Thoughts exist, but not in the physical world. With any man-made instrument you can't point at or identify something physical, and know that "hey, now, that there thing is the physical manifestation of thought." — god must be atheist
Extrapolating from this: maybe god exists, too, in the same functional way as thought and consciousness exist. God can be thought of as a temporarily created existence by the mind. — god must be atheist
You're right. I should have said "we have no evidence that thoughts exist physically." So... then the question to ask you begs itself, "DingoJones, do all things, of the physical existence of which we have no physical evidence, exist as physical things? Must they necessarily exist as a physical thing? Why must we assume that they do exist in a physical manifestation in the physical world?"I would say this is where it breaks down. You start with the conclusion that thoughts do not exist in physically but you havent established that. Just because we dont have man made instruments to measure something doesnt mean it doesnt exist physically. — DingoJones
Even if god existed in some intangible way we would still be able to detect gods interactions with the physical in the same way that detect thoughts interacting with the physical. — DingoJones
You're right. I should have said "we have no evidence that thoughts exist physically." So... then the question to ask you begs itself, "DingoJones, do all things, of the physical existence of which we have no physical evidence, exist as physical things? Must they necessarily exist as a physical thing? Why must we assume that they do exist in a physical manifestation in the physical world?" — god must be atheist
My approach is this: I calls them as I sees them. If there is no evidence of a thing, and there is no reasonable need to assume of that thing to exist, then I treat it as non-existent. There may be and are other approaches, but I am satisfied to have it my way. — god must be atheist
If gods decided to interact with us. Why or why not they do or don't I don't know. At present time, again, they never showed us any initiative to communicate -- that is, initiative, that I can believe. — god must be atheist
Or maybe they just suffer from a failure to adequately define - or understand - their own words. Of course thoughts exist. So does this baseball bat. Can a materialist philosopher tell the difference? And if they say they cannot, shall we hit him or her with both as an exemplary lesson in not being stupid?So materialist philosophers who deny the existence of intangibles are wrong. — god must be atheist
So materialist philosophers who deny the existence of intangibles are wrong. — god must be atheist
I suppose it depends on how you define god — DingoJones
"Cogito ergo sum." I think therefore I am. If I did not exist, I could not think, therefore thinking alone proves undoubtedly to myself that I exist. — god must be atheist
"I think"; notice that it already contains "I"? That is, it already assumes what it is attempting to prove. — Banno
It's a shame that the other thread was too technical, but perhaps the discussion therein can be set out clearly with less technical language. — Banno
To me "I think" is not an assumption, but an empirical observation. — god must be atheist
thought, soul, spirit, consciousness, as mere functions of the mind, — god must be atheist
It's an assumption for the purposes of the argument. That is, it is where the argument starts, in terms of it's logical structure. — Banno
Without spirit there is no reason for the soul, without soul, no reason for consciousness, without consciousness the mind is an empty vessel. — Book273
From your point of view, if I say, "I think", it is not decided whether it is true or false. — god must be atheist
"Cogito ergo sum." I think therefore I am. If I did not exist, I could not think, therefore thinking alone proves undoubtedly to myself that I exist. — god must be atheist
His point was that you cannot doubt your existence. It's not the kind of thing that can be doubted. I took that to be your point. — jamalrob
It is my point, but Descartes analysis is not the same as Wittgenstein's analysis in OC, which is what I was trying to represent — Sam26
es, this was Descartes' point, which GMBA has either misunderstood or just described incorrectly. — jamalrob
From your point of view, if I say, "I think", it is not decided whether it is true or false.
— god must be atheist
Not at all. "I think" is true. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.