Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote: Do you know the difference between “make-believe, and real”? Thoughts are make-believe; material is real.

jlay wrote:Perhaps that is a question you should ask yourself. You are saying that thoughts aren't real, which really creates a huge problem, since what you are saying is that what you are saying isn't real.

I am saying thoughts don't have an actual existence by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings that are real.

kenny wrote:No. Thoughts only exist in the context of something that is real. I am real, but my thoughts only exist to me, via my imagination/make-believe world. The only way they can become real to you is if I describe them to you; then they can exist in your imagination/make-believe world.

jlay wrote:Not really sure what you are trying to say with this. First, I should point out, that these black tokens I'm reading are a communication of your thought.

Yes! But they are not my actual thoughts. The letters you describe are only token representatives of my thoughts.

jlay wrote:Your thoughts certainly exist,

I disagree! The tokens that represent my thoughts exist.

jlay wrote:That's exactly why logic matters. Should our thoughts about the material world correspond to reality?

If you wish to put those thoughts in action; it should. Otherwise why does it matter?

jlay wrote:In fact, I can read the thoughts of Shakespeare even though he is no longer 'real.'

Again I disagree! You can only read the token representatives used to interpret his thoughts.

jlay wrote:Yes, I know that your material brain is connected to your mind,

Connected to the brain? The mind is just a term we use when describing a specific function of the brain (thinking) To say the mind is connected to the brain is like saying "4-wheelin" is connected to my Jeep

jlay wrote:but that doesn't answer the question of whether the mind is in fact a real immaterial thing.

Again; Mind is just a term we use when describing specific brain actions, the brain is real material.

jlay wrote:If it is only material then you aren't thinking, you are just a moist robot reacting to stimuli.

How does thinking differ from "reacting to stimuli"?

kenny wrote:True. And what is logical to me, might be completely illogical to you!

jlay wrote:This is classic example of trying to have your cake and it too. Either logic exist, or no truth exists. Period.

Again; they only exist in the context of something else, they don't exist by themselves. If intelligent beings did not exist, neither would logic, truth, or anything else related to thoughts.

jlay wrote:Answer the question, where does logic exist?

It is a part of your thoughts.

jlay wrote:Is it imaginary? Is it material or immaterial?

Imaginary and inmaterial

kenny wrote:The human mind does not have to submit to logic; the (real) person who controls the mind submit to logic if he chooses to

jlay wrote:Of course the mind must submit to logic. If it doesn't, then you can't argue for anything, or even the mind itself.

Have you ever heard of playing "Devil's advocate"?

Kenny wrote:How do you know the “singular” began to exist?

jlay wrote:The burden is on you. Sorry Ken, but you can't invoke causality (if you are standing on science then you are standing on causality) and then cast it aside when it suits you. As I said, I'm making a positive argument for God.

We haven't gotten to God yet; first things first. You made the assertion that the singular that existed prior to the Big Bang had a cause. You made this assertion; you made this claim; and the burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion/claim.

Ken

Jac3510 wrote:Once again, to simplify: if materialism is true, nothing exists that is not material; thoughts are not material; therefore, either thoughts do not exist (at all, not even some "imaginary" existence, since ALL existence on materialism is physical existence) or else materialism is false.

Once again; thoughts don’t have an actual existence; they don’t exist by themselves. They only exist in the context of intelligent beings that do exist by themselves. If there were no intelligent beings, there would be no thoughts.
Perhaps a definition of "exist" is in order. My definition is akin to dictionary.com. Is yours?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exist

Ken

jlay wrote:Yes, our thoughts aren't material, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. You are failing basic metaphysics here. Think of a two ton pink elephant. Now, if we cut open your brain, we won't find a two ton pink elephant. So, what were you thinking of? If materialism is true, then your thoughts don't exist, and in turn you don't exist. You are just a moist robot who thinks, uh, he exists. But if that is true, then your thought that our thoughts are imaginary is, well, imaginary. But you aren't saying that. You are saying that your thought is actually true. So, we are to believe that somehow your thoughts are exempt from your own worldview. I'm sorry, why are you here again?

jlay,

I'm having a little difficulty with the example you provide, which is similar to points I read recently from Edward Fesser in his book on Aquinas. That of cutting open Kenny's the brain to discover a pink elephant he is reflecting upon, or as Feser mentions the brain turning into a triangle when reflecting upon a triangle. Water is what immediately springs to mind but your example of the man in the mirror also conveys the same point. If we are infering the non-physical from being unable to find a pink elephant in Kenny's brain, surely we can also infer the non-physical from being unable to grasp the moon from the puddle or the man from the mirror. As my pond reflects it provides me with a distorted, undulating and relatively small perpective on the moon and you have provided me with a distorted perpective on an elephant, neither of which I can grasp. The pond has been influenced by the moon and presuambly you have at some point been influenced by the color pink and an elephant. The analogy flows on nicely to thoughts being as real as reflections are and therefore requiring either no particualr metaphysical commitment or being compatible with almost any conceivable metaphysical commitment you wish to hold on to.

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Once again, to simplify: if materialism is true, nothing exists that is not material; thoughts are not material; therefore, either thoughts do not exist (at all, not even some "imaginary" existence, since ALL existence on materialism is physical existence) or else materialism is false.

Once again; thoughts don’t have an actual existence; they don’t exist by themselves. They only exist in the context of intelligent beings that do exist by themselves. If there were no intelligent beings, there would be no thoughts.
Perhaps a definition of "exist" is in order. My definition is akin to dictionary.com. Is yours?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exist

Ken

The problem isn't the definition of "exist." The problem is that you aren't thinking clearly.

Do thoughts exist in any sense? That is a yes or no question. If no, then you have a self-defeating, nonsensical claim that no one, including yourself, should take seriously. After all, if thoughts have no existence of any kind, then what about the thought that thoughts don't exist? Such a position is, put plainly, stupid.

So fine, you say yes. Then the question is what kind of existence they have. You say "they only exist in the context of intelligent beings." To which I say, "Well, duh." No dualist (the opposite of a materialist) claims that thoughts exist outside of intelligent beings. The problem is what kind of existence they have. So what kind is it? Is it material existence or immaterial existence? That excludes all possibilities and is the direct issue under consideration in the context of a debate over materialism. The materialist, by definition, says that thoughts either do not exist or that they have material existence. Dualists say that thoughts have immaterial existence. It does not matter one bit if thoughts are dependent on intelligent beings. That's completely irrelevant. The question is ONLY whether thoughts exist as material or immaterial things.

That's your options. Either thoughts exist and are real or thoughts do not exist and are not real. If they don't exist, then there is no such thing as a thought, real or otherwise. If thoughts do exist, then the question is whether they have material or immaterial existence. If material, then thoughts are physical things. If immaterial, then they do not. So which is it, Kenny? Are thoughts material or are they immaterial things, or do they any kind of existence whatsoever, either material or immaterial?

Jac3510 wrote: So which is it, Kenny? Are thoughts material or are they immaterial things, or do they any kind of existence whatsoever, either material or immaterial?

As I said before, thoughts are immaterial, they only exist in the context of intelligent material beings; they do not exist on their own.

Ken

It doesn't matter if they don't exist on their own. No one is claiming that they don't. But your assertion that thoughts are immaterial is sufficient to disprove materialism, which states that all existence is material, that that are no immaterial things. Since thoughts exist immaterially, then at least some immaterial things exist, and therefore materialism is false.

See, that wasn't too hard.

Jac3510 wrote:It doesn't matter if they don't exist on their own. No one is claiming that they don't. But your assertion that thoughts are immaterial is sufficient to disprove materialism, which states that all existence is material, that that are no immaterial things. Since thoughts exist immaterially, then at least some immaterial things exist, and therefore materialism is false.

See, that wasn't too hard.

I never claimed to be a materialist; that's what someone else said of me. I have been clear from the start; thoughts, don't exist on their own, they only exist in the context of material beings.
Now if that's your interpretation of real, then everything is real, and nothing is nonexistent. If I can dream it up; it exist! Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Buggs Bunny... If I can dream it up, it is real because they exist in the context of material beings. My definition of "real" does not include those things, that's what I call "make believe".

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:It doesn't matter if they don't exist on their own. No one is claiming that they don't. But your assertion that thoughts are immaterial is sufficient to disprove materialism, which states that all existence is material, that that are no immaterial things. Since thoughts exist immaterially, then at least some immaterial things exist, and therefore materialism is false.

See, that wasn't too hard.

I never claimed to be a materialist; that's what someone else said of me. I have been clear from the start; thoughts, don't exist on their own, they only exist in the context of material beings.
Now if that's your interpretation of real, then everything is real, and nothing is nonexistent. If I can dream it up; it exist! Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Buggs Bunny... If I can dream it up, it is real. My definition of "real" does not include those things.

Ken

Nonsense. You put up an attempted defense of materialism. Even if you were only playing devil's advocate, the fact remains that your own words disproved the philosophy. As far as thoughts only existing in material beings, now you have made an assertion you have to back up. It's one thing to say that thoughts only exist in intelligent beings. That is definitional. To limit thoughts to the existence of material beings is a claim that requires evidence. So what evidence do you have to back that up?

As far as the imaginary things you bring up, of course they exist, and of course they only exist in the mind. But it's ridiculous to compare thoughts to the Easter Bunny. The EB doesn't have any kind of existence at all outside of your thoughts. But it's stupid to say that your thoughts don't have existence outside of your thoughts. You can certainly think about thinking, such that thoughts themselves become the object of thought. But thought itself is not something that exists within thought. It is, rather, it's own thing. More specifically, thought is the faculty of the rational mind. It is the means by which i considers, say, the Easter Bunny, and the same means by which it determines that the Easter Bunny has no existence outside of those thoughts.

In other words, thoughts are the paper on which the EB is drawn. The EB is not the paper itself. As such, thoughts do not have mere imaginary or cognitive existence. They have real, extramental existence, even as they are dependent on the rational mind for their own existence.

Your problem, it seems, is just that you aren't thinking deeply enough about thinking itself.

Jac3510 wrote: Nonsense. You put up an attempted defense of materialism. Even if you were only playing devil's advocate, the fact remains that your own words disproved the philosophy. As far as thoughts only existing in material beings, now you have made an assertion you have to back up. It's one thing to say that thoughts only exist in intelligent beings. That is definitional. To limit thoughts to the existence of material beings is a claim that requires evidence. So what evidence do you have to back that up?

Really??? Tell you what; give me some examples of thoughts that do not come from material beings. If you can’t; I think you have your answer.

Jac3510 wrote:As far as the imaginary things you bring up, of course they exist, and of course they only exist in the mind. But it's ridiculous to compare thoughts to the Easter Bunny. The EB doesn't have any kind of existence at all outside of your thoughts. But it's stupid to say that your thoughts don't have existence outside of your thoughts.

C'mon Jac; you're better than this! I never said any of that craziness you spittin’ out; and the only comparison I made between the two is in what is real or not.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Really??? Tell you what; give me some examples of thoughts that do not come from material beings. If you can’t; I think you have your answer.

Yes, really. I'm not doing your work for you. You say that thoughts can ONLY come from material things. Prove that. If your argument is, "I don't know of anything that isn't material that thinks, therefore there is nothing that thinks that is not material," then I'll call you irrational for obvious reasons and move on. Logical fallacies are marks of irrationality.

Again, either prove your statement or withdraw it. Either demonstrate that that all thoughts come from material things or withdraw it, and if you so choose, offer something else that is true in its place. But don't sit here and pretend that you can make stuff up and not get called out on it.

C'mon Jac; you're better than this! I never said any of that craziness you spittin’ out; and the only comparison I made between the two is in what is real or not.

Ken

Nonsense. You said thoughts are imaginary. You said the EB is imaginary. Now, if you want to draw a distinction between the two now that I have called you out on your false equivocation, then I'd be happy to hear it. But the fact is that the EB only as cognitive or mental existence whereas thoughts do NOT have cognitive or mental existence. Thoughts have REAL existence as they are the BASIS for the cognitive existence of things like the EB. As such, materialism is refuted twice over. Not only do immaterial things exist (thoughts), but some immaterial things REALLY exist (thought) as the basis for other other types of existence (cognitive existence).

Stop spouting nonsense. Own up to where you are wrong, or if you prefer, where you misstated and used unclear words and examples that implied things you did not intend and replace your fallacious statements with reasonable ones.

Jac3510 wrote: Yes, really. I'm not doing your work for you. You say that thoughts can ONLY come from material things. Prove that. If your argument is, "I don't know of anything that isn't material that thinks, therefore there is nothing that thinks that is not material," then I'll call you irrational for obvious reasons and move on. Logical fallacies are marks of irrationality.

You can call my position irrational or whatever you want; unless you can prove me wrong, or at least provide an argument against my claim; those are just more empty words.

Jac3510 wrote:Nonsense. You said thoughts are imaginary. You said the EB is imaginary.

I didn’t say “imaginary” that’s some noise YOU brought to the table. I said they are not real. And I only compared the two in the context of what is real or not. If you are gonna put words in my mouth; make sure they are my words; not your own.

Ken

Kenny wrote:You can call my position irrational or whatever you want; unless you can prove me wrong, or at least provide an argument against my claim; those are just more empty words.

I did prove you wrong. If you can't see the logical fallacy in, "I don't know of an instance of X, and therefore X does not exist," then I cannot help you. Since everyone else can see such an obvious mistake, then I'm content to leave your blatantly demonstrated irrationality on display.

I didn’t say “imaginary” that’s some noise YOU brought to the table.

YOU wrote:Thoughts aren't real, they are only imaginary.

Yup. You said that.

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote: Thoughts aren't real, they are only imaginary.

Yup. You said that.

Context Jac! Context. When I spoke to you concerning thoughts and easter bunny, I did not use the term "imaginary", I said real. Go back and read what I wrote. If or when I used the term imaginary, it was when I was talking to someone else and in the context of that conversation; not the conversation I was having with you.

Ken

Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.

FL

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote: Thoughts aren't real, they are only imaginary.

Yup. You said that.

Context Jac! Context. When I spoke to you concerning thoughts and easter bunny, I did not use the term "imaginary", I said real. Go back and read what I wrote. If or when I used the term imaginary, it was when I was talking to someone else and in the context of that conversation; not the conversation I was having with you.

Ken

You get more desperate with each post. I did go back and read what you wrote (as hard as it was). Yes, you were talking to "somebody else" when you used the word "imaginary," but you and I were talking about the same thing--namely, whether or not thought is real (material) or not (your word, imaginary), and therefore whether it disproved materialism. You don't get to say, "Hey, you can't use my words when I wasn't talking to you!" That's ridiculous.

You can own up to your words or not. They are right there for all to see. Or you can continue to pretend that you didn't say what we all see you said and continue make yourself look like pig-headed and obstinate. Look, good manners might insist I give you a chance to save face here, but you've lost so much of it, your best bet would be just to write the words, "Okay, you're right. I made a mistake," and move on. No one will fault you for it or think less of you. In fact, for the first time in a very long time, some people here might actually perk up and be surprised at your open mindedness. You'll forgive me, of course, if I am thoroughly convinced that you won't do any of that. I expect you to continue to bury your head deeper into the sand and say asinine things. I wish you would stop, because you seem insistent on doing everything you can to convince us that you truly are just a silly person.

Please, just stop. I'm not debating with you anymore, kenny. I am asking you -- stop it.

---------------------------------

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.

FL

Of course. But what better way to demonstrate to passersby who might be inclinced to believe claims that the monkey can play than let him play and act out his nature. I realize that folks like you and me benefit nothing whatsoever from this conversation, but there are others who do read this material. I put up with his shenanigans--in large part, I give him the stage to act them out--to give those other people a chance to see it and think, "Oh Lord, please God, don't let me end up like that!" On another board I post at from time to time, I had a resident atheist's quote in my sig box just for that effect. It went something like, "Well how do you KNOW that a rock ISN'T alive?!?" The quote spoke for itself. People with stupid worldviews say stupid things. You know, knowing a tree by its fruit and all that.

I'm under no illusion this is doing kenny any good whatsoever. But my hope for him is that the comments from all of us here will get buried deep down in his imaginary thoughts that one day, when no one is looking and he doesn't have to admit he is wrong to any of us, that he'll face up to how absurd he was and repent. I don't need to be around to see it. It's not about me or you. But, frankly, that's the best chance he has, for people here to plant seeds that later one will sprout on their own. Perhaps it will never happen, but I try to be the optimist on such things . . .