing but wicked stuff and everyone can tap into the energies of THAT UM as well....and how could you prove me wrong...even though I've been tapping into this UM (not really) for forty years also....

Actually that is true. Shows how little you know about the UM. The UM does what you ask it to do. It does not judge you for what you choose to do.

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I'm not buying the define love, beauty and wisdom portion of your post...which I think are just gross anthropomorphisms and products of your desires for this to be true AND your imagination...and I don't know what to make of spiritual beings who visit you in your dreams...

If divine beauty, love and wisdom are unreal as you say, does that mean only fear and hatred are real? Your argument is unreal.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

you need to explain to us how you KNOW that God cannot be understood.

It's common knowledge.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Wanted to make sure everyone could see your pearls of wisdom.

Remember 9-11?

[Actor]

I previously said that a theorem is a statement whose truth value (true or false) can potentially be proven. There is a point-of-view that a theorem becomes a theorem only after it has been proven. Until then it is called a conjecture. I am comfortable with both points of view.

Proofs

A proof is a series of true statements. Generally the first statement (and perhaps others) are assumed to be true simply because it (they) constitutes the given or the premise. If the given is not true then the theorem under consideration does not apply and the whole exercise becomes moot. The last statement is the theorem itself or something equivalent.

If you ever took high school geometry, or beginning geometry in college, you are probably familiar with the two-column proof where the left column holds the series of statements and the right column gives the reason that the corresponding statement is true. Possible reasons are the word “given,” a definition (previously stated of course), an axiom, or a previously proven theorem.

The other kind of proof is the paragraph proof. The distinction is primarily one of formatting. One could create a paragraph by taking a two-column proof and simply writing all the statements and reasons in free form. In practice a paragraph proof often omits some or all of the reasons because the writer assumes that the reader can follow the proof without having every detail pointed out. When reasons are included they may be coupled to the corresponding statement with a word such as “because” or “since.” It’s all a matter of style.

A two-column proof may have a statement of the theorem at the top and the letters QED (quod erat demonstrandum , meaning “thus it has been demonstrated.”). This is sometimes a requirement of a teacher.


A proof is, of course, a kind of argument. But not all arguments are proofs. A proof unequivocally demonstrates the truth of a theorem. Some arguments are not intended to prove something but to persuade. This is true of most arguments about philosophy and religion.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Remember 9-11?

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." - Victor Stenger

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Light

Just because you can't see something does not mean it does not exist.

But if you not only cannot see something, but also cannot hear it, cannot feel it, cannot smell it, cannot taste it, cannot detect it with the aid of any form of instrumentation, cannot rationally deduce its existence from any data gathered from the aforementioned, then why assume that it does exist?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

It's common knowledge.

Thanks for the non-answer. As stated previously, your lame theory refutes itself. You Shirley would have to understand something about the non-understandable to say that it's not understandable, otherwise your statement is without meaning.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Haven't you been paying attention? The answer is no. Do you recall the uncertainty principle?

Then you cannot possibly be certain of anything you say, including the uncertainty principle which you champion! Nor can anyone be certain that they'll understand you. Therefore, the uncertainty principle is thoroughly self-defeating.

Once again, congratulations, Mr. Wanna-be philosopher of logic.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How convenient for you to extract some passage from Feser's book which references an earlier chapter in the same book, a book that I have not read. This excerpt makes no sense by itself. It's like I came in in the middle of a movie with a very complex plot.

If you want me to read Feser's book I'll get right on that as soon as you convince me that you've read Dawkins.

How convenient that you can't grasp the impeccable logic of the excerpt. By the way, people quote excerpts all the time. I quoted a large enough excerpt for the very purpose of providing meaningful context. Plus you had the important background information from my previous posts concerning the Four Causes.

The only thing that I will add to the excerpt is that of the four causes, there are only two in this physical universe that tell us what a thing IS -- the formal and material causes -- these two being inseparable. With this firmly fixed in your mind, go back and read the excerpt. It's impossible for the form to exist in the physical brain! Again, Feser:

But now suppose that the intellect is a material thing -- some part of the brain or whatever. Then for the form to exist in the intellect is for the form to exist in a certain material thing. But for a form to exist in a material thing is just for that material thing to be the kind of thing the form is a form of; for example, for the form of 'dogness' to exist in a certain parcel of matter is just for that parcel of matter TO BE a dog. And in that case, if your intellect was just the same thing as some part of your brain, it follows that that part of your brain would become a dog whenever you thought about dogs. "But that's absurd!", you say. Of course it is; that's the point. Assuming that the intellect is material leads to such absurdity; hence the intellect is not material. (emphases mine)

And why in the world would I read Dawkins or any other naturalist since Naturalism is a self-defeating worldview!? Since Naturalism is incoherent, logically, then what makes you think the science that flows from the logic would ever convince me!? If the stream is polluted that is feeding the well, why would I corrupt my own mind by drinking from the poisoned well?
Shirley, you can grasp the wisdom of my words, right?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then you cannot possibly be certain of anything you say, including the uncertainty principle which you champion! Nor can anyone be certain that they'll understand you. Therefore, the uncertainty principle is thoroughly self-defeating.

No, not thoroughly. Although one can never be 100% certain of anything one can reduce uncertainty to a very low level. For example, I cannot be 100% certain that there is no god but I estimate that the uncertainty is less than one part per billion.

Thus one can have confidence (in the statistical sense) that something is true, enough confidence that one can function in this world.

If you need a definition of "confidence in the statistical sense" I suggest you read The Mathematics of Horse Racing by David B. Fogel.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Vigors...you seem to have a distinct "philosophical bent". Could you please tell me your definition of "philosophy"? What is this "knowledge" that the "philosopher" is such a "lover" of?

The easy and somewhat traditional philosophical answer is "Know Thyself"
....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself.....

I also rather like Arthur Schopenhauer's definitions as well...


"Philosophy ... is a science, and as such has no articles of faith; accordingly, in it nothing can be assumed as existing except what is either positively given empirically, or demonstrated through indubitable conclusions.[102]"

"This actual world of what is knowable, in which we are and which is in us, remains both the material and the limit of our consideration.[103]"

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Again, this argument comes from the pen of Dr. Feser -- from his Last Superstition. It's a little closely worded -- a little abstract -- but most with average intelligence should be able to grasp the gist of it. The warp 'n' woof of the argument is that, logically, it's not possible that the intellect is the material brain itself. The intellect is the immaterial mind.

Originally Posted by Feser

Why the Intellect is the Mind and not the Brain:

This is a statement of the theorem.

Define intellect. Define mind. Define brain.

The principles of logic which I have described require this. Until you do that the theorem has no meaning.

Originally Posted by Feser

Now the rational soul, since it includes the powers of nutritive and sensory souls, cannot fail to be to a very great extent dependent on matter for its operations.

In a two-column proof this sentence would probably be stated thus:

1. The rational soul is dependent on matter for its operations. // The rational soul includes the powers of nutritive and sensory souls.

Due to the limitations of BB code I have used the double slash as a delimiter between the statement and its reason.

I'll accept matter and operation as primitives.

Define:

• rational
• soul
• dependent
• power
• nutritive
• sensory

"The rational soul includes the powers of nutritive and sensory souls" is not axiomatic, ergo, you have to prove it. In fact, until you define the above terms, it has no meaning.

Get back to me when you've done that.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

This is a statement of the theorem.

Define intellect. Define mind. Define brain.

The principles of logic which I have described require this. Until you do that the theorem has no meaning.

In a two-column proof this sentence would probably be stated thus:

1. The rational soul is dependent on matter for its operations. // The rational soul includes the powers of nutritive and sensory souls.

Due to the limitations of BB code I have used the double slash as a delimiter between the statement and its reason.

I'll accept matter and operation as primitives.

Define:

• rational
• soul
• dependent
• power
• nutritive
• sensory

"The rational soul includes the powers of nutritive and sensory souls" is not axiomatic, ergo, you have to prove it. In fact, until you define the above terms, it has no meaning.

Get back to me when you've done that.

Define define. And by the way, you won't be able to because you subscribe to the Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, you can't be certain of the definition of that term or any other. (Who was the "genius" who thought up that lame theory?)

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And why in the world would I read Dawkins or any other naturalist since Naturalism is a self-defeating worldview!? Since Naturalism is incoherent, logically, then what makes you think the science that flows from the logic would ever convince me!? If the stream is polluted that is feeding the well, why would I corrupt my own mind by drinking from the poisoned well?
Shirley, you can grasp the wisdom of my words, right?

And why in the world would I read Feser or any other apologist since Religion is a self-defeating worldview!? Since Religion is incoherent, logically, then what makes you think the dogma that flows from the logic would ever convince me!? If the stream is polluted that is feeding the well, why would I corrupt my own mind by drinking from the poisoned well?

Shirley, you can grasp the wisdom of my words, right?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, not thoroughly. Although one can never be 100% certain of anything one can reduce uncertainty to a very low level. For example, I cannot be 100% certain that there is no god but I estimate that the uncertainty is less than one part per billion.

Thus one can have confidence (in the statistical sense) that something is true, enough confidence that one can function in this world.

If you need a definition of "confidence in the statistical sense" I suggest you read The Mathematics of Horse Racing by David B. Fogel.

But how do you know you can't be even so much as .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 ? certain of anything? For example, you're very, very, very certain that evolution is factual; yet I have falsified naturalism with the law of noncontradiction. In other law says, NOT A CHANCE!