For now, I'll settle for just playing my part. This is not an easy nut to crack.

This is not a paradox, it is just another way of representing your 'failure to compute'. There is no logic in it. First, the relative scale is out of order. How can a person go from processing X years of personal experience (x = your age) and 13 billion years worth of relative information, in memories, within a day and then regress to being a primitive human whose lacking that capacity in the first place? It's like waking up to find my computer has regressed to an abacus... ... ...it hasn't.

Also, if everything we know about yesterday is false, why should today or now be any realer? Isn't today a progression from yesterday?
If the dream is illusory then what you dream about are still illusions. Aren't the objects/subjects of illusions real within the illusion? That's how real everything is.

I would define the self as that point of reference which is fundamental to awareness or consciousness and from which it is operated. Also, the point of reference from which everything (else) is external.
All activity, mental, emotional, physical, etc, takes place through mechanisms employed by the self and are indispensable to its mode of expression. However, without awareness or consciousness, neither of the parts nor the sum of the mechanisms can be said to be a person.

A) a person = their thoughts, feelings, (including beliefs) and actions. — LSDC

Not quite. Thoughts, feelings and actions are expressed by a person but do not constitute that identity we may refer to as self. I think it's because the self is constant while thoughts, feelings and actions are transient.

B) thoughts and feelings govern actions, and vice verca. — LSDC

There seems to be empirical truth in that, though exceedingly subjective in its manifestation.

And, even then am I morally obligated to relieve others of their suffering had I known how unpleasant the feeling is? — Posty McPostface

Would you want it done for you? Then, I think you know what you ought to do.

I say this because life is inherently filled with suffering. — Posty McPostface

I don't believe in this. I think our perspective is clouded by pain and suffering. Maybe out of fear, maybe out of weakness or maybe it's just plain ignorance.
There was a time we wanted to keep the stat quo on the idea that the earth was flat, some people still do. Currently, we're overcoming the point of view that women are inferior to men and that there are races of people superior to others. Pain and suffering may seem inherent in life until you meet that buddhist monk who asks, "what do hardships have to do with pain and suffering?" People who climb everest, if they're well prepared, endure the hardships but do not succumb to pain and suffering.
I think pain and suffering are indications of particular conditions (hardships, maybe?) which demand our attention and how we respond determines the nature of our future interactions in those conditions.

Is there any inherent meaning in suffering? — Posty McPostface

There's a degree of rationale which gives a person the capacity to extract value from every experience. However, the mitigating factor can be expressed in the sentiment, "if we value pain and suffering by the good it provides, then we may never want it to cease. For how can we choose to deprive ourselves of anything beneficial."
Perhaps, finding other ways to cultivate the same benefits is a better path;
or perhaps, a shift in attitude would serve just as well, for example, suppose instead of referring to it as pain and/or suffering, we chose to call it a condition of extreme focus of attention in our awareness. Maybe it's a response to the latter that we determine the appropriate course of actions which enable us to avoid future pain and suffering.

It's not about comparisons but ends. The kind of ends which should determine means. Science tells us that there's an average amount of calories that the average person needs. Some may argue that they need more or less than that but the question is why would a person need more or less than what is within the acceptable range? The answer can only be necessity and it can only be employed through discipline, simplicity and moderation, yet, what we observe in the world is the opposite.
Nature is the best way to determine the measure of anything. It does not exaggerate. Humans don't need to be overweight or underweight; we do not need millions or tens, hundreds or thousands of millions in currency when others have almost nothing; we do not need habits that yield little to no value in knowledge; we do not need to distort information, etc, etc.
We've become blind to the objective because we're too busy trying to be different from others of our kind. How much sense is in doing that? Jimmy Cliff (in the song 'I'm gonna live, I'm gonna love') says, "it's not nice to be all by yourself, it's not wise to see heaven through one eye,...". That's economics right there!

I think, ideally, economics is or should be the science of utility. However, there are too many deviations due to flawed human practices (competitions and conflicts) such that its empirical value is almost always distorted. It's kind of like how it was when science was restrained by politics such that scientists could only share what was acceptable to the governing authority. It's the same right now - human practices are in defiance with the objective principles governing utility because we are too self-serving in our trade relations such that we have redefined the term satisfaction. Stupid ideas like 'everybody has a number', thanks to wall street and their ilk, have now got everybody thinking their number is 'more'.

I would settle for just an end of arrogance of ones position, an end to sarcasm as tactic, and a significant increase in respect for each other's reasonable beliefs. — Rank Amateur

This is the answer I had in mind. For me, it represents the right perspective.

Quite an interesting point of view. I will consider your perspective.

Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. — Pattern-chaser

Unfortunately. But, a man can hope.

Well said. However, is there any part of the OP that contradicts any logical proceeding on the topic. I should hope I have neither over nor under estimated the value of any analytical undertaking. Again, I'm merely emphasizing adherence to appropriate perspective.

I think in this argument ignorance or an exercise in ignorance would be imprudence, disregard, carelessness, ineptitude, etc or any other description that would give the context of lack of in-depth analysis or lack of due evaluation.

Nothing is being negated.
I'm just saying that the argument needs to be represented in the right perspective.

Imo, people tire of the "debate" (it's never actually a debate) because they realize it is an exercise in ignorance, which ignorance pursued is the definition of stupidity. — tim wood

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

Sorry, I got a little dramatic with the title. I should have said, "an end to the 'proof of God' debate."

In offering this position I note that millions experience a connection to a being greater than themselves through means other than the classical five senses. — jksmba

How is the experience acquired? If conjured up by the mental faculty then it is a concept. If from an external source (external to the identity of self) then it would be a percept. I think what you mean is intuition, the products of which, are concepts until determined otherwise.
Another way of looking at it is that, the source of a percept is objective in its relation to different percipients while the source of a concept is always subjective no matter how closely a concept resembles that of another concipient. Without an external phenomenon that distinctly amounts to God, His role in our perspectives will always be limited to that of a concept. However, this does not discredit His influence on us since the mental faculty is the crux of all our activities.

Hi, I think your approach to the idea of life after death is decent. However, I was wondering, if you avoid the religious/spiritual point of view, what will you say about consciousness that makes it something that should survive after death. In other words, why should it?
Secondly, how is consciousness in relation to our human lives, that is, does it have the capacity to act beyond our physical domain while we're still alive or does it have to wait until the body dies?

It's not a perfect method but my hope is it could prevent from a lot of misunderstandings and unnecessary deviations in the arguments.

Not just any strawman. Perhaps a jolly strawman named Bob as opposed to the clown strawman of many mocking faces.

But how can I be sure that you are a fellow human being rather than a bot that will only waste my time?
Perhaps if you defined what you are through some assemblage of words, it would help. — Mariner

'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist, if you tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in' ~ Noam Chomsky. — Wayfarer

That 'if' is my point.

Any further conditioning to an otherwise vague identity offers a volume of clues as to what the argument really is about. It paints a better picture for the context. Then again, a vague premise in the OP that would allow divergence into many different arguments might rack up more responses and/or address many related issues.
Choose wisely, grasshopper. :wink:

It's a debate no one needs any extra incentive other than a starting premise. However, by defining your identity of God, we get to see the degree of understanding you have. It prevents people from hiding behind vague screens.

Agreed. But that doesn't stop the hocus-pocus. So it's best to find better control of the discourse.

Do you accept as valid any and every claim you cannot invalidate? — tim wood

No. I can only accept as valid what I validate.

And I might as well ask what you mean by "valid." — tim wood

By valid I mean reasonable.

Knowledge of facts beyond the domain of human conduct has been of little significance to religion. There's no religion where a deity/deities uses the concept of creation of the universe to inform on morality. Such information is always used to develop the context in which to understand God's authority. It is information used to show that the deity/deities in question do have a superior point of view and therefore maybe worth the attention and due consideration.

Religion is more concerned with the facts of human conduct. Surprisingly, most religions have provided greater illumination into human conduct than any branch of science. In fact, I would argue there is nothing about the scientific study of human conduct that is not previously represented in religion. And for those who would like to argue against the kinds of instances such as where psychological conditions and diseases were not previously recognised as such, then it becomes a question of perception, language and expression of information but not its unavailability.

In terms of human conduct, religious teachings are superior to scientific teachings especially in their authority, integrity and discipline towards managing human behaviour. Religious teachings manage to ward off any sort of addiction rooted in our physical organisation (and this takes into consideration the likes of shamanism which, for longer than modern science, has promoted the use of certain drugs), a trend I would wish science to emulate in its participation in our lives.

I am one of those who, even though not adhering to any particular religion, advocate for the revision and transformation of religions into domains defined predominantly by critical analysis, intelligent beneficial methodology and strict jurisdiction in application of discipline. I don't think such an endeavour can be undertaken by people who do not fully appreciate the value of religion.

I'm not talking about truth or falsity. Why would anyone do that when we're not dealing in facts? I'm suggesting that it's primarily about a certain relationship with information we have regardless of evidence. For example, I don't have to be religious to know and to relate with the concept of a religious God or religious anything. What I need is the relevant information and to understand the context. As such, at least, I can claim to have decent perspective in the matter.

The fantastic claim are just as relatable as any scientific claims given the right perspective. The problem is we're too quick to deny what isn't seeking our validation. And why? Perhaps, because of fear of being invalidated. I think those who are antagonistic to religion would think that religion is antagonistic to them. Imho there's often very little adherence to logic by those who argue against religion because most of them ignore a significant portion of what religion is.

Big shot lawyer says to aspiring partner, "I'm sorry, but we have to let you go. It's been 3 years and you're basically still an ambulance chaser. You're ridiculous, look at your peers, most have one or two big clients. What've you got?"
Aspiring partner replies, "Why should I settle for those small fish when I've got the biggest client ever? My client's got an endless supply of calamities for us to solve. I've been making more money than all my peers combined, are you sure you want to let me go?"
Big shot lawyer is surprised and asks, "Oh, who's this client?"

Aspiring partner replies,

What if belief is taken to be a frame of reference. It may just be another context for perspective developed in relation to certain information. As such, it would account for the many faiths, religions, etc and would be impossible to invalidate without concrete proof which reveals otherwise. Also, as a frame of reference, it can be tagged to new facts or information e.g. God created the atoms, quarks, etc., God develops humans through evolution, or God is involved in whatever we discover or invent in the future,...

Since God is not presented as a being to observe and point to as, "hey, there he is," but is supposed to be evident through a distinct set of circumstances and activities, therefore, whichever interpretation is given of God, if it doesn't match up to the original defining information, then it outlines a different circumstance or activity and therefore a different identity other than God. This applies to all who question why an omni-scient/potent/present God can't or isn't this or that. Just by having limitations in the question, they have already excluded the omni-scient/potent/present God they hoped to refer to.

In this way, it's about how we relate to information about God that determines for each individual whether God exists or doesn't. To me, this seems like a reasonable and practical way to perceive belief. Any takers?

Could be true.

And, "But the pendulum swings both ways — a fake-drunk subject could conceivably get a fake-hangover, Kirsch says, pointing to the "nocebo effect," where subjects taking a placebo experience negative side effects purely based on pessimistic expectation. In one extreme example, a participant in an anti-depressant trial attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on the pills he had been provided as part of his study." - https://psmag.com/social-justice/placebo-week-getting-drunk-beer-alcohol-expectations-92254 For the full explanation.

How cool is that? (Scientifically cool, not suicide cool.)

And this brings us to the placebo. This is an example of the conscious mind influencing the unconscious part of the brain. The conscious action and thought from mind to brain: "I took a pill that will help me." and the unconscious signal from the brain to the body: "We are being helped so calm down/stop whatever you're doing." The reason the placebo-effect is so interesting is because it shows the mind's ability to influence unconscious processes in the body. — Tzeentch

https://listverse.com/2013/02/16/10-crazy-facts-about-the-placebo-effect/ Check out number 8 on the list. How does the conscious mind impair itself without administration of actual alcohol?

I think mind over matter is an apt way of representing this phenomenon but, as Alan Wallace seems to insist (from the video link), given that we know little about what the mind is, it may be a gross dismissal of a significantly predominant phenomenon. He (Alan Wallace) asks us to see the relationship between mind and brain as a co-relation instead of any particular dependency.

For those who want to think that it's all about the brain, a purely physical phenomenon, consider that the mind might have a distinct effect on brain chemistry from beyond the domain of neuron activity, for example, https://brainworksneurotherapy.com/what-are-brainwaves, which states that, "Gamma is also above the frequency of neuronal firing, so how it is generated remains a mystery. It is speculated that gamma rhythms modulate perception and consciousness, and that a greater presence of gamma relates to expanded consciousness and spiritual emergence." However, it is impossible to think that it relates to the physical brain without a physical mechanism. So, perhaps, it's a matter of 'we'll eventually discover the connection'.

Personally, I like to think that both mind and brain participate in the phenomenon we call a mental state, somehow like how electric and magnetic capacities interact in metals. They are both distinct phenomena which can best be said to co-relate.

The placebo effect may also go beyond our mental states and have a far reaching physical effect, for example, it can boost immunity which can have a drastic impact on harmful microorganisms in our bodies, which I think is quite an improvement from the usual psychosomatic conditions like stress-related migrains.

I'm reading some stuff from the net and I'm seeing ranges of 20-60%, depending on the test, and it's increasingly mystifying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLbSlC0Pucw

I found this quite illuminating, check it out.

I don't think there's a mind-body problem and why should I? Why should the mind (or any other abstract aspect) or the body be anything other than what it is? We don't know everything about what it means to be human, not even the full monty about our physical bodies, so why assign conclusions based on ignorance. In the first place, why conclude anything?

When we refer to mind or body, we mean a field of activity, influence, interactive associations, etc, all of which play a significant part of every human being. So where's the problem? Is it because we don't see it? Do we see everything? Is it because it's not material in character? Not everything we acknowledge is material, consider gravity.

The idea that the abstract and physical are antagonists is a product of esoteric spiritual teachings which filtered through religious teachings and now almost everybody wants to see them that way. What most people miss is that, originally, the teachings were symbolic. What they meant was that if focus is limited to any of the two paradigms, then the other gets undervalued. We should not forget that life unfolds through both. There's no external without internal and vice versa. Abstract just implies internal.

It is impossible to have two distinct absolutes. The immovable object and the irresistible force are one and the same.

Ok, now I get your conundrum. To that I can only say that, existence has never been limited to what we perceive as physical or material. Some things, e.g. mind, consciousness, soul, spirit, etc, are best understood in the context they're given even if they're not immediately relatable. Familiarity may improve with time as they are further delineated with reference to our activities. All I know is that consciousness, mind, body, biological, chemical, etc, they're all part of nature and there's no need to try to define them beyond our perspective. They definitely have the same origin as everything else no matter how mysterious they may seem.

If men shouldn't because they're too violent, should women, who are too timid be trusted with power. I think there has to be a better balance.

If women were better suited to saving the world, they would not be passive by-standers as men sank everything into oblivion. Let's face it, neither men nor women know better when it comes to saving the world. Which brings me back to my point that, what's needed is more intelligence about managing human affairs. We need to be able to collectively realise the greater need, be able to collectively organise our priorities appropriately, be able to collectively overcome our personal limitations for the greater good, develop greater collective self-control to avoid unnecessary antagonism, etc, etc.

Women may seem like better choices from certain points of view in social interactions but from a leadership stance, history shows how fickle they've been compared to men. From my perspective, everything considered, I'll call it a tie between them. It's an unholy balance between men who've been too ambitious to realise the limit to their capacities and women who've been too submissive to exert any significant orientation to the overall course of human progress especially against the mire we currently find ourselves in. Just like a bicycle would stop regardless of whether the brakes were applied to the front or back wheels, so also negative impulses in human development could have been extensively diminished by either men or women, leaders or followers. The fact that none has been any the wiser to fully realise their role to the greater society, speaks volumes about the application of human intelligence thus far.

I can understand an irreducible particle having something like gravitational force — CasKev

Maybe even other forces whose interplay generates a host of interactive phenomena which we may eventually call a universe and such.

because being irreducible means that there are no component parts, leaving nowhere for the information to be stored. — CasKev

An irreducible particle may not be a composite of distinct components but it is itself a component, especially when there's others like itself, and may have information as an inherent quality. For example, a force may contribute as information in the way it interacts with the particle and with other particles and forces.

I think having characteristics implies internal programming, otherwise, what would they be characteristics of?

Even quarks have inherent characteristics which, as far as are known, determine how they organize into various configurations.

There's this concept in esoteric spirituality, I can't convince you how logical it is, but it teaches that there is involution and evolution of life. Involution means something like how characteristics and inherent tendencies come to be part of the inner disposition while evolution is how the outer transforms in relation to external interactions. Therefore, involution is concerned with development of the instinctive/innate aspects while evolution determines the development of interactive aspects. Anyway, in summary, they both work in unison such that intelligence is a combination of both in any activity, and it's only our perspective which determines how we perceive it. Basically, to me, randomness/chaos is just unrealised order.

For me, every quality has a corresponding quantity or every form has a corresponding force, both of which determine the mode of activity to be expressed.