[QUOTE=Voyager]
Not believing something for which no evidence has been found doesn’t imply a belief that no evidence can be found. It is perfectly ok to change a belief based on new evidence - scientist do this all the time. What’s not ok - well, not logical, is to believe because maybe someday evidence will be found.
[/quote]
I understand that perfectly, which is the reason why I draw a line between you and Der Trihs in these arguments. If you haven’t noticed, I use your name specifically to describe a rational atheist. The irrational atheists could do well to look to your example.
I don’t need to prove it. If I come across real evidence, I’ll be sure to tell the world, until then there isn’t much to be done. So the answer is ‘I’m not doing anything to find it.’
[QUOTE=mswas]
No one has provided his vaunted evidence.
[/QUOTE]
As has been pointed out again and again,the fact that drugs, brain surgery, head blows and so forth affect the mind, and the fact that quite a lot has been done to relate brain activity to the mind. ALL the evidence is that brain = mind. All the evidence.
The evidence for some sort of soul is . . . zero. The evidence that a soul is even possible . . . zero. The evidence against a soul - substantial, considering that destruction of potions of the brain destroys portions of the self.
Once again, we see how a religious belief boils down to the denial of reality.
[QUOTE=mswas]
What convinces you that what you see with your eyes is real as opposed to your brain playing tricks on you? How do you know that the evidence of your senses is not an elaborate trick played by your brain? How do you know that what you think is rational is not merely internally consistent, and that the external agreement of others outside of you isn’t simply your brain telling you that consensus agrees with your persistent hallucination?
[/QUOTE]
Thank you Mr. Descartes. Know in the absolute sense? I don’t. Know in the very high probability sense, I do, since I continue to conduct experiments in the consistency of the universe, which is falsifiable, and those experiments lead to supporting results. I’ll get back to you when my front windows show sun and my rear windows show rain. See Heinlein, R. “Them.”
[QUOTE=Voyager]
What evidence are you waiting for, and what are you doing to find it?
[/QUOTE]
That’s an excellent question. I’m glad I found evidence that satisfies me.
[QUOTE=mswas]
As far as it goes, if you can explain in the natural world, explain to me what it was like before the Big Bang.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the definitive answer to that question:
I don’t know, but I am trying to find out.
See how easy that is? No “god of the gaps”, no mysticism, no theology, no need for blind faith or guessing. This is the very reason science trumps theology every time. Gather the evidence, make your best possible estimation of the facts, and be willing to adjust your estimation when new evidence comes in.
[QUOTE=mswas]
No one has provided his vaunted evidence.
Apparently, “OMG Cite” is only ok when atheists do it.
[/QUOTE]
Please, your education is not our responsibility. You’re not asking for a simple cite, you’re asking for a good chunk of medical science dealing with the brain. Go find anything dealing with brain damage or the effects of drugs. You also might want to look up the immense lack of evidence supporting any other theory dealing with it. If you were really interested in the subject, you would have already tried to find something on it, rather than just thinking you’re clever trying to turn the ‘evidence please’ request that stymies faith based assertions.
As has been pointed out to me before, yes you can. You can prove brain =/= personality by giving any evidence that it is so. To date, no one has ever done that. Understand that concept.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Thank you Mr. Descartes. Know in the absolute sense? I don’t. Know in the very high probability sense, I do, since I continue to conduct experiments in the consistency of the universe, which is falsifiable, and those experiments lead to supporting results. I’ll get back to you when my front windows show sun and my rear windows show rain. See Heinlein, R. “Them.”
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but all of your experiments are based on the evidence of your senses. Even reading words. How do you know that there are actually any words on this screen, or that there even is a screen? How do you know that your entire world is not a hallucination and that it doesn’t seem consistent merely because you tell yourself it is consistent, and therefore come up with a ruleset that tells you it is consistent? How do you know that you aren’t simply the only person in the entire world and aren’t simply making it up? What do your experiments mean if they themselves are merely a hallucination?
[QUOTE=mswas]
You guys don’t understand the definitions. You insist. “Please within my atheist framework, convince me of the existance of God. But remember that axiomatically God does not exist.” Generally God is considered ‘Beyond Limits’. You are expecting me to prove God’s existance within the limits. If something is beyond the bounds of the natural world, how is it exactly that I am to prove God’s existance to you within the bounds of the natural world? The Natural world is a concept held within God’s mind. (Metaphorically speaking), and you want me to define God based upon the limits of something less than God.
[/QUOTE]
So, your world with god is absolutely indistinguishable from your world without god? And this is your evidence?
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
Please, your education is not our responsibility. You’re not asking for a simple cite, you’re asking for a good chunk of medical science dealing with the brain. Go find anything dealing with brain damage or the effects of drugs. You also might want to look up the immense lack of evidence supporting any other theory dealing with it. If you were really interested in the subject, you would have already tried to find something on it, rather than just thinking you’re clever trying to turn the ‘evidence please’ request that stymies faith based assertions.
[/quote]
I see. So you do not require evidence for your assertions. You are above such petty things. I understand.
I do understand basic neurology BTW. In my study of neurology and cognitive science, I have never seen anything that says, that the brain IS the personality, only that they are related.
You are merely making imperious proclamations. You aren’t providing any evidence. So by Der Trihs logic, you must be lying.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Yes, but all of your experiments are based on the evidence of your senses. Even reading words. How do you know that there are actually any words on this screen, or that there even is a screen? How do you know that your entire world is not a hallucination and that it doesn’t seem consistent merely because you tell yourself it is consistent, and therefore come up with a ruleset that tells you it is consistent? How do you know that you aren’t simply the only person in the entire world and aren’t simply making it up? What do your experiments mean if they themselves are merely a hallucination?
[/QUOTE]
My senses are part of the world I’m examining. In a boring talk after lunch I see things that aren’t there all the time. They don’t have the same characteristics as normal things. And you are using “know” very loosely. I spent a whole “Theory of Knowledge” class listening to some philosophy majors arguing with the professor that we can’t “know” anything, so this isn’t my favorite position in the world.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
My senses are part of the world I’m examining. In a boring talk after lunch I see things that aren’t there all the time. They don’t have the same characteristics as normal things. And you are using “know” very loosely. I spent a whole “Theory of Knowledge” class listening to some philosophy majors arguing with the professor that we can’t “know” anything, so this isn’t my favorite position in the world.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you guys always lose sight of the thread of discussion? I don’t buy into this sort of argument either, it was in response to, “How do you know that your experience of the divine wasn’t a hallucination?”
Why is maintaining a thread of context to that which you are responding so difficult?
[QUOTE=mswas]
I see. So you do not require evidence for your assertions. You are above such petty things. I understand.
I do understand basic neurology BTW. In my study of neurology and cognitive science, I have never seen anything that says, that the brain IS the personality, only that they are related.
[/QUOTE]
Saying that, especially in a paper, would imply proof, which is impossible. The hypothesis that the personality is solely resident in the brain (and is affected by other parts of the body) is supported by the evidence you mention, and has not yet been falsified. In fact, predictions on finding physical mechanisms for aspects of our personality have come true. That’s as good as it gets.
Holy shit, you were able to find a website that reiterates your position! Wow, I’m convinced! How could I have ever missed this?
I understand the concept of burden of proof. The context wasn’t about God, the context was about proving that the brain =/= personality. So within the context of the anti-theist screed that you posted, how would I go out and prove the negative that the ‘brain =/= personality’, unless of course you are referring to falsifying the hypothesis which isn’t the same as proving a negative.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Saying that, especially in a paper, would imply proof, which is impossible. The hypothesis that the personality is solely resident in the brain (and is affected by other parts of the body) is supported by the evidence you mention, and has not yet been falsified. In fact, predictions on finding physical mechanisms for aspects of our personality have come true. That’s as good as it gets.
[/QUOTE]
A bucket of water contains water, but that doesn’t mean bucket = water.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
If it was anything like your “study” of world religions, it was probably a quick Wiki scan, you lovable Syncretist Sewer-rat, you!
[/QUOTE]
Stop staring through my window you perv. It ain’t my fault you hang your entire opinion of me on the fact that I said Akhenaten when I meant Aten.
