Convincing to who? :brow: — S

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments.

No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

We do not know which is more likely.

No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS. — Frank Apisa

Theist's position on God is not a guess, it is a conviction that can be convincingly argued for.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are effectively saying that it is not possible to prove that God(s) exist, so in essence all anyone can do is provide a convincing argument. — Maureen

Yes. But reasoned argument can be tantamount to proof. Good argument can, in principle, become so strong that it can't be convincingly refuted.
Proof belongs to the world of primitive matter and primitive diciplines like science and mathematics etc. Science is about how basic material relations obtain; how pieces of matter join together and how energy flows through systems. Mathematics is about numbers, the most primitive objects we can conceive of. Intellect is concerned with these basic truths. But the intellect cannot rise above these things. That is why we have religion, art, music etc, to express ontological realities. In short, no, I don't think God's existence can be proved in these terms but His existence can be argued for so convincingly that the arguments are close to proof.

No. What accrues is a burden of proof.

That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."

Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet. — Frank Apisa

Ok, but I was not talking about assertions I was talking about beliefs. If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof.

Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.

Apologies, I misquoted you.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction. — Frank Apisa

I disagree. Are the arguments on either side not reasonable? A reasonable argument is not necessarily equivalent to truth but it can still be reasonable in terms of what the proponent understands.

By the way...what exactly is your position on the question? — Frank Apisa

My position is that the human intellect is trapped in linguistics and all manner of tautologies; philosophy is almost impossible when it comes to the 'big questions'. The intellect is not capable of understanding complex ontological realities. But the mind has abilities above primitive mentalism. It is conscious of ontological reality. What is needed is a language that can express our consciousness of that ontological reality. Thus far religion has done so, imperfectly.

The intellect can only construct primitive truths; scientific and mathematical truths. But for ontological truths a more evolved 'higher level' language is required; art, religion, music, literature etc are examples of higher language.

Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other. — Frank Apisa

It is not about what is more likely because it is not about chance, it is about what is real. Why would it be about 'blind guessing'? It is about which argument is more persuasive and has the greatest explanatory power.

But the burden does accrue. — Frank Apisa

How can a burden of proof arise if neither side can prove their position? What accrues is a responsibility to present a persuasive argument.

The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — Frank Apisa

Blind guesses? It is neither delusion nor blind guesses. It is an assertion that can be argued for.

No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. — Christoffer

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for.

...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...

...they bear the burden of proof. — Frank Apisa

Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done.

To be 100% confident in making a decision whether to believe in god’s existence or not, you need to study all the related topics (e.g. biology, physiology, psychology, evolution, all religion, etc). Then you would need critical thinking skills to evaluate truth from falsehood and any connections between the subjects. You would also need a lot of time, money and will to do that and this is the reason why so many people cannot speak about the subject meaningfully — akourios

Personally I don't think study or intellect has anything to do with belief in God. It has to do with consciousness. The intellect is not the only way to knowledge. Knowledge (of God and the world) can come directly through consciousness. That is what the atheist cannot accept and dismisses as delusion.

Some would say they are Napoleon. — Frank Apisa

But that is a Dawkinsian assertion of delusion, which you would be required to substantiate. You can 'refute' almost anything by crying 'delusion'. But that is not the way to proceed in a search for what is true.

"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. — Frank Apisa

Some would say they are not unknown. Some say they know God.

Asking for evidence is a very complex question for the atheist to ask. In the simplest sense 'evidence' is just a body of objects, facts, situations etc. Every dust mote, every galaxy, every living being is evidence. Evidence for what?

That is the difference between evidence and 'evidence for'. 'Evidence for' is subjective. Two people can look at a body of facts/evidence and argue differently as to what this body of facts is 'evidence for'.

There is a whole universe of evidence in this sense.

Atheists have convinced many people that the mystery of being is mystery concerning matter and can be addressed in the context of materialism. I disagree. The true mystery of being is an onthological question; the mind is connected to a vast ontological universe of art, mathematics, creativity, religion, music, intelligence. This vast ontological universe is the soul and mystery of being. Why does it exist? What is it?

What the atheist is really asking is "where is the material evidence?" In other words, they are looking for evidence in their own terms. But even in their terms it is everywhere; what is the material universe evidence for? They have their answers prepared. But what about the onthological universe of consciousness and imagination? It is, they argue, an accidental artifact of accidental evolution. In other words, they dismiss it.

You say that if the God exists people could provide 'evidence'. But evidence is everywhere already! What is it evidence for? It is not a question of providing evidence it is a question of providing a coherent and convincing argument as to what the evidence means.
The atheist will respond to this by saying "We want public evidence. Evidence that can be shared and agreed upon." But objective evidence of this kind pertains only to the primitive world of matter and intellect and science. And matter, mathematics and science are primitive and basic. Onthological questions are more sophisticated and evolved. The human intellect is not up to the task. It is earthbound and imprisoned in a web of tautologies and imprecise language.* Materialism and intellect are not able to answer questions concerning ontology and consciousness. The atheist balks at answers that come from consciousness rather than intellect (or a mix both). The only way to answer the atheists is to tell them that these questions pertain to the ontological arena and not (only) the material world.


*As has been said above 'It is possible to be very intelligent and very wrong at the same time'.

I condone neither alcoholism or drugs but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZEivOBQ6nc

The economy is the weakest link in the chain. It may collapse for purely internal reasons (economic meltdown) or it may collapse because of natural disaster, war, over population, soil erosion* etc or a combination of these things.

*Saw a documentary last night on soil erosion and the extermination of all life in the soil due to pesticides. Serious stuff.

Let's see if this holds up. I don't know what the person beside me at work is going to do next. He could commit the changes he's making to a file, he could scrap it, he could yank out the power cable in frustration, etc. I assign actions to each of these and other possible acts he may perform next. But of course, I don't know which he will do, it's unknown to me. So clearly whatever I do next is indeterministic because I lack that knowledge. — MindForged

Well, you may have a point there. Say he pulls the cable and you assign the action 'Check email' to that event. Is there a law of nature that says checking your email is, according to the physical laws of nature, connected to pulling the cable? If he pulls the cable today and you check your email and he pulls it tomorrow and you don't check your email how is that scientifically deterministic? Determinism says that A always follows B but if sometimes it does and sometimes it does not what can we say? What is happening here is that you are making an abstract connection between things, not a directly physical causal connection. So your comment is interesting.*

Normally, if a decision is made, that decision is subject, in principle, to a deterministic unbroken chain of causes in the physical world. At least that point can be argued. But if a digit comes down from the Platonic realm (or whatever you want to call it) and intervenes in the causal chain that causal chain is broken. Yes, it can be argued that the process of locating the digit is deterministic but the value of the digit cannot be physically determined. Also, as I mentioned, the sequence of digits cannot be physically determined. The actions that follow are not following according to physical law; I can choose a different set of actions the next day and respond in a different way to the same digits (the same, but from a different decimal expansion). So if digit 6 has me going to the library today and going to the supermarket tomorrow how can that be physical law if the same digit leads to different results? The connection between the digit and the action is abstract, not physical.


*An action leading to another action, by association, is not the same as an action physically causing another action. There is a difference.

Again, you seem to miss the obvious. The decision is determined and thus whether or not the digits are known beforehand has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. That's epistemology, not metaphysics. — MindForged

That they are not known has to do keeping the experiment 'blind' so that the determinist cannot say there was unconscious interference or brain states influencing things.

The value of the digit is irrelevant because what course of action is done because of the digit in question is the result of the physical states which caused you to put assign each action to each respective number.

Simply associating a number with an action, in advance of the number being known, is not physical determinism. For physical determinism to obtain it must be shown that a physical state determines the choice. The experimenter could as easily have decided that if n is the digit action n+1 will be performed. There is no rigid deterministic connection here.

This has no challenge to determinism at all. "Mathematical reality" isn't determining anything at all here for if it did, the action itself would follow from pure mathematics.

Yes, but it is enough to show that the 'decision' is not physically deterministic. The slightest non deterministic action is enough to prove the case. It is clear enough to me that the 'choice' is determined by mathematical fact, not a physical state. But it is subtle; there are many physically deterministic threads running through this and one has to be careful to see what is deterministic and what is not.

Why does number 1 correspond to " Go to the library"? The answer is because that's what you "chose" to make, and your choice is not arbitrarily outside of determinism.

But it is not just about one choice. There is a sequence of choices corresponding to the sequence of digits and that sequence cannot be decided upon because the sequence of digits is unknown. That is why there is a whole sequence of actions.

The value doesn't determine the choice, the choice determines what the value entails you to do.

See last answer; the sequence itself is not decided upon or chosen. The sequence of actions is determined by how that digits are arranged and that sequence is neither known nor decided upon in advance. Nor is it physically determined.

The choice from the list is determined by which action you "chose" to assign to the digit. How this escapes determinism is beyond me. — MindForged

That is not physical determinism. It is a 'blind' decision because the list is made before the digits are known. Physical determinism says that each physical state is, by way of the physical laws of nature determined by a previous physical state. If this is correct it must be possible to show that the value digit is determined by physical law, but that is not the case. It is determined by mathematical reality. Also, this value is not in the same spirit as the way ordinary applied mathematics determines values. It has nothing to do with applied mathematics. It is a primitive mathematical truth.

That determinism locates the digit has no relevance because it is the value of the digit that determines the choice and that value is a primitive truth, not something that is physically determined. Yes, physical determinism plays a part right up to the point where the digit appears on screen, but thereafter the value of the digit is what determines what happens.

Thats fine, but then you arent really saying much at all here. — DingoJones

I think I am because many determinists - materialists - believe the universe is a physically deterministic machine that is predictable in terms of the physical laws of matter.

Restricting Determinism to direct physical objects is a straw man. — DingoJones

Laplace's original formulation concerned physical law and matter and that is what I am addressing. Mathematical truth is not physically determined by any physical state in the universe. I am not talking here about applied mathematics, I am talking about pure number theory. It is what it is, eternally. That is what is important. Eternal mathematical truth determines what happens, not any physical state.

So basically irrationality or what the number would be used here wasn't important. "Known in advance" is quite vague definition here. By whom? — ssu

By the experimenter. It is necessary that the digit is not known in advance to counter those who say it is having an unconscious influence.

This is a bit confusing. How do you define these two to being "physical", yet then something being "mathematical" as opposition to the first? — ssu

Pure mathematics - as opposed to applied math. - is true, regardless of any physical state.

Those are still determinate events since you could say it was your neurological (clasical) state which chose the irrational number. — JupiterJess

Yes, the original starting number, 11, but not the value of its decimal expansion. One could choose the millionth digit of the expansion of the square root of 2 and that would get around any objection re. 'brain states'.

No, because as I said reality does have a mathematical structure to it. To call that "not reality" is just incoherent, the structure of reality is obviously part of reality. — MindForged

See above re. the difference between applied and pure math. My point is that the value of the digit is not determined by any physical state, yet the digit determines the choice from the list. Therefore the choice is not physically determined. The value of the digit cannot be determined by any physical state - it is what it is beyond matter, space and time. (But as I said, above, my only argument is against physical determinism which argues that every physical state is determined by a previous physical state. But if the choice is determined by a digit, the corresponding event is not physically determined.)

Let me put it this way. We must be careful to keep in mind what physical determinism means. It means that any state can, in principle, be shown to be physically caused by the previous physical state. This assertion depends completely on using the physical laws of nature to demonstrate how one physical state leads to another.

Now, this physical determinism can be shown to obtain right up to the choice of the initial number (11 in this case) but if physical determinism makes the choice from the list then it must be shown how the laws of nature determine that choice. How could this happen?

It cannot happen by way of any brain state because no mental choice is made. The digit determines the choice. But if physical determinism is to obtain all the way through it must be shown how the value of the digit is determined by physical laws. But it is not. It is mathematically determined. This means that the choice is not determined by any physical law because no physical law determines the value of the digit.

Yes, there is, arguably, a great amount of determinism leading up to the arrival of the digit but there is no way that physical law can be shown to effect the choice.

The laws of nature may influence the digit that comes up but influence is not enough. It has to be shown that the choice is physically determined according to physical law but physical law cannot determine the value of the digit. So any physical determinism ends with the arrival of the digit and mathematical determinism takes over from there.

One has to be careful to distinguish between physical determinism influencing things and rigidly determining what happens according to physical law.

In what way is the “choice” the numbers make not moored to the equation itself and thus determined in precisely the same way as other deterministic processes? — DingoJones

This is the crux of the matter. When I say 'determinism' I am talking about physical determinism which says that every physical state is determined by the previous physical state. I am replacing physical determinism with mathematical determinism. What matters is the value of the digit. This value is not physically determined, it is an eternal mathematical truth. This means that the choice is not physically determined, it is mathematically determined. The determinist would say that a choice is determined by a brain state but there is no mental choice here as it is determined not by a brain state but by a digit. The point at which determinism is broken is when the digit is correlated with a number on the list. This correlation is not physically determined as the value of the digit is not physically determined.

So why then irrational numbers in the first place? — ssu

I chose irrational expansions simply because they are more in the spirit of the experiment, as opposed to predictable, repeating, rational expansions that could be known in advance. But there are all kinds of mathematical entities that would suffice.

I think the number has to be transcendental, — ssu

No. All that is required is that the digits are unknown in advance (to counter the argument for brain states making the choice.) I can say 'I will choose the 75th digit in the expansion of the square root of 7'. I then go and see what it is and act accordingly. In this way physical determinism has not made the choice, it has been replaced by mathematical determinism. Any physical determinism that would have made the choice is terminated at the point when the digit intervenes and makes the choice.

At each step of your process there is determinism. When you’re choosing the square root of 11, what to put on your list etc etc — DingoJones

As I think others implied, we would still have to address the decision to 'run' your algorithm in the first place. — macrosoft

Yes, I don't assert a complete escape from determinism. There are many threads of determinism throughout the experiment. Body temperature, heart rate etc. are not necessarily altered. But it is only necessary to focus on one thread; the decision itself. The decision is made by a digit, not by a physical state, therefore it is mathematically determined, but not determined by any physical state during the experiment. Yes, I do choose the starting number, 11, but I don't decide what the digits in the decimal expansion are, nor are they physically determined, they are eternal truths and they cause the choice. It helps if I don't know what the digits are before the experiment, - that way 'brain states' cannot be invoked.


There is no mental choice per se. The choice is mathematically determined. It is determined by digits that are outside any physically deterministic thread. That is the whole point.

The choice to follow the digits is determined, so the paradigm is still in effect. Its pretty inescapable. — DingoJones

Within the experiment many things are arguably determined including the choice to follow the digits but the choice itself is determined by the digit, not by a brain state or physical state: the digits determine what happens next and in this sense the choice itself is not physically deterministic. The digits are not determined to be what they are by any physical state. They are eternal truths.

Half way through it. Very interesting. I like your analysis of 'randomness' and probability.

Yes, the natural world is fallen, like the spirit is. This answers the 'problem' of evil. Not all natural things are directly created by God. Some of it is corrupt, as Hildegard says.

Teleology clearly exists in human affairs; a house is built from the ground up with a plan in mind. Why do materialists argue that while this is ubiquituous in human affairs it is absent in the rest of the natural world?

The example of rain is sometimes cited to illustrate the argument; it does not rain 'to' water the plant. But, looking at it from the opposite view point, we can say that the plant is there 'to' make use of the rain. That is, if the plant is evolved by an intelligence with a view 'to' make use of rain.

So the question of teleology comes down to whether there is intelligence driving evolution.

Kummer said that God created the integers and all else is the work of man. He did not believe that real numbers are real. If we consider, for example, the square root of 2 as an infinite expansion, we can argue that the digits of the expansion are only a 'map' of a (geometric) quantity. What is real is the proportional relationship between the unit and the square roof of 2. In geometry the unit is often taken to be the radius of a circle (or side of a square) and square root 2 is such in proportion to the unit line. When this proportion is translated into a real number the digits map the ratio.

This poses a number of questions-
1. Is the algorithm that generates the digits real? If so, are not the digits also real?
2. Does number precede geometry or vise versa? Some extraordinary infinite series have been discovered that map, with infinite precision, real numbers like Pi, e, etc.

If infinite series can map Pi exactly does that mean that number precedes geometry (space)? Do numbers exist in God's Mind before space or do numbers arise out of (Euclidean) space?

It seems to me that number is more primitive than space and as such they precede space.

The materialist implicitly asserts that a person is no more than a collection of molecules. How can a bunch of molecules produce a person? The person and the psyche are far too sublime and evolved to be merely a property of molecules. So I believe in dualism but not that Trump is a critter...

A mind in isolation is hardly alive. Life is a discourse between minds, between what is self and not self. Life is union.

In the "beginning" God was alone, in the void. 'Then' creation came into being and God emerged from mere existence - the void - into life and being. Through creation God becomes the living God.

Absence of evidence can be, and in some cases is, evidence of absence. — S

The argument hinges on the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

What is evidence? In the simplest terms evidence is a body of facts and objects that are to be interpreted: what do they mean?

The difference between evidence in this basic sense and 'evidence for' is that 'evidence for' exists in the mind. What the evidence supports is determined subjectively according to our mental machinations.

Every dust mote, every star, planet or galaxy is evidence. Every living thing from a house fly to an oak tree is evidence: it is there.

Evidence for what?

Atheists continually use the expression 'evidence for' in terms of provable things. But not all truth is provable in these terms. Therefore 'evidence for' needs to be extended into the subjective realm. That is, when atheists say 'there is no evidence for' they are usually saying 'subjective evidence is not objective evidence'.

But it should always be kept in mind that there is no 'evidence for' anything; evidence is mute. We must interpret it if it is to become 'evidence for' because what the evidence supports is determined in the mind, not out there, objectively. Without mind there is no 'evidence for'.

The slit experiment seems to be reviving idealism given that we supposedly change the universe by observing it. — Martin Krumins

This, to my mind, is a confusion of terms. When a scientist observes a quantum event, that whole process involves

1. Planning the experiment.
2. Implimenting it = detection.
3. Observing the results.

All this comes, loosely, under the heading 'observing'. But, for clarity, these three parts need to be separated. Observation is not important in terms of what physically happens. What is important here is detection. A particle can be detected without observation (the observation can take place months after the fact.)

Detection must be defined as follows:

Quantum particles live in their own spacetime, which is not classical spacetime.
When a quantum event interacts with a classical experiment it leaves a trace effect on the experiment. A spot on a photographic plate is a trace effect.

These trace effects are NECESSARILY classical objects because they exist in classical spacetime. Detection then is defined as a quantum event leaving a classical trace effect on classical spacetime.

Consequently, these trace effects are measured in classical terms. It cannot be otherwise. So the scientists are reduced to interpreting quantum spacetime, in classical terms; the measurements are according to a classical ruler.

The trace effects exist at the interface between quantum spacetime and classical spacetime. But they are classical objects.

If detection is defined in these terms it can be seen that the effect on particles is produced not by observation per se, but by detection; the 'collision' of a particle with a classical object (ie the experimental apparatus, which is a classical object). It is detection, not observation, that effects the change. Changing reality by 'observing' it is a confusion of terms; a confusion between detection and observation.

Time is not simply change. Change is evidence of time but not a definition of it. Time is that order according to which change happens. In the physical universe that order is outlined in General Relativity. (Space)time is essentially a mathematical description of how change happens. That is not exactly the same as our pedestrian experience of change. As for your experiment; the earth, including your room, has moved between Sunday and Monday and this has to be taken into account. The room is not in the same place, therefore it is not in the same time.

The mind is a construct of the brain. — Llum

Hmmm...

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/Living-without-a-Brain.html

Presumably to have it filled instead by wife beaters like Rob Porter, thieves like Scott Puritt, and sexual assault defenders like Bill Shine. — StreetlightX

Yes, but relatively speaking, they are only knaves compared to the truly dark people that have occupied the White House down through the years...

That is a joke, right? — Akanthinos

No it's not a joke! Removing evil people and replacing them with dubious knaves might be a great improvement, relatively speaking. That is all it may take to save the world, for the time being. Where can I find a LoveTrump site?

Trump is to be applauded for at least one thing; he 'drained the swamp' of the genocidal gargoyles and vampires that were crawling all over the White House. Don't be down on Trump, he may have saved the world.

What is the "non-physical mind"? Is it the sum of all the information stored in our brains, like the software is to the hardware of a computer? — Ron Besdansky

In my understanding it is what is traditionally known as 'spirit'. A living mind that does not arise out of material relations.

If a definition of irrational is required it might look something like;

Irrational thinking is when thinking is not in accordance with the natural order of the world.

Someone thinking they can be in Berlin and then be in London 1 minute later is being irrational.
Someone thinking they can be in Berlin and then be in London 1 day later is being rational.

Being rational is when thinking is congruent with the order of the world.

Maybe 'transrational' is a better word than irrational in some cases. Going by Richard Dawkins use of the word rational, religious people might be 'transrational'.

Because if you have free will you have to sin. — GreyScorpio

Not at all. Free will means you have a choice between sin and virtue. If you 'have' to sin you would not have the choice not to.