So Terrapin, do you finally agree with:

both the senses and thought can be directed towards both internal and external "objects". — me

No. What I agree with is this:

"thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can."

"thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can." — Terrapin Station

Do you also agree with this? :-}

Right - did you have a look at the Wiki article I posted? What is popularly known as the "sense of touch" is part of the nervous system of the body. — Agustino

Yes, but a stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. — Thanatos Sand

The sense of touch is part of the nervous system.

that — Thanatos Sand

Yes, but a stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system.
— Thanatos Sand
The sense of touch is part of the nervous system.

Yes, but the stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. I've said that twice now. If you don't grasp it by now, that's on you.

Yes, but the stomachache is not part of that part of the nervous system. — Thanatos Sand

The nervous system is one entire thing with multiple functions - so yes, it's not part of that part because you've just classified it into two parts because that's what you want to do, so of course it's not :s

I didn't classify it into two parts. I said the Nervous system has numerous parts including the system of touch, which does not apply to stomachaches, and that was correct. So, you're just trolling and we're done.

However things are quite clear that the sense of touch was the ancient man's approximation for the entire functionality of the nervous system (he was probably unaware of other more specific and not so obvious functions of the nervous system). So when I speak about the senses, I'm quite clear in what I'm saying.

We weren't talking about ancient man. We were talking about present definitions. So, you sure haven't been clear in what you've been thinking. Goodbye.

We weren't talking about ancient man. We were talking about present definitions. So, you sure haven't been clear in what you've been thinking. Goodbye. — Thanatos Sand

No we weren't, because the five senses are outdated and definitely not "present definitions".

You're hopeless:

Noun
1.
sense of touch - the faculty by which external objects or forces are perceived through contact with the body (especially the hands); "only sight and touch enable us to locate objects in the space around us"

I say the five senses are outdated as a way of speaking of the entire sensory apparatus of man, and you quote me a definition of the sense of touch - way to go, you must have a big brain.

No we weren't, because the five senses are outdated and definitely not "present definitions".

You said we weren't talking about present definitions. I showed we clearly were. So, your complement clearly fits...;)

You said we weren't talking about present definitions. I showed we clearly were. So, your complement clearly fits...;) — Thanatos Sand

This is useless..... You clearly are committed to reading everything I say uncharitably. That's not a nice thing what I just said about you, by the way. It's very closely tied with intellectual dishonesty. Here:

Perception represents the awareness/consciousness of the mind of something - and that can be via thought or via the five senses. — Agustino

So do you think I fucking meant that a stomach ache is NOT a perception, since it's not awareness/consciousness of thought or the five senses?! Clearly "five senses" and "thought" include much more than the basic understandings of the words. For example "thought" includes "emotions" in this context, CLEARLY.

But again, you don't read charitably, and both you and Terrapin should be ashamed of yourselves for hiding behind semantics and definitions, and shying away from discussing the substantive underlying matters.

Either way, back on topic. I've had enough of this bullshit. Back to philosophy of religion.

I don't think the argument as presented in the OP can be rescued from its problems. Its basic deficiency is that it treats our behaviour with regards to the Uncreated God similarly to our behaviour towards other fellow creatures in the world. Namely it tries to reason by analogy from the latter to the former and that doesn't quite work.

That's one of the reasons why I wanted to discuss what God means and how God is different from other things in the world (and hence there is no "paradox" as the OP claims), but it seems the point is lost on Terrapin as well - or rather he doesn't even want to be aware of it.

As to what you "said about" me, I get irony; you clearly do not. The rest of your post was an unhinged rant to which nobody could rationally respond. So, be well, Agustino; I won't be responding to any more of your troubled posts.

As to what you "said about" me, I get irony; you clearly do not. The rest of your post was an unhinged rant to which nobody could rationally respond. So, be well, Agustino; I won't be responding to any more of your troubled posts. — Thanatos Sand

Why are you cowering from answering this question:

So do you think I fucking meant that a stomach ache is NOT a perception, since it's not awareness/consciousness of thought or the five senses?! — Agustino

Isn't this a paradox? Two similar situations are handled contradictorily. — TheMadFool

Since Thanatos and Terrapin are impossible to have a conversation with - or at least so it seems to me - I will address your point directly rather than indirectly as I initially was looking to do. There is no paradox, since the two situations are different - they are not at all similar. Our behaviour with regards to God isn't the same as our behaviour with regards to potentially dangerous dogs in the world. That's because God is totally different from a creature - any creature - including dogs.

In theism there is a gap between created things, and the Uncreated - or God. As such, to apply the categories one applies to creatures in discussing and judging about God is a category error. Now someone who does not believe in God, and who denies God in their hearts, also denies themselves, for their own existence is predicated on the existence of God. I think atheism is by no means the starting position of human beings, but quite the contrary it is something that is only achieved by effort.

*Steps into a bar*
*Sees a fight*
*whispers* Stomach pain is perceived via senses -
*Terrapin throws a chair at me*
*continues* ... but it's an external feeling
*Agustino slips on the table shocked and gets thrown out of the window*

Now that I have your attention, you can't have external thoughts of someone else because you're not aware of thoughts separately from them, thoughts are (part of consciousness) which is conscious of itself. I think anyone could see the difference ("see" there is a part of an expression, not as in literally see) between being conscious of their own consciousness and that continuum of consciousness being broken by external thought or feeling of which one would then be conscious of.

That's interesting, but one can only have external thoughts of someone else since someone else is always external to themselves. And stomach pain is not an external feeling as one feels it inside their body that is sensing the pain, as opposed to external touch when one touches an object outside themselves.

I don't see the point in making the distinction between perceiving a thought internally or externally as the perception is internal and thought is the same thing as perception of thought. Whose thought it is is defined by in whose mind its origin is in. By external thought I refer to a thought of someone else but the thought itself is of course internal.

As for the stomach pain, human body is external to the human and imo there's no difference as to how it's perceived and how the world outside human is perceived.

I don't see the point in making the distinction between perceiving a thought internally or externally as the perception is internal and thought is the same thing as perception of thought. Whose thought it is is defined by in whose mind its origin is in. By external thought I refer to a thought of someone else but the thought itself is of course internal.

You many not see the point in making that distinction, but many people do and have. It's a key distinction in phenomenology from Hume to Kant to Husserl. And you may personally define external thought any way you like, but you can't expect others to use or accept that definition.

As for the stomach pain, human body is external to the human and imo there's no difference as to how it's perceived and how the world outside human is perceived.

And the human body is not external to the human; it is the human itself. And again, you may see no difference in how it is perceived, but you cannot force that view on others, as both science and phenomenology consider another human being as externally perceived as an external object.

You many not see the point in making that distinction, but many people do and have. It's a key distinction in phenomenology from Hume to Kant to Husserl. And you may personally define external thought any way you like, but you can't expect others to use or accept that definition. — Thanatos Sand

Then explain how does one perceive anything externally. I see the point in making the distinction between internal and external thought, not between perceiving anything internally or externally.

And the human body is not external to the human; it is the human itself. — Thanatos Sand

Human body is external to human mind. Human body perceives nothing, human mind is always the one to do perceptions. Thus human body is external to the perceiving entity.

Did you really have to ask that. You perceive something externally when it is external to you.

And the human body is not external to the human mind as the human mind is not separate from the human brain/human body. If you want to talk religion and ghosts and spirits, go talk to someone else. And of course the human body perceives; the human eye sees, the human ear hears and so on. If you don't get that, I can't help you.

Did you really have to ask that. You perceive something externally when it is external to you. — Thanatos Sand

"perceiving something" + adverb refers to how you perceive the information, not to the source of information, so by "perceiving externally" do you refer to perceiving external information, or are you making the assumption that the human mind is capable of with certainty to know the source of information by the perception, assuming there was a hypothetical difference?

And of course the human body perceives; the human eye sees, the human ear hears and so on. — Thanatos Sand

You could as well say that when you use binoculars, they're the ones perceiving the light. No, they're only transmitting the information, and similarly the eyes then transmit the information to your brain etc. Human body does not perceive information, human mind does.

I made very clear what I correctly meant by "perceiving externally" and your notion of what "perceive" means is very wrong. Go look the word up.

The human body perceives information; the human mind/brain is the part of the human body that evaluates and records it. As you keep forgetting, the human brain/mind is part of the human body.

So, you see a difference between God and a dog. I should've been clearer in my post. Got carried away by the thought. Anyway...

I don't want to get into a debate about God's nature. I only want to point out:

1. The similarity, so far as potential harm is an issue, between God and a dog.

2. The apparent disparity in the way God and a dog are treated (despite 1)

Your comment though is relevant as you don't see God and a dog to be sufficiently similar. However, the key similarity on which argument hangs is potential threat. Nothing else about a dog matters and it is considered a wise decision to assume as true the equivalence dog = danger.

Flip page to God. From the reasoning presented in the above paragraph, all that matters is the potential threat issuing from God's person viz. hell. If it's wise to isolate the threat that a dog represents, it should also be wise to fix your attention on the threat from God.

I don't agree with this right off the bat. — Terrapin Station

The only way I can make sense of that is you a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Yes, this is true. However, the similarity, which my argument depends on, is that both don't assign the truth value ''true'' to the proposition: God exists.

What's the difference between someone who thinks fairies may exist (person A) and another who thinks fairies don't exist (person B)?

The difference is purely abstract and when someone asserts that fairies exist, both persons, A and B, will demand for evidence. I mean that agnosticism and atheism are more closely related than, agnosticism and theism. So, it becomes reasonable to state the default truth value of any proposition is false.

So, it turns out that you're writing this long, rambling thing simply to present Pascal's Wager yet again. <sigh> — Terrapin Station

I did say that my argument is like Pascal's wager. It involves analysis of the potential for gain or loss. However, my argument is analogical and reveals a paradox in human behavior - two similar situations being handled in contradictory ways.

Only those go to Valhalla who die in battle.

So I have to assume both that "TheMadFool is an only child" and "TheMadFool has at least one sibling" are false? That would be a contradiction. — Michael

Good point. That is a contradiction IF you hold that both are false at the same time. However, the normal process is to evaluate one proposition at a time. For instance we don't think God exists is false and God doesn't exists is false at one and the same time. We take the proposition God exists and then begin our investigation. Depending on the evidence we either affirm or deny the proposition.

Also, negative propositions don't get the same treatment as positive propositions. I've never seen anyone starting from negative propositions, e.g., God doesn't exist. Arguments begin from positive propositions. So, the issue of a contradiction doesn't arise.

Your argument suffers the same problem as Pascal's wager. It's a false dichotomy. There are more options than just "no God, and so no reward or punishment" and "God, and reward for belief and punishment for disbelief" — Michael

What are these options?

Pascal's Wager is a gamble, depending, at its core, on win-loss analysis. Yes, my argument also involves win-loss evaluation BUT...it exposes a paradox in human behavior viz. we think it wise to assume that a dog is dangerous while we, paradoxically, don't think it's wise to assume god's existence. That despite both being threats.

What are these options? — TheMadFool

I've given one: God punishes those who believe in him with eternal suffering in hell.

Also, negative propositions don't get the same treatment as positive propositions. I've never seen anyone starting from negative propositions, e.g., God doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

"Negative" propositions can be re-phrased into "positive" propositions, as with my example of "TheMadFool has at least one sibling", which is a positive phrasing of "TheMadFool isn't an only child".

In this case, a "positive" phrasing of "God doesn't exist" could be something like "only the natural world exists".