GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla Shen wrote:What would evidence be without proof?

It would be evidence.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Diebert wrote:You seem to be missing the point by a mile. Iolaus wrote specifically: "There's lots of empirical evidence of a life after death, of a 'spiritual' world". This is something she beliefs but it's just not true.

But how do you know it's not true? Trust me, Diebert, I am not missing the point at all. David throws in the Loch Ness Monster. I throw in Snoopy. He started it.

You're still missing the point, which was not about life after death or the Loch Ness monster being not possibly true. By scientific standards, which seem very reasonable there's no conclusive evidence available. Snoopy however can easily be established to be a fictional character so cannot be compared really.

The overarching point is that there are issues bigger than the Loch Ness monster and larger than ones life and what might happen with your specific awareness or memories after it.

But Diebert, I am not missing this "point" at all. I am disagreeing with it, if this point is what you have stated the "overarching" point to be.

There are indeed "issues" bigger than the Loch Ness monster, if you can even call that an issue in some sense.

You are saying that the existence of a spiritual world is "just not true." Are you not? Look at your words in the quote above. I am saying you simply do not know this. Your statement is the one that is just not true. It cannot be true because you cannot possibly know it or prove it in any way whatsoever.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that everyone who believes there is or even might possibly be a continued existence of the soul after physical death necessarily wants to believe this possiblility exists. I, for one, was for a long time unconvinced one way or the other, with no motive or reason to want to believe anything. I simply succumbed to the evidence, which continues to grow, I might add. Show me contrary evidence, and I will certainly listen to it. David threw that in because he wanted to compare the soul's existence after physical death to something rather silly. That is, he wanted to trivialize it. It is not trivial by definition, Diebert. He easily could have picked Snoopy instead. It would not have meant any less or been any less effective. Because it couldn't have been less effective. Both Nessie and Snoopy are fictional characters that somehow manage to generate lots of income for those who perpetuate them.

What could be more important to a person than the possibility that his specific awareness survives the death of his physical body? Okay, in an immediate sense, the survival of the physical body itself is arguably more important. But you surely are not saying you'd rather know if Nessie was real than find out for sure if a death-survivng soul is within us? Are you? That is my point.

David Quinn wrote:Unless you have stumbled upon a wide-ranging body of consistent, compelling evidence put forward by intelligent people, it is unlikely you will be able to persuade me to think differently on this.

Yes, you are quite a stubborn fellow. It is one of your charms.

Advances in neuroscience are increasingly revealing the neurological and psychological basis for the kinds of visions and experiences people have with respect to life after death. These advances are creating a strong body of evidence which is hard to ignore

.
What you are doing is interpreting research results in a way that fits your philosophy because your ego does not permit you to consider that you might be in error. This is a classic exaple of cognitive dissonance at work. The more you propound your belief system, the more reluctant you are to even consider contrary evidence.

More importantly, belief in life after death is wholly irrelevant to the spiritual path of opening one's mind to the nature of Reality. If anything, it forms a hindrance because it robs people of the urgency to seek this wisdom before they die.

Usually an internal red flag goes up for me when I find myself agreeing with you, and sure enough, it's there right now. Belief in life after death is really immaterial in any moral sense to how you should comport yourself in this life, if that is what you are saying. I believe if you open your mind to the nature of Reality and keep it open, you will come inevitably to understand that there is a soul which is not equal to the body but rather a component of a living person. Furthermore, the soul has a soul of its own, as it were, which is the spirit. You need not know this in order to behave correctly, but knowledge of the soul's existence should not lessen but rather strengthen the correctness of your behavior. This does not always happen, you are quite right. People often use an incomplete or otherwise faulty concept of their soul as an excuse for moral laziness and all sorts of bad behavior and attitudes. "I'll steal that bike and tell it in confession later." Or: "I have plenty of time. God'll take care of it."

Atheists would laugh at the idea that I'm an atheist. Only the other day I was ticked off by a few people for using the word "God" too much.

And I'll bet that wasn't an isolated incident, either. I'm sure you manage to tick off atheists and theists alike. Am I right?

I've yet to meet an atheist who understands the nature of God, for example, or is even aware that they are lacking such an understanding.

You wouldn't expect an atheist to understand the nature of God anyway, would you? The surprising fact is that most theists do not understand the nature of God.

I merely happen to think that faith in truth is an amazing thing, no matter who engages in it. It involves casting aside the entire history of the Universe, as though it wasn't even there.

Yes, faith in truth is amazing for this reason. However, it does not make logical sense to have faith in a thing as opposed to a person or sentient entity. It is indeed amazing that someone willingly casts aside the entire history of the Universe, that is, the sum total of all conceivable evidence, and persists in having "faith" in not even a person, but an abstract concept.

This is precisely why your philosophy conveys exactly nothing, and is also the reason why you can neither see nor admit that, and why you are incapable of progressing.

Jason wrote:I do agree that there is a serious problem whereby a particular sort of weakness and mediocrity is promoted and made into an ideal. Right now you can see this type of thing in common sentiments like "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" , "who am I to decide what is right" , "everyone is equal" , "I'm not certain of anything" and "no one will ever find an ultimate answer." This sort of attitude, and it is currently widely spread in both secular and theistic segments of Western society, is a large impediment to growth and greatness.

This kind of thinking is rampant. Especially when you are trying to get a point across to someone. It happens to me all the time. Most people are weak and they are cowards. It's as if they are saying to you, "Who gave you the right to think for yourself?"

brokenhead wrote:

Diebert wrote:You seem to be missing the point by a mile. Iolaus wrote specifically: "There's lots of empirical evidence of a life after death, of a 'spiritual' world". This is something she beliefs but it's just not true.

You are saying that the existence of a spiritual world is "just not true." Are you not? Look at your words in the quote above. I am saying you simply do not know this. Your statement is the one that is just not true. It cannot be true because you cannot possibly know it or prove it in any way whatsoever.

No, it was meant only about the phrase "lots of empirical evidence". Perhaps for her standards but not what's considered evidence in a more general, especially scientific sense. David was I guess alluding to the same thing.

David threw that in because he wanted to compare the soul's existence after physical death to something rather silly. That is, he wanted to trivialize it.

He was right in trivializing the claimed evidence. But even in the sight of overwhelming evidence and scientific verification, it's a trivial topic for anyone exploring deeper existential issues. Hence the overarching point.

Both Nessie and Snoopy are fictional characters that somehow manage to generate lots of income for those who perpetuate them.

Nessie a fictional character? Are you saying Snoopy has been photographed or seen walking around by witnesses? Did they drive around with radar trying to track the Red Baron?

But you surely are not saying you'd rather know if Nessie was real than find out for sure if a death-survivng soul is within us? Are you? That is my point.

My point is that the firmness of the available evidence is similar and therefore some caution is needed before saying things as "empirical evidence". I do agree evidence for a life after death would be a greater discovery than a left-over living dinosaur in a lake. But my personal take on life after death is that this will always be a personal journey and understanding and that this becomes evident the more one understands about life, death and existence.

Iolaus wrote:

Jason wrote:It would also seem to contradict the cynical and egoistic view prevalent around here that all actions are taken only because they in some way benefit and reward me.

So tell me when you have ever done anything that did not reward you?

I think the perspective that everything is done for a reward is a valuable, interesting and insightful perspective, but I don't think it is the only viable way to look at these things.

For example, how does one come to that perspective/idea exactly? Is it through introspection and self-observation? If so, are you certain that you have accurately observed every single action you have ever performed, and thus can be absolutely sure that all of them were performed for a reward? Even if you have, can you be certain that this pattern will continue into the future, or that it necessarily applies to other humans?

Or, how about the possibility that forces in humans below/beyond the level of conscious pleasure/reward are in operation, and that these lead to action too. For example, say there are particular pheromones that I subconsciously sense on a woman, and that subconscious cue motivates me to choose her for a date instead of the woman sitting next to her. I have not been consciously rewarded for choosing her over the other woman.

Or, I could approach it from a less conventional perspective, like some wild idea that might be possible from a deep skepticism. How do I know that the pleasure I feel when I help someone is actually my pleasure? Maybe I am directly tapping into the pleasure of that other person, so I really am doing it for the other person's reward.(Yeah it could be argued that I'm still getting a reward in this example, but it shows how conventional assumptions can be turned on their head and thus lead to different conclusions.)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Jason wrote:How could you claim that? Christianity was completely unknown by plenty of cultures for over a millennia after Christ, despite those peoples sharing the same genome as Christians. And of course Christianity didn't exist pre 2K years ago despite the fact that there has apparently been insignificant genetic change in humans for much longer than that.

You were suggesting part of the culture one is raised in might be "innate" or genetically encoded. I'm not sure why you then turn around and say Christianity cannot be encoded in the same way.

No, I was suggesting that certain human behaviours that often fall under the umbrella of 'conscience' may be be genetically encoded. Altruistic acts between humans for example.

Perhaps it was not as obvious as I thought that with Christianity I was referring to a set of behaviors that could be named or justified differently in other times.

Oh, I thought you were referring to 'Jesus is our saviour he died for our sins' Christianity. I was under the impression that Nietzsche was primarily writing about actual Jesus-lovin' Christianity, and the cultures and morals that were direct descendants of it.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Jason wrote:"Don't hit Mummy!"

Is that religious? Yet I'd bet it shapes the conscience.

It's surprising how much laws for protection of the weaker have originally always been the domain of religion. Invoking the wrath of will of God or gods might have been the only way to convince barely conscious people to have a bit more order and a bit stronger social cohesion?

Yeah it's possible, a slightly more advanced boogeyman. Makes me wonder about the reasons for the apparent transformation of God from angry, vengeful and judgemental deity to loving, peaceful and supportive deity.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Here some words of Nietzsche from the Genealogy of Moral that might be interesting.

First about good conscience.

Nietzsche wrote:The haughty knowing of the extraordinary privilege of responsibility, the consciousness of this rare freedom, of this power over oneself and destiny, has sunken into the lowest depth of him and grown instinctual, has become instinct, a dominating instinct: — what will he call it, this dominating instinct, assuming that he finds he needs a word for it? There’s no doubt: the sovereign man calls this instinct his conscience. . . .

Possible translation: Man is very proud of his ability to make long-term plans and have self-control. This is "good conscience."

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Then about bad conscience

Nietzsche wrote:But then how did those other “shadowy affairs,” the consciousness of guilt, the whole “bad conscience” come into the world? — And with this we turn back to our genealogists of morality. I’ll say it once more — or have I not said anything about it yet? — they are good for nothing. A few moments of inner, merely "modern" experience; no knowledge of and no desire to know the past; even less any historical instinct, or the even necessarily “second sight” - and then still pushing the tale of morality: this must of course end with results that are standing in a nothing but brittle relationship with the truth.

Possible translation: Others who have tried to explain human guilt haven't examined history, so their theories about its origins and formation do not contain much truth or insight, and they also make their explanations into morality tales.

Nietzsche wrote:You will already have guessed what really went on with all this and under all this: that will to self-torment, that cruelty of inner creating, of the restrained animal man, imprisoned in the “state” to make him tame, who invented bad conscience in order to pain himself, after the more natural discharge of this will to inflict pain had been blocked — this man of bad conscience seized upon religious assumptions to drive his self-torment into its most horrifying hardship and ferocity. Guilt towards God: this idea becomes his instrument of torture.

In “God” he seizes on the ultimate contrast he is capable of discovering to his real and indissoluble animal instincts. He interprets these animal instincts themselves as a crime against God

Nietzsche wrote:All instincts which are not discharged to the outside are turned back inside — this is what I call the internalization of man. From this first grows in man what people later call his “soul.” The entire inner world, originally as thin as if stretched between two layers of skin, expanded and extended itself, acquired depth, width, and height, to the extent that what a person discharged out into the world was obstructed. Those frightening fortifications with which the organization of the state protected itself against the old instincts for freedom — punishments belong above all to these fortifications — brought it about that all those instincts of the wild, free, roaming man turned themselves backwards, against man himself. Enmity, cruelty, joy in pursuit, in attack, in change, in destruction — all those turned themselves against the possessors of such instincts. That is the origin of “bad conscience.”

(all from the second essay of Genealogy of Morals: "Guilt, Bad Conscience, and Related Matters")

Possible translation: With the rise of civilization man was tamed and suppressed from expressing some of his instinctual "animal" desires. One of his instinctual desires was to inflict pain on others, and when this was suppressed he turned this desire inward instead, and began to inflict pain on himself. Religion and God were used by him as a tool to increase the level of self-harm to tremendous levels.

--

I'm a bit wary of the theory that humans who were suppressed from inflicting pain on others then went on to turn that into inflicting pain on themselves. I'm not sure it adds up, masochism in that way seems questionable to me, I have my doubts that humans would act against their own hedonistic interests like that.

I've got some other theories for guilt, I don't claim these are anything more than initial explorations into interesting possibilities, but here they are:

Any animal will learn that certain actions lead to pain. If they touch fire they feel pain, and this is stored in their memory so that they will not touch fire again in the future, thus avoiding future pain from fire. Simple conditioning.

Humans are just the same of course, but humans also routinely face the threat of pain from much more complex phenomena - other humans. Children who act in culturally and socially deviant ways find that they will have pain inflicted upon them by their fellow humans. Humans, however, unlike fire, or most other natural sources of pain, have long memories and are far more unpredictable and complex.

If a person steals, and they escape immediate punishment, there is always the chance that they will still be punished sometime in the future by other humans who either remember, or figure out, that this person has stolen in the past. This creates a rather different dynamic, because it is much more difficult to gauge if any deviant action against other humans will lead to pain and punishment. Even if the initial deviant act escapes immediate punishment the person must still be wary for much longer - anxious that they will be found out and punished later on. This may help to explain the unusually prolonged state of anxiety that is guilt.

As well as memory, humans have developed the ability to plan and imagine future scenarios, and this also has a part to play in guilt. Imagined future scenarios can lead to pronounced and prolonged anxiety, namely imagined future deviant actions that lead to imagined future punishments. Thus guilt, aka anxiety and fear, can be formed even before or without an actual concrete deviant action being taken.

In short, guilt is at least somewhat about imagination and memory. It is anxiety that other humans will remember or figure out past deviant actions, and/or anxiety that future imagined deviant scenarios and punishments will come to pass. Its prolonged duration and sometime apparent disconnection from punishment or even actual deviant acts, shouldn't be mistaken for intentional self-punishment and the turning inward of the desire to inflict pain.

There are actual situations when many of us have consciously had the desire to physically inflict pain on others, only then to maintain self-control and repress the urge. The subsequent feelings that follow the suppression of violence are often nothing like guilt. I think rage would be a more accurate descriptor.

Humans are also intellectually complex enough that they only have to be told that they will be punished for an action, and then will incorporate this into their mind. Humans are also great abstractors, and can abstract pain and even "wrongness" away from any concrete punishment, making it seem very disembodied and disconnected from reality, and also allowing new and novel associations to be made between certain actions and "pain."

Add all these things together and you have a recipe for pretty consistent anxiety about punishment that seems abstract, disconnected from reality, unpredictable in time and place, and possibly the result of distant past actions or even future actions that haven't even taken place. Sounds like guilt to me.

If anyone's managed to get this far, here's something that I quite like that has something to say about guilt and conscience and a possible way forward, it's only short:
Wilhelm Reich in Hell (scroll halfway down the page to "Excerpt from Act I")

Jason wrote:Makes me wonder about the reasons for the apparent transformation of God from angry, vengeful and judgemental deity to loving, peaceful and supportive deity.

That's easy, the taming has in the mean time progressed to the level of having the boogeyman completely internalized. In other words the fears, rejection and judgement have gone completely into the unconscious and the associated morality has become part of conscience. God gets a new job and that's to sooth, calm and forgive us our sins - our guilt.

This also can help to see why I still claim we have our 'deities' even without an external god to believe in. The sun went under but the Earth is still orbiting around it and being determined by the its radiation and gravity.

I'm a bit wary of the theory that humans who were suppressed from inflicting pain on others then went on to turn that into inflicting pain on themselves. I'm not sure it adds up, masochism in that way seems questionable to me, I have my doubts that humans would act against their own hedonistic interests like that.

I'd say it's not only on themselves but inevitable still creating suffering for all those around and if not allowed it just gets transformed further away down the hierarchy. It also can get built up slowly over decades and explodes into the sudden drive to exterminate, incinerate the perceived omega, the sacrificial goat or eject into some war fever that leads nowhere.

Humans, however, unlike fire, or most other natural sources of pain, have long memories and are far more unpredictable and complex.

Note: the memory and complexity might have evolved because of a reason which could influence your theorizing here. It could be then suggested this process already began by turning the instincts more inwards, specializing itself into having the complexity you name here.

As well as memory, humans have developed the ability to plan and imagine future scenarios, and this also has a part to play in guilt. Imagined future scenarios can lead to pronounced and prolonged anxiety, namely imagined future deviant actions that lead to imagined future punishments. Thus guilt, aka anxiety and fear, can be formed even before or without an actual concrete deviant action being taken.

Yeah, this dealing with the future, the capacity of promise making and related responsibility is explained at the start of the same essay as the rest of the Nietzsche quotes. It's really the standard text on it and it doesn't surprise me you think along the same lines. In fact when I started reading him it was more recognizing than learning something unheard of.

If anyone's managed to get this far, here's something that I quite like that has something to say about guilt and conscience and a possible way forward, it's only short:
Wilhelm Reich in Hell (scroll halfway down the page to "Excerpt from Act I")

Ah, I now realize that piece clearly formed the inspiration for the BBC documentary The Trap by Adam Curtis. Good stuff but I don't think there's a "way forward" visible in there yet. What made Nietzsche's analysis so interesting is that he dared to make a link between all suppression with all its tensions and the whole "inner world" that could create art, sciences and forms of expansive progress. Just concluding we're not in the garden of Eden anymore doesn't bring us back, it doesn't repair anything.

Jason,

For example, how does one come to that perspective/idea exactly? Is it through introspection and self-observation?

Yes.

f so, are you certain that you have accurately observed every single action you have ever performed, and thus can be absolutely sure that all of them were performed for a reward?

That is unnecessary, and if it were impossible to identify patterns and principles, our thinking would never get us anywhere. Even if it were possible to make such an examination, we still could not arrive at a conclusion because we would need to examine all possible acts in the future.

Even if you have, can you be certain that this pattern will continue into the future, or that it necessarily applies to other humans?

Oh, I see, you thought of that yourself. Well now, perhaps there are no other humans, but assuming that there are, I am going on the assumption that we work the same way on a topic of such general and overarching importance. If it is true that we only act in the way that we most want to act in any given circumstance, then it is a profound fact.

Or, how about the possibility that forces in humans below/beyond the level of conscious pleasure/reward are in operation, and that these lead to action too.

No problem. I didn't say you had to be consciously rewarded, or always understand your own true motives.

How do I know that the pleasure I feel when I help someone is actually my pleasure? Maybe I am directly tapping into the pleasure of that other person, so I really am doing it for the other person's reward.(Yeah it could be argued that I'm still getting a reward in this example, but it shows how conventional assumptions can be turned on their head and thus lead to different conclusions.)

I'd say it's almost a certainty that on some level you are indeed tapping into the pleasure of the other person. That's why you are still getting a reward. But that doesn't equate to it NOT being your pleasure. It isn't one of the two person's pleasure exclusively. And I think that this is a clue to an underlying reality, that we are not totally separate beings, but overlapping and interpenetrating beings. Learning to care for and sacrifice for other beings is simply an expansion of the sense of self. And ultimately, all is self.

My point is that people think they do things they don't want to. They may do things that are painful, but only because the alternative is more painful.

Let me give an example that happened yesterday. A coworker called me at work and begged me to work for her in the early a.m. next Saturday. I work nights, and never, but never, agree to anything having to do with early morning. On those rare occasions when it is unavoidable, I suffer because I can't sleep much and even if I do I am a zombie till at least noon anyway. But she had tried everything, and an important 5-day trip hinged on it, and she had already managed to trade 3 other days. I just couldn't say no. I could have said no - but it felt so sad and disappointing. I won't enjoy one bit of it and will dread it the rest of the week. I'd pay to get out of it. But disappointing her was worse.

So if you look at a situation closely, you'll find that even when you're doing what you don't want to do, still you are doing that which you most want to do and/or which makes you feel best/least bad.

brokenhead wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:What would evidence be without proof?

It would be evidence.

brokenhead, a little bit of faith on your part is required, here. Faith in what, you ask? Well, suffice it to say, it ain't faith in your God that's required. Or, is it He who tells you it was necessary for you to point out to me that evidence=evidence?

You see, that question actually is filled with the ideas that preceded it and is not simply limited to the quote above it; we are, as far as I’m concerned, attempting philosophy, not just single-sentence exchanges emphasising the obvious. Therefore, your reply leaves much to be desired.

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and repeat the whole post for review:

b: I'm not sure what you mean by "empirically provisional."

L: An act of sheer desperation. My usual language didn’t seem to be getting very far. :)

b:If you mean do I look around me and see an abundance of what I take to be empirical evidence that God exists? The answer is yes. I have said so many times here at GF.

L: I think you have used a false analogy. I am interested in seeing if you can come up with one that works, however.

You imply that my assumption that I will exist is analogous with your belief in God; that your experiences substantiate, not prove, your belief---apparently just as my experiences substantiate and do not prove that I will exist in the future. I tell you that, logically, I assume I will exist in the future on the basis of past conditions/causes of my existence.

What I am asking you, therefore, is: what are the provisional conditions/causes for the belief in your God?

b:But I also have admitted that the same things do not necessarily appear as evidence of God to everyone or anyone else, or even as evidence of anything at all. To me this is inexplicable.

L: What would evidence be without proof?

Iolaus wrote:

Jason wrote:f so, are you certain that you have accurately observed every single action you have ever performed, and thus can be absolutely sure that all of them were performed for a reward?

That is unnecessary,

Unnecessary for what? It's necessary for having certainty in the theory.

Even if it were possible to make such an examination, we still could not arrive at a conclusion because we would need to examine all possible acts in the future.

Yep. Reminds me of inherently provisional science, how 'bout you?

Iolaus wrote:

Jason wrote:Even if you have, can you be certain that this pattern will continue into the future, or that it necessarily applies to other humans?

Oh, I see, you thought of that yourself. Well now, perhaps there are no other humans, but assuming that there are, I am going on the assumption that we work the same way on a topic of such general and overarching importance. If it is true that we only act in the way that we most want to act in any given circumstance, then it is a profound fact.

Assumption noted. ;)

Iolaus wrote:

Jason wrote:Or, how about the possibility that forces in humans below/beyond the level of conscious pleasure/reward are in operation, and that these lead to action too.

No problem. I didn't say you had to be consciously rewarded, or always understand your own true motives.

But you did agree that you arrived at the idea(that humans always act for reward) by self-observation and introspection. How then do you(or do you?) propose proving, using as evidence, or even knowing about, rewards which humans are not conscious of?

I must say that expanding this idea to include completely unconscious rewards departs entirely from how I was conceiving of it. An unconscious reward is a contradiction in terms as far as my views on this particular matter are concerned. Can you give me a real or even hypothetical example of an unconscious reward, and also tell me why it should be called a "reward"?

Iolaus wrote:

Jason wrote:How do I know that the pleasure I feel when I help someone is actually my pleasure? Maybe I am directly tapping into the pleasure of that other person, so I really am doing it for the other person's reward.(Yeah it could be argued that I'm still getting a reward in this example, but it shows how conventional assumptions can be turned on their head and thus lead to different conclusions.)

I'd say it's almost a certainty that on some level you are indeed tapping into the pleasure of the other person. That's why you are still getting a reward. But that doesn't equate to it NOT being your pleasure. It isn't one of the two person's pleasure exclusively. And I think that this is a clue to an underlying reality, that we are not totally separate beings, but overlapping and interpenetrating beings. Learning to care for and sacrifice for other beings is simply an expansion of the sense of self. And ultimately, all is self.

Is not! Nah nah!

My point is that people think they do things they don't want to. They may do things that are painful, but only because the alternative is more painful.

Let me break out another challenging hypothetical. What if evolution has programmed humans to act in some ways that do not lead to reward? Some acts may favour passing on a human's genes at the expense of the individual human's overall happiness. Is this not a possibility?

And what is an action or choice exactly anyway? Is the beating of the heart a choice? The digestion of food? How about the semi-unconscious posture I have taken at my seat? My breathing? Say I want an ice cream, for reward, and I walk to an ice cream truck - is every tiny movement my legs make, at every millisecond, while walking to the truck, an individual choice and powered by reward? There is an interplay of conscious and unconscious, choice and automatic, known and unknown, and everything in between. It can get messy and very complex real quick from that angle.

Let me give an example that happened yesterday. A coworker called me at work and begged me to work for her in the early a.m. next Saturday. I work nights, and never, but never, agree to anything having to do with early morning. On those rare occasions when it is unavoidable, I suffer because I can't sleep much and even if I do I am a zombie till at least noon anyway. But she had tried everything, and an important 5-day trip hinged on it, and she had already managed to trade 3 other days. I just couldn't say no. I could have said no - but it felt so sad and disappointing. I won't enjoy one bit of it and will dread it the rest of the week. I'd pay to get out of it. But disappointing her was worse.

Tell me, how do you think you measure the amount of pain versus the amount of pleasure inherent in various scenarios that you can choose between? And is it measured in metric or imperial?

So if you look at a situation closely, you'll find that even when you're doing what you don't want to do, still you are doing that which you most want to do and/or which makes you feel best/least bad.

I think it's an interesting perspective, I fully understand it, and you're not telling me anything new. I came across these ideas too through observing myself and others(and I was excited when I originally conceived of it), but like I've pointed out, I think it is only one possible way to view these issues. It is an insightful and valuable perspective, I consider it to be a useful but provisional psychological theory.

Leyla Shen wrote:brokenhead, a little bit of faith on your part is required, here. Faith in what, you ask? Well, suffice it to say, it ain't faith in your God that's required. Or, is it He who tells you it was necessary for you to point out to me that evidence=evidence?

You see, that question actually is filled with the ideas that preceded it and is not simply limited to the quote above it; we are, as far as I’m concerned, attempting philosophy, not just single-sentence exchanges emphasising the obvious. Therefore, your reply leaves much to be desired.

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and repeat the whole post for review:

No need to repeat verbatim what was said without adding anything but to keep implying that I am somehow missing some point you are making.

To ask what would evidence be without proof is a question with a simple answer. I gave that answer. Attempting philosophy is, in this as in many, if not most, cases to attempt obfuscation. I do not know where I am losing you on this one.

Take a trial that is based on circumstantial evidence. You are saying that such evidence is somehow not evidence if there is no actual proof. I am not claiming evidence is proof or even the equal of proof. But it is folly, in my view, to dismiss it. What would evidence be without proof is not a real question to me. It is like saying what would dogs be without cats, or apples without oranges. And saying what would evidence be without proof is using the subjunctive case, which makes it of dubious import, since quite often evidence does exist amidst a total lack of proof. So the use of the word "would" is confusing to me. In short, I do not know what you are asking, so I have answered it the best I know how.

Are you asking me specifically what my so-called evidence for the existence of God is? It would have been helpful to me to ask that in a direct way, much more helpful than to simply repost our exchange thus far.

So on the chance that this is what you are asking me, I'll try to answer it.

On the question of the existence of God, we can look at it simply no matter how complex it can get. Scientists often call this a "first approximation." When they know a theory will become rapidly complicated in a technical, mathematical sense when applied to a practical problem, they resort to a simplified version of the math - a "first approximation" or "perturbation" - and see where it is leading.

In this spirit, to avoid sophistries, I can either assume God does exist, or that he does not, and see where the contradictions begin to accrue more persuasively. In this case, it seems that when I assume God does not exist, I am quickly led to believe that cannot be. There is too much evidence to the contrary, beginning with the existence not only of life, but sentient life, life at the point where it can in fact pose and consider this very question.

To believe human life arose in the absence of intelligent input and fostering is so absurd, I can barely wrap my mind around the proposal long enough to refute it. It is like saying it is possible to push a rope along the ground, where assuming some kind of intelligent design is like saying it is easier to pull a rope behind you on the ground. We are evolving, no question. But if you had spent many years studying physics as I have - with chemisrty and biology thrown in - you would certainly be struck how life flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as does evolution itself. Something is driving it. Something is pulling it along. It is becoming increasingly ordered in the face of all kinds of environments, hot and cold, wet and dry, sunny and dark, in oxygen and anaerobically, on land and at the bottom of the deepest seas.

That is inarguable, IMO. But there is so much more. I have other "evidence" that I am disinclined to share at present, since what I have written so far is not likely to be understood by you or anyone else as evidence of the existence of an intelligence far surpassing that of humans. In fact, it is, as I have previously stated, not likely even to be viewed as any kind of evidence of anything at all.

The sad thing, I find, is that most people confuse religion with God. I reject any and all religion that includes rites or ceremonies, that have buildings and memberships, and adherents that believe themselves superior in some way to adherents of other religions. Yet if in doing so I think I have to reject the existence of God, then the ludicrousness of my thinking becomes immediately apparent, at least to me. There could be no more classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

For me to describe in more detail my personal evidence would be like shouting at a deaf person who has his back turned. When you could speak with out using any voice at all and be understood if only the deaf person would turn around to face you.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:More importantly, belief in life after death is wholly irrelevant to the spiritual path of opening one's mind to the nature of Reality. If anything, it forms a hindrance because it robs people of the urgency to seek this wisdom before they die.

Usually an internal red flag goes up for me when I find myself agreeing with you, and sure enough, it's there right now. Belief in life after death is really immaterial in any moral sense to how you should comport yourself in this life, if that is what you are saying. I believe if you open your mind to the nature of Reality and keep it open, you will come inevitably to understand that there is a soul which is not equal to the body but rather a component of a living person. Furthermore, the soul has a soul of its own, as it were, which is the spirit. You need not know this in order to behave correctly, but knowledge of the soul's existence should not lessen but rather strengthen the correctness of your behavior. This does not always happen, you are quite right. People often use an incomplete or otherwise faulty concept of their soul as an excuse for moral laziness and all sorts of bad behavior and attitudes. "I'll steal that bike and tell it in confession later." Or: "I have plenty of time. God'll take care of it."

"Moral" behavior is a secondary effect. The main point of growth is knowing what you are choosing. Becoming conscious of choice is becoming conscious of the soul; this is a staple of all paths. The terminology may not use the word or concepts of "choice" or "soul," but the concepts are not all that important. The experience will be the same. Even the concept of life after death may not be given much attention since there is developed a focus on now, and now there is no death. Within now, there is life; and since now is continuous, there is more life after life. Considering "life after death" could be similar to considering "life outside of now," which is impossible for life to be.

The continuous and ever-present nature of life would be the sensed experience, and in the experience, reality would be known.

brokenhead,

No need to repeat verbatim what was said without adding anything…

Clearly, there is--your accusations notwithstanding.

Are you asking me specifically what my so-called evidence for the existence of God is?

Not really (but I will more than likely explore your reply to your own question later). It's a simple question that should also have a simple answer. Allow me to highlight:

I think you have used a false analogy. I am interested in seeing if you can come up with one that works, however.

You imply that my assumption that I will exist is analogous with your belief in God; that your experiences substantiate, not prove, your belief---apparently just as my experiences substantiate and do not prove that I will exist in the future. I tell you that, logically, I assume I will exist in the future on the basis of past conditions/causes of my existence.

What I am asking you, THEREFORE, is: what are the provisional conditions/causes for the belief in your God?

[Edit: uppercase emphasis added]

brokenhead wrote:To believe human life arose in the absence of intelligent input and fostering is so absurd, I can barely wrap my mind around the proposal long enough to refute it. It is like saying it is possible to push a rope along the ground, where assuming some kind of intelligent design is like saying it is easier to pull a rope behind you on the ground.

What you are doing here is known as the argument from ignorance: I don't see how it could have happened, therefore it is impossible.

Postulating an intelligent creator does not answer the question, but only says that the question is unanswerable (where did that creator come from, and what is its nature?)

We are evolving, no question. But if you had spent many years studying physics as I have - with chemisrty and biology thrown in - you would certainly be struck how life flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as does evolution itself. Something is driving it. Something is pulling it along. It is becoming increasingly ordered in the face of all kinds of environments, hot and cold, wet and dry, sunny and dark, in oxygen and anaerobically, on land and at the bottom of the deepest seas.

Your understanding of evolution is severely lacking. I suggest reading a book such as Darwin's Dangerous Idea for a better understanding.

The second law of thermodynamics is obviously irrelevant here, as it applies to a closed or isolated system. The Earth is not such a system, receiving a constant supply of energy from the sun. (If that argument were valid, it would be impossible for crystals to grow.)

DHodges wrote:Postulating an intelligent creator does not answer the question, but only says that the question is unanswerable (where did that creator come from, and what is its nature?)

That is the clincher. Looking at the complexity of life it is hard to believe that there is no designer involved. But then who designed the designer. It has to stop somewhere.

DHodges wrote:What you are doing here is known as the argument from ignorance: I don't see how it could have happened, therefore it is impossible.

Well, you are not correct, Hodges. Read that link you included. I am not saying anything is either false or true because it has not been proven otherwise. For me to be claiming that, I would have to believe that either "God exists" or "God does not exist" can be proven in principle. I have said many times at GF that I believe proof of either contention is not possible.

Besides that, you are not following the exchange here. I have been asked for evidence of what I believe and/or why I believe it. This is not an argument, so it logically cannot be an argument from ignorance, or any other classification of argument, fallacious or valid.

But you are demonstrating nicely what I mean by sophistries creeping in when one resorts to philosophical terms.

Postulating an intelligent creator does not answer the question, but only says that the question is unanswerable (where did that creator come from, and what is its nature?)

Incorrect again. Postulating an intelligent Creator does not prove one exists - that it, it does not answer that particular question of does one exist. It does not say the question is unanswerable. We are talking about faith in this exchange - you seem to be missing that point.

Your understanding of evolution is severely lacking. I suggest reading a book such as Darwin's Dangerous Idea for a better understanding.

Well, I disagree with you about my grasp of evolution. I have not read this particular book, but I have read not a few on the subject. One thing I have noticed in the literature is fundamental disagreement about many evolutionary ideas. I happen to have made bold enough to have a few of my own. Mea culpa.

The second law of thermodynamics is obviously irrelevant here, as it applies to a closed or isolated system. The Earth is not such a system, receiving a constant supply of energy from the sun. (If that argument were valid, it would be impossible for crystals to grow.)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is never irrelevant, as it is the one physical law that has never been known to be broken. There is a fundamental difference between crystals growing and life appearing. The crystal argument is an old one and has largely been discarded in this context, as you are attemting to prove the existence of one thing via the existence of something entirely different. Crystals sontaneously appear when conditions are right. Life never does. It never has.

You can put a few strands of mycellium into a box with wet dirt and old newspapers, and seal it off entirely from the environment, light, heat, atmosphere. Do the same to another identical box and leave out the mycellium. The one with begins to order itself into more mycellium and then mushrooms. The other does not.

Whatever my level of knowledge of evolution, it is at least comparable to the level of your knowledge of Thermodynamics, Hodges.

The Universe itself is a closed system, by definition. This is the very fact that has led most physicists to apply the Second Law and conclude that the matter in the Universe must have been more ordered in the past, and they trace it back 15 billion years to one of almost perfect order. Not infinitely back into the past, as QRS would have it. You can't have it both ways. You can't appeal to the Second Law just when it suits you.

It's quite funny, I find. When people discover that you have faith, they tend to swarm all over you and try to suck it out of you like starved vampire bats. Especially in this forum. It's amusing, because it never works. I suggest such leeches try faith for themselves instead of invariably trying to destroy it in others. Really, faith is a lot easier to understand than lack of it if you do your homework.

maestro wrote:

DHodges wrote:Postulating an intelligent creator does not answer the question, but only says that the question is unanswerable (where did that creator come from, and what is its nature?)

That is the clincher. Looking at the complexity of life it is hard to believe that there is no designer involved. But then who designed the designer. It has to stop somewhere.

No, it does not have to stop somewhere. Rather, it had to start somewhere. I believe Consciousness is primal and everything began with it, a Universal Source and Center that created creators, created time and space, created matter, and extended itself into its creation as Life.

The Primal Source came from nowhere by definition. Its nature is unfathomable in and of itself, as an ant cannot fathom a human being other than to scurry away from it in self-preservation. In order to make itself fathomable, it stepped itself down into the life forms we recognize. To ask where it came from shows as much ignorance as it does intrepid inquisitiveness. Our inability to fathom an answer to this inquiry in no way demonstrates, logically or intuitively, than such a primal Consciousness does not and/or did not exist.

Hint: ask Hodges about statistics. Go elsewhere for the big questions.

brokenhead wrote:Crystals sontaneously appear when conditions are right. Life never does. It never has.

That's an incredibly arrogant statement from someone who is a mere mortal being, who has only experienced an infinitesimal fragment of time, and whose experience of life is close to nil.

brokenhead wrote:

maestro wrote:

DHodges wrote:Postulating an intelligent creator does not answer the question, but only says that the question is unanswerable (where did that creator come from, and what is its nature?)

That is the clincher.

. . . it had to start somewhere.

Maestro is right. That is indeed the clincher.

If we postulate an intelligent creator then we haven't answered anything at all because we are then left with the question of where this intelligent creator came from, and how they came to be intelligent, and just how intelligent they are (they might be very dim-witted).

The Primal Source came from nowhere by definition.

If such a thing exists, you need to explain how it came to be intelligent, for one thing.

And how do you know that an intelligent creator wasn't created by yet another intelligent creator (or even a dim-witted one)?

Kevin Solway wrote:Maestro is right. That is indeed the clincher.

If we postulate an intelligent creator then we haven't answered anything at all because we are then left with the question of where this intelligent creator came from, and how they came to be intelligent, and just how intelligent they are (they might be very dim-witted).

brokenhead wrote: The Primal Source came from nowhere by definition.

If such a thing exists, you need to explain how it came to be intelligent, for one thing.

And how do you know that an intelligent creator wasn't created by yet another intelligent creator?

Let me answer the last question first, as I believe it to be key.

I very much believe that the intelligent creator of our world - our local universe, whether that be a cluster or supercluster of galaxies - was in fact created by the Primal Creator, the Primal Consciousness, as I believe I stated in my last post. The Primal Consciousness stepped itself down into the worlds of spacetime via innumerable intermediary creators, or Creator Sons.

Why do I need to explain how a Primal Consciousness became intelligent? That's is an absurd question you have posed to be answered. It is the source of intelligence. It did not come to be intelligent. It always was so. Again, you are positing that you are somehow the epitome of intelligence, the one to judge all others, the one to whom an explanation is owed, the one to decide whether the explanation holds water. And you call me arrogant!!!!!! I readily submit to you as my superior in arrogance, Kevin. In fact, when I spot supreme arrogance, I run the other way. But you seem to keep following, nonetheless.

Again, you are asking a patently absurd question. If I say there is a Primal Consciousness from which all else arose on Its volition, why do you then say we have to answer the question where did it come from? I am saying it is PRIMAL. And to say it might be dim-witted would be to say that you are somehow less so. If it is dimwitted, then you must be witless, as you are Its creation, not the other way around. If the Primal Consciousness were limited in any way other than by Its own choice, and you were the judge of Its intelligence, then that would make you more intelligent. If so, why can you not create universes? Why do you have any needs at all, if you are so intelligent? Why do you even ask questions? You would know everything. The fact that you do not does not imply that all is not already known. I am saying the Primal Consciousness is itself all questions and all truthful answers, the Alpha and the Omaega. You and I are not.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:Crystals sontaneously appear when conditions are right. Life never does. It never has.

That's an incredibly arrogant statement from someone who is a mere mortal being, who has only experienced an infinitesimal fragment of time, and whose experience of life is close to nil.

Less close to nil, I suspect, than your own. I say this because your arrogance outstrips not only mine, but almost any I have ever encountered.

Give me one example of life arising spontaneously. Use your common sense, that is, if you have any. If life arose spontaneously, why has it never done so again? There is not one known instance of spontaneous generation. Not one.

You are unable to find purpose in the existence of life. Therefore, you preach that is has none. So your purpose is to say there is no purpose.

Your subsequent post to this highlights your arrogance. Really, Kevin, I have never seen more unconvincing arguments against Primal Consciousness, against Creation, than the ones you give. You are in effect saying if I don't understsand it, it cannot be.

brokenhead wrote:I very much believe that the intelligent creator of our world - our local universe, whether that be a cluster or supercluster of galaxies - was in fact created by the Primal Creator

I see you've gone one step further in unnecessary complexity than the regular Christian, in that you're postulating both a Creator and a further Creator of a Creator. Well done. But you've really left the door open to there being countless creators, each creating the next. There doesn't need to be just the two of them.

Why do I need to explain how a Primal Consciousness became intelligent?

You are being inconsistent. You previously argued that the complexity of life (eg, consciousness) must have been created by a consciousness. But now you are postulating something that has both complexity and consciousness yet is not created by consciousness. This means that your whole argument is a nonsense.

Why can't our consciousness be the Primal Consciousness?

brokenhead wrote:If life arose spontaneously, why has it never done so again?

It is arising spontaneously (through cause and effect) right this very moment in countless places throughout the Universe but because your vision of the Universe is so extremely small you can't see it happening.

On this planet, life, which is to say, relatively complex, replicating material, may have only evolved the once in billions of years, but because you didn't see it happen you conclude that it didn't happen.

You are unable to find purpose in the existence of life. Therefore, you preach that is has none. So your purpose is to say there is no purpose.

I don't say that there is no purpose but that your purpose is your own. You cannot inflict it on others. Different people can have different purposes; one person can value truth and another can value untruth.

Leyla wrote:I think you have used a false analogy. I am interested in seeing if you can come up with one that works, however.

You mean can I come up with an analogy that you will accept as not being false and somehow convincing you of something that you have no intention of agreeing with? That seems unlikely, based on our exchange thus far.

You seem intent on missing the point I am trying to make. I'll try to work around that.

I tell you that, logically, I assume I will exist in the future on the basis of past conditions/causes of my existence.

Your highlighting seems to indicate you are saying because it is your experience that you have existed, you will continue to do so.

The fact is, this is an unwarranted assumption. The fact is, at some time, the assumption will, without question, fail you. And yet no one questions the validity of the assumption, mainly because most mentally healthy people make the same assumption. It is vital to making plans and constructing a life, as we do not know the time when the assumption will fail, only that it must at some point.

Do you follow me so far?

What I am asking you, THEREFORE, is: what are the provisional conditions/causes for the belief in your God?

First of all, it is not my God, any more than the air is my air or the ground is my ground.

Now let me try to restate your question in a way that I hope is fully equivalent to see whether I am understanding it any better the third time you have repeated it, because emphasis notwithstanding, we seem not to be connecting on this point you are making. I give you my word that I am really trying.

"Provisional conditions/causes" seems to be where I am losing you. You have stated your belief that you will be alive tomorrow is based on your experience of that having been the case so far. Are you asserting that my belief that there is a Creator would only be as valid if I have never known that belief to fail to hold true? That is not possible, as I have not always held my current beliefs. My faith has been acquired due to my observations of the world and the life in it.

Leyla, what I was doing was comparing one instance of faith to another to try to use the first to somehow illuminate the second. Your failure to accept this as a valid analogy is missing the point. You then call it false and challenge me to come up with one that you will not also call false. I am perhaps not being very illuminating in my choice of analogy. But it is said it is better to light one acndle than curse the darkness, is it not?

What if I were to tell you that no such analogy exists? You are not asking for an analogy, you are asking to be convinced somehow. It might not be "proof" that God exists, as we both feel that to be impossible. I state, therefore, that if I were to come up with an analogy which you would not deem "false", then I would in fact have convinced you - even short of actual proof - that God exists.

The very fact that you say "your" god implies you will not accept such an analogy, and that you are determined to consider any analogy that I can give as "false." You clearly wish to distance yourself from faith, at least faith as you see it in others, as if it were a disease that you might catch. I say to that, that is actually quite understandable. Until, however, you try faith and make it your own. You then become immune to the fallacies of others. For instance, I say I believe there is a God. Yet I revile those people who claim that any one particular organized religion is the only path to "salvation" and that all others are damned. My faith is more like an innoculation than a disease!

I am saying my analogy is not particularly "false." It merely is an analogy. All analogies are contrived. They are all false to some extent.

What I have done is to try to give you reasons why I believe what I do. I have tried to offer some evidence and my take on it. It is all I can really do. I am trying to point out that my faith is not blind. It never has been. I am a skeptic by nature and a scientist by trining. I weigh the evidence I see around me. I simply am trying to share that with you. I can see I am wasting my effort.

No, Leyla. You believe you will be alive tomorrow. And if you are, you will have this same belief. At some point, you will have the belief erroneously, without fail. Until then, you are proceeding on faith of some sort, regardless of whether it is grounded in experience or not.

You asked what would evidence be without proof? I said it would be evidence. Instead of taking umbrage at my reply - which is entirely factual and valid - why don't you answer your own question for my benefit? I clearly do not understand what you were getting at. Why not try to help me out?