Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Jac! As I said before, thoughts are not real. Easter Bunny is not real. Now if you wanna use the term Imaginary; fine. Easter Bunny is imaginary, and whatever it is you are thinking about (aka thoughts) are imaginary. Now if that is an argument for materialism, fine. If that makes me a materialist, I'm okay with that too. These are my opinions; the label of materialism is irrelevant to me

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Jac! As I said before, thoughts are not real. Easter Bunny is not real. Now if you wanna use the term Imaginary; fine. Easter Bunny is imaginary, and whatever it is you are thinking about (aka thoughts) are imaginary. Now if that is an argument for materialism, fine. If that makes me a materialist, I'm okay with that too. These are my opinions; the label of materialism is irrelevant to me

Ken

See that wasn't so hard now was it.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: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.

Jac! As I said before, thoughts are not real. Easter Bunny is not real. Now if you wanna use the term Imaginary; fine. Easter Bunny is imaginary, and whatever it is you are thinking about (aka thoughts) are imaginary. Now if that is an argument for materialism, fine. If that makes me a materialist, I'm okay with that too. These are my opinions; the label of materialism is irrelevant to me

Ken

See that wasn't so hard now was it.

I must have answered the same question a half dozen times already. I guess some people just like making things more difficult than it needs to be

Ken

Kenny wrote: I guess some people just like making things more difficult than it needs to be

Ken

Yeah! you! ...at least you're good for a few laughs.

FL

The Sub-Laws of Cause and Effect framed within Reality

No effect can occur without a cause
No effect can be its own cause
Every cause must produce an effect
Every effect becomes the cause for another effect
Cause and effect can not happen simultaneously

Every journey has a beginning. It is said with the first physical step. The first step is not produced and therefore not completed without the thought of which direction to go on your journey. The thought is the only relevant conclusion possible for the decision of which direction you take. Thought is immaterial but conclusively required for any action taken within human means.

The "Cause" for all the above Sub Laws of reality can be substituted with or for the word thought. Thereby thought, whether one thinks it is imaginary or not, is an actionable cause for effect. So effect (the physical "happening") defined as real because the caused action is verifiable, can only transpire with, initially, thought, and therefore very real. As real (as the initiation) of the cause and effect of everything you do every moment of every day.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Every cause must produce an effect
Every effect becomes the cause for another effect

Just to pick a nit, I don't think these have to be true. If something produces an effect, it is thereby a cause, so perhaps in a trivial sense every cause produces an effect. But if by this you mean that every thing actually produces effects, that doesn't have to be true. Likewise, it isn't necessarily true that every effect becomes a cause for something else. It's important to remember that causality happens in the effect, not in the cause. That is because to cause something is to bring about--to cause to exist--some state of affairs, or in scholastic jargon, for some act to reduce something's potentiality to actuality. The change is completely in the effect and never in the cause (insofar as we are talking about the specific cause, effect, and change).

From that, we see that effects are produced when a thing's potentiality is actualized by something in act; thus, all causes are in act. But being in act is not sufficient to be a cause. That which is in act must interact with something else's potentiality, and it must do so in a very specific way, namely, as an object to its end (which is why, with no exception, every efficient cause is oriented to a final cause). As such, it is perfectly conceivable that any object X is in act but does not interact with any other object Y, and in that case, X would not produce an effect.

Theologically, this is important in that God, as the First Cause and Prime Mover, did not necessarily create or produce any effects whatsoever. He freely willed to do so. But had He so willed, He could have instead chosen to remain eternally sufficient and happy within Himself, willing nothing at all other than Himself.

Okay, so much for nits. Back to your regularly scheduled . . . whatever it was that ken was doing.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kenny wrote: I guess some people just like making things more difficult than it needs to be

Ken

Yeah! you! ...at least you're good for a few laughs.

FL

Oh so I'm the difficult one? I'm not the one who asked the same questions that had been answered a dozen times before getting the same answer over and over again. But of course you are going to see what you wanna see I suppose....

Just to pick a nit, I don't think these have to be true.

Agreed from a view point well above ours .. that's why I used the ... for any action taken within human means. You caught that quite correctly. Within human terms I think they stand as solid and well principled, but nice catch, you're right.

Theologically, this is important in that God, as the First Cause and Prime Mover, did not necessarily create or produce any effects whatsoever.

Here is why you're the real party pooper I was in hopes to relay the final coup de gras with the First Cause and the Last End to all things was his only unpaintable corner from which to escape. I thought ken relying on God to gain his point was amusing, but it is the only avenue left to him, unless he resorts to ... oh yeah....

whatever it was that ken was doing. ...

Haha, I'm sorry . . . I didn't mean to steal your thunder. On the coup de gras, I would point you back to FL's chessgame. I take it that he truly doesn't see how ridiculous he is being. I don't think he's being malicious or that he's even trolling. He just really doesn't know what he's talking about, but sadly, he is convinced he does. Still, it's helpful to have him around for reasons I already pointed out. I do hope you make the point you were aiming at, though, even if I preempted you a bit. Others here aren't as well versed in the interplay of those ideas, and so your comments may prove helpful to them. I'm tempted to say that I'm sorry that have to be at Kenny's expense, but I also understand that he could profit from them, too, if he were to stop arguing and just listen with an open mind. But that's between him and God. As such, I'd rather not his failure to profit from your words prevent the rest of us from doing so.

EssentialSacrifice wrote: I was in hopes to relay the final coup de gras with the First Cause and the Last End to all things was his only unpaintable corner from which to escape. I thought ken relying on God to gain his point was amusing, but it is the only avenue left to him,

Me relying on God to gain my point? Where are you getting this stuff? We weren’t even discussing God, and I definitely wasn’t using him to gain a point. But that’s okay; I’m sorta getting used to it, after a few exchanges with Jac, I’m sorta getting used to words being put in my mouth that aren’t my own and having them refuted because it is much easier to build your own straw man to tear down than to refute my actual words.
Carry-on….

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 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

Been following this thread with interest.

Kenny? Why do you ask everyone to prove and back up their words yet when asked to do the same you push it onto others?
You state thoughts only exist in the context of material beings yet haven't backed it up. Jac asked you to, your response was to ask him to disprove it. Not his job, you need to prove it first before he can disprove it, otherwise all we have are opinions.

This might sound materialistic, but maybe it can be said that for now our thoughts exist as nerve impulses in the brain. I do believe though that God is very capable of thought without a physical brain, and that we will not necessarily need our physical brains to think after we die. So for now our minds are using our brains as we're inhabiting these bodies.

Storyteller wrote:

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 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

Been following this thread with interest.

Kenny? Why do you ask everyone to prove and back up their words yet when asked to do the same you push it onto others?
You state thoughts only exist in the context of material beings yet haven't backed it up. Jac asked you to, your response was to ask him to disprove it. Not his job, you need to prove it first before he can disprove it, otherwise all we have are opinions.

I feel Jac asked me an impossible question to answer. If you believe material is the only things that have an actual existence (my belief); then logic will tell you thoughts can only originate from material things. If you believe in the existence of the spiritual world;(Jac's belief) then that logic does not apply. When Jac asked me to prove what I claimed, in order to do so I would have to disprove the existence of the spiritual world (prove a negative) which is impossible because the spiritual world is defined in a way that makes it impossible to prove or disprove.
So I can only back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has my POV, but I cannot back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has Jac's (or anyone else who claims the existence of the spiritual world) POV.
I hope that clears things up

Ken

Kenny wrote:So I can only back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has my POV, but I cannot back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has Jac's (or anyone else who claims the existence of the spiritual world) POV.

You are really quite amusing, Kenny. I've found you funny ever since you insisted that a single person could have two or more worldviews...remember that?!

Anyway, I wanted to tell you that while you may not know if you are a materialist or not, it is quite evident to me that you have swallowed some ideas from materialism/naturalism. And this statement of your's is pure postmodernism:

Kenny wrote:So I can only back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has my POV, but I cannot back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has Jac's (or anyone else who claims the existence of the spiritual world) POV.

You just said, "What's true for me is not what's true for you" but you've used fancier language. Anyway you say it, it's nonsense.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: You are really quite amusing, Kenny. I've found you funny ever since you insisted that a single person could have two or more worldviews...remember that?!

Yes! I remember that conversation! That was typical of what I deal with when discussing with you guys. First YOU claim that a world view is nearly impossible to change short of major trauma in your life or a miracle;
Then Jlay pipes in and says his worldview has “evolved”, and Flawed Intellect says your world view will often change according to the environment one lives in; both guys totally contradicting what YOU said about worldview.

There we had 3 "experts" trying to tell me what a worldview is and you guys can’t even agree on what one is yourselves!
Now you would think you guys would notice the contradiction in your opinions, would discuss it and come to a consensus to clear this up, but no; you guys were content with leaving the conversation assuming I was the one confused; when it was obvious that it was actually you guys who were. Yes I remember that conversation; except I thought you were the funny one.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Anyway, I wanted to tell you that while you may not know if you are a materialist or not, it is quite evident to me that you have swallowed some ideas from materialism/naturalism. And this statement of your's is pure postmodernism:

I don’t think I have ever spoken to a person who claims to have been a materialist. All I know is what makes sense to me. If my opinions give you the impression that I am a materialist/naturalist; I have no problem with that.

Kenny wrote:So I can only back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has my POV, but I cannot back up my claim to the satisfaction of someone who has Jac's (or anyone else who claims the existence of the spiritual world) POV.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:You just said, "What's true for me is not what's true for you" but you've used fancier language. Anyway you say it, it's nonsense.

FL

Why is it nonsense? Would you like me to give you an example of "what's true for me is not true for you"; that you might agree with?

Ken