No such thing as God because there's no such thing as God!

[Flappycat]

In the LDS doctrine we have what we call the light of Christ. It's not a simple thing to define and truly I don't understand every implication of it. The best way I can explain it is by saying the rest of the world calls it your conscience. This is what I believe works in you when you do good. I say works in you because it is more like a flame than anything. It can be fed and it can grow. It can be neglected and slowly die. It can be snuffed out all together.

So it's a theological concept. Have you had any direct experience with this at all? I've heard of similar concepts, one being Socrates' daemon. If you're familiar with it, would you say there's any similarity?

I started to type out a summary of his argument but realized that I was doing exactly what it bothered me that you were doing. It really bothers me when people try to disprove the existence of a higher power but as much as I dislike it I should not try to prove it by logical means either. First because it can't be done. Second it tries to undermine your beliefs. If you come to the conclusion on your own that there must be a God that is great. But it needs to be your own conclusion in your own way. If you really want to know, I would suggest study and prayer (no matter how silly it sounds). If you are here for an argument then I don't know what to tell you. I think I have spent too much time trying to argue already.

I don't mind, though. I find it entertaining, much more so if those involved are inclined to be sporting.

 

[Bishka]

It's not an argument. I thought this was a discussion.

It is a discussion/debate, but some people around here just like to insult others because their ideas may seem silly, different or illogical to them.

 

[quadrophenic_9]

Have you ever helped someone at your own expense and had it be easier to help someone the next time? Have you ever been revolted at a viloent scene in a movie then found it much less jarring the next time you watched another viloent scene? That is how it works. Everyone experiences it becuase the light of Christ is given to everyone.

As far as the quote though, if you want to look for it, it is in Mere Christianity. His whole string of logic is in the first 4 chapters (another reason I found it so difficult to summarize). Something was troubling me as I typed it up. One thing was that I really and honestly did not understand his string of logic; not completely anyway. Then a scripture came to mind, something my bishop had read to me just yesterday. The scriptures says that revelation comes to your mind and your heart. It occurred to me that what CS Lewis had recieved was a revelation for him. It made sense in his mind and it touched his heart. His revelation was not mine and though it made sense in my heart, because I already believed it, it eluded the logical portion of me. Does that make sense? I think that if you read his statement it may or may not make one bit of difference to you.

One thing people tell me in the LDS church is if you want to talk to God, you pray. If you want God to speak to you, you read the scriptures. That is again what I suggest. Nothing I say will make a difference. You believe what you belive because you have experienced it. If you don't experience God, you can't have a belief in him. I know it's a strange thing to say and an even stranger way to say it but it is true.

 

[Flappycat]

Have you ever helped someone at your own expense and had it be easier to help someone the next time? Have you ever been revolted at a viloent scene in a movie then found it much less jarring the next time you watched another viloent scene? That is how it works. Everyone experiences it becuase the light of Christ is given to everyone.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying, though I'm not entirely clear on how you arrived upon your conclusion.

As far as the quote though, if you want to look for it, it is in Mere Christianity. His whole string of logic is in the first 4 chapters (another reason I found it so difficult to summarize). Something was troubling me as I typed it up. One thing was that I really and honestly did not understand his string of logic; not completely anyway. Then a scripture came to mind, something my bishop had read to me just yesterday. The scriptures says that revelation comes to your mind and your heart. It occurred to me that what CS Lewis had recieved was a revelation for him. It made sense in his mind and it touched his heart. His revelation was not mine and though it made sense in my heart, because I already believed it, it eluded the logical portion of me. Does that make sense? I think that if you read his statement it may or may not make one bit of difference to you.

I may look into it. However, from what little snatches I can find on him, it doesn't sound like he was much of an atheist. I'm not sure what to expect.

One thing people tell me in the LDS church is if you want to talk to God, you pray. If you want God to speak to you, you read the scriptures. That is again what I suggest. Nothing I say will make a difference. You believe what you belive because you have experienced it. If you don't experience God, you can't have a belief in him. I know it's a strange thing to say and an even stranger way to say it but it is true.

Yes. I do have to base what I am inclined to believe upon what I've been exposed to. This is a fact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You did say you want to understand where we were coming from afterall.

Where did I say that?

 

[kellyjaz]

What exactly is it that you believe in? Tell me this, and perhaps we'll have a discussion about it if you're interested.

My beliefs are not up for discussion here.

 

[Flappycat]

My beliefs are not up for discussion here.

They're up for discussion anywhere that you speak of them. What exactly do you mean when you say "god"? Are you saying the word just to hear it?

 

[kellyjaz]

well, what you say is true but you can't discuss them with me any more.

Peace be upon you and i wish you the very best in whatever that you are trying to find out.

 

[Flappycat]

well, what you say is true but you can't discuss them with me any more.

I couldn't discuss them at all, though, because I don't know what, specifically, they are.

Peace be upon you and i wish you the very best in whatever that you are trying to find out.

If so, I'm curious as to why you were responding to this topic if you were uninclined to discuss your beliefs.

 

[Random]

If so, I'm curious as to why you were responding to this topic if you were uninclined to discuss your beliefs.

Possibly because she's a woman of faith who feels uncomfortable debating a "militant" atheist?

 

[Flappycat]

Possibly because she's a woman of faith who feels uncomfortable debating a "militant" atheist?

That doesn't explain why she posted here in the first place.

Don't set off "militant" in quotes. It belongs together with "atheist" in the description of my views in regard to religion.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Wow. Heated and interesting discussion.

While I suppose that in the end I see "God(s)" as kind of a talisman (an important one for many people, and I support that belief for those who wish it), I am currently in the middle of my own spiritual investigation and for now do postulate a belief in God.

My reasoning really begins with Descartes' well-known phrase "Cogito Ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am."

I know that Descartes reasoned up to God using this as his starting point, but I wished to start anew with my own reasoning. Really, because I've never gotten around to reading his reasoning, and besides, it was too much fun doing it myself. In the end, it is also my investigation, starting from myself (my own ability to doubt all except that I doubt).

Since I know that I exist at least subjectively (there are--however unlikely--reasons to doubt anything besides), I can divide my existence into two worlds: my known subjective perspective, and the assumed objective world. I may as well assume the objective world exists, since 1) my subjective mind is fed by my senses, and they are the only instruments available to me to detect my world (even if given to me by an evil genius), and 2) even if I am a "brain in a vat," there is still an external world to that vat.

My subjective mind may indeed be seperate from my body, because if all the material of my body were copied (DNA, memories, etc.), I could still not look at each copy through the same subjective mind (or, at least, I take that as highly absurd).

Now, since I have established that I exist in two worlds--the objective and subjective--I can say that one would not exist without the other. This does go back to the if-a-tree-falls axiom, in that, if I did not exist would the objective world exist? It would, for other subjective minds, if I may assume they exist (which I could, since Descartes could also doubt everything but his thinking, showing the possibility of outside subjectivity). But imagine that I was the only subjective mind left in existence. If I die, does then the objective world cease to exist?

It seems like an impossible answer, since no one would be around to see if it fades out of existence. But that's precisely the point: no one is around to subjectively view its existence, so it therefore does not exist (or should I say, may as well not exist? Really, I see them as one in the same at the moment). I also want to say that the opposite is true: without the objective, the subjective would not exist, but I see that as rather obvious.

So if the objective world exists, then life is crucial to its existence. Unless there is a subjective entity seperate of life.

Life is a rather delicate thing, and it can be imagined that the universe could be void of it at times (unless it is infinite, but I'm not sure I want to go there now). It cannot be void of life, because in order to create new life through whatever means it uses (evolution?) it needs to exist. If the origin of subjective perspective (consciousness) were seperate from the material universe, then it could sustain the existence of the material world through whatever changes it goes through, as well as act as the origin of organic consciousness.

Thus, I take the long--but personally needed in order to prove it to myself--way to panentheism (or some form of it. Would this God necessarily have to the "moving force" behind the universe, or simply a conscious observer?). I am forever in discovery, since I am but a subjective mind in a world of limitless possibilities, but this works for me now.

But that's just my perspective.

 

[kellyjaz]

That doesn't explain why she posted here in the first place.

Don't set off "militant" in quotes. It belongs together with "atheist" in the description of my views in regard to religion.

Honestly...
Because i know you will own my *** with you're ''Athiesm'' which i reject. And yeah i do feel uncomfortable with not answering you and giving you an explanation or perhaps an 'answer'.

Why did i post in the fist place?
i don't know.. i just felt like it..

 

[Flappycat]

Honestly...
Because i know you will own my *** with you're ''Athiesm'' which i reject. And yeah i do feel uncomfortable with not answering you and giving you an explanation or perhaps an 'answer'.

Atheism is merely a rejection of religion, though. I decided that something about it smells, and I opted out. Simple.

 

[Flappycat]

Wow. Heated and interesting discussion.

While I suppose that in the end I see "God(s)" as kind of a talisman (an important one for many people, and I support that belief for those who wish it), I am currently in the middle of my own spiritual investigation and for now do postulate a belief in God.

I do not. Holding a belief, knowing that it is faulty, is unpardonable. Willful ignorance is just plain criminal.

Since I know that I exist at least subjectively (there are--however unlikely--reasons to doubt anything besides), I can divide my existence into two worlds: my known subjective perspective, and the assumed objective world. I may as well assume the objective world exists, since 1) my subjective mind is fed by my senses, and they are the only instruments available to me to detect my world (even if given to me by an evil genius), and 2) even if I am a "brain in a vat," there is still an external world to that vat.

On what grounds do you create such a bifurcation? I find it completely contrived and unjustified. You are making a gigantic and completely and utterly baseless assumption and basing every whit and jot of your reasoning on it, as Descartes did. Start again, and, this time, acknowledge all of your sensory input, feelings, and notions as a part of your subjective self, and infer, deduce, and extrapolate from there. This does not kindle the existence of an "objective" world, merely your inferences of a world that you have been a compartment of all along. Compute, devil machine! Compute! Do not blindly assume two worlds to exist when you have access to only one! Asserting that your subjective self is a vaporous, seperate "other" does not magically cause it to be so!

So if the objective world exists, then life is crucial to its existence. Unless there is a subjective entity seperate of life.

Not at all. A subjective mind is crucial for subjectivity. You subjectively infer that you're part of a larger universe. You cannot know this objectively, but you don't have anything else to go on and are only claiming to yourself that this is what you have determined based upon the empirical data and your tools of reasoning. You're not claiming to know it objectively, for this would require you to be infallible. If you were infallible, you would know all of these things without the faintest bit of doubt and, needless to say, would know that you are infallible.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I do not. Holding a belief, knowing that it is faulty, is unpardonable. Willful ignorance is just plain criminal.

Unpardonable perhaps to some people. I see no reason why a person should not hold a belief in God despite their philosophical knowledge against it if it's something they really need. Life is rough, and for many people, it can get unbearable. That belief in God can be the only thing that gets them through. How is that unpardonable or criminal?

You are making a gigantic and completely and utterly baseless assumption

How is dividing my existence between that of the objective and the subjective baseless? My example of the complete copy provides me with that base. Despite having all the required materials and memories, there will not be two of the same conscious being.

You subjectively infer that you're part of a larger universe. You cannot know this objectively, but you don't have anything else to go on and are only claiming to yourself that this is what you have determined based upon the empirical data and your tools of reasoning.

The reason why I subjectively infer that I am part of a larger universe is because I simply cannot ignore the data from my senses. They are fallible, and they may be fed data from a demon computer, but really, they are the only instruments I know.

Even if fed from a demon computer, it still stands to reason that my subjective mind does not exist in and of itself. The data from the demon computer still comes from somewhere, and the demon computer must have an origin.

 

[Flappycat]

Unpardonable perhaps to some people. I see no reason why a person should not hold a belief in God despite their philosophical knowledge against it if it's something they really need. Life is rough, and for many people, it can get unbearable. That belief in God can be the only thing that gets them through.

It's all the worse, then, because my experience and that of ex-theists I've known has been that gnawing doubts and feelings of guilt because of them have a tendency to cause or worsen depression. I have the impression, based upon what I've seen and heard, that giving them due and fair analysis is better for one's self-esteem and sense of security than remaining in denial. A person who sincerely believes is one thing: a deeply closeted doubter is quite another.

How is that unpardonable or criminal?

It's dishonest. I do not accept it.

How is dividing my existence between that of the objective and the subjective baseless? My example of the complete copy provides me with that base. Despite having all the required materials and memories, there will not be two of the same conscious being.

Of course there wouldn't be because they wouldn't be composed of the same matter. This doesn't make your "subjective" existence a ghostly entity. It simply means that you can't be in two places at once. This doesn't give you grounds for the bifurcation. Your capacity for subjectivity isn't tantamount to a seperate existence. It doesn't follow logic.

The data from the demon computer still comes from somewhere, and the demon computer must have an origin.

Your central nervous system would do unless you have a more empirically supported idea.

If I'm not making sense, see if Ryle can phrase it better.

http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~philosophy/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fall03BerkichIntro/TextRyleDescartesMistake

Perhaps you don't like the fact that you're a mushmind, but you're a mushmind. Literally.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Of course there wouldn't be because they wouldn't be composed of the same matter. This doesn't make your "subjective" existence a ghostly entity. It simply means that you can't be in two places at once. This doesn't give you grounds for the bifurcation. Your capacity for subjectivity isn't tantamount to a seperate existence. It doesn't follow logic.

I disagree. I think my capacity for subjectivity does give me a dual existence in a subjective and objective sense.

1. I see myself in a subjective sense.
2. I see the rest of the world through an objective sense.
_____________________________
_____________________________
Therefore, I see my life as having a dual existence.

The clone thought experiment simply shows that we don't see things through our material selves, but through our consciousness. Consciousness may be something that is purely neurological, but it is still hard to define as such. It is, in fact, still a topic of debate in the scientific world.

Besides that, even if it were possible to use the same material to create two exact copies would there be two seperate subjective minds?

A person who sincerely believes is one thing: a deeply closeted doubter is quite another.

A person who seriously needs a God-figure is going to sincerely believe despite philosophical evidence against it. I don't see that as dishonesty; it is simply acceptance that sometimes reason falls short of being human. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)." - Walt Whitman.

 

[Flappycat]

I disagree. I think my capacity for subjectivity does give me a dual existence in a subjective and objective sense.

Halt. You're using "subjectivity" in two senses, here. You're using it to describe a function in one instance and a type of existence in the other. You're going to have to clarify your use of the term here and justify using it in two different senses. If I'm missing something, it is not willfully so.

1. I see myself in a subjective sense.
2. I see the rest of the world through an objective sense.

First, you'll have to clarify what you mean when you say that you "see yourself." Also, please stick to common terminology: I can only assume that, by "objective sense," you mean to refer to your empirical senses. I doubt you mean to say that you can view the universe objectively from your subjective perception of it.

Therefore, I see my life as having a dual existence.

Do you mean to say that you exist in two places at once? You'll have to explain what you mean by this further because it doesn't seem to compute.

The clone thought experiment simply shows that we don't see things through our material selves, but through our consciousness.

I have already made it clear that either this is nonsensical or that, for some reason, I cannot make sense of it. It seems important to your theories, so expand upon it.

Consciousness may be something that is purely neurological, but it is still hard to define as such. It is, in fact, still a topic of debate in the scientific world.

It's actually pretty well agreed upon that the entire brain seems to be responsible for consciousness. Your brain works the same, on a fundamental level, as the nervous tissue spread throughout your body. Consciousness as we know it is a result of interaction between several different structures in the brain. In short, asking where our "conscious mind" is located in the brain is much like asking where the computer is when you're looking at a desktop that is equipped with a mouse, keyboard, speakers, headset, flatscreen monitor, ASUS motherboard, raptor drive, etcetera. It's the whole bloody thing. All of them are necessary to give you exactly the experience that you get from it.

Besides that, even if it were possible to use the same material to create two exact copies would there be two seperate subjective minds?

Firstly, how would you go about forcing an atom to be in the same place at the same time? For another, yes, there would be two completely seperate people if you could do any such thing.

A person who seriously needs a God-figure is going to sincerely believe despite philosophical evidence against it.

It is impossible to believe something sincerely while ignoring doubts, though. You know then that your belief has a fault, even if the tiniest fissure, and that one is refusing to recognize or investigate it, and the onus can weigh heavily on a person's psyche. It isn't healthy.

I don't see that as dishonesty; it is simply acceptance that sometimes reason falls short of being human.

If you continue to hold onto beliefs that you know are implausible, then, no matter how much you may attempt to lionize such behavior, you are living a lie.

 

[!Fluffy!]

It is impossible to believe something sincerely while ignoring doubts, though. You know then that your belief has a fault, even if the tiniest fissure, and that one is refusing to recognize or investigate it, and the onus can weigh heavily on a person's psyche. It isn't healthy.

If you continue to hold onto beliefs that you know are implausible, then, no matter how much you may attempt to lionize such behavior, you are living a lie.

Frubals to you from a devout Christian for stating the truth clearly. I marvel at the God who created such an excellent brain, Flappycat. Your flawless logic is exceeded only by your incisive wit. This is by far the most enjoyable thread I have ever come across on this forum.

Christians would do well to hone and sharpen their beliefs and confront their doubts head on -- and fearlessly -- before spreading them around like so much candy. Better to be an honest skeptic than a dishonest follower. "Lord, help me in my unbelief" should be tattooed on every heart, yet it seems to be a concept most believers are personally unfamiliar with.

When reading scripture, Doubt sits on my shoulder - as a welcome guardian against mindless acceptance, keeping me vigilant. Faith becomes strengthened and muscular only when wrestling with doubt.

Flappycat: If the universe had a creator, based on your observations of the world around you and your observations of yourself and how you as a created mechanism or being function, what would the creator be like? (Assuming one can discover something about an artist's personality by examining her art).