What is Faith?

[Whatsisface]

We should pray for coincidences.

No need, they are an inevitable part of reality, they happen all the time. They can't not happen.

 

[Exeter]

No need, they are an inevitable part of reality, they happen all the time. They can't not happen.

By coincidence most of us have eyes to see with, ears to hear with, and lungs to breathe with.

 

[Eightcrackers]

If the Christian God exists, then it is an answered prayer.

If.

But let's say there's a prominent person that I hated, and I prayed for them to die... and, later that day, they did.
Was that an answered prayer?

 

[Furion]

If.

But let's say there's a prominent person that I hated, and I prayed for them to die... and, later that day, they did.
Was that an answered prayer?

No, that's proof you hate.

 

[El Cid]

And what if thoughts ARE the electrical activity "associated" with them?

While that is possible, there is evidence that we can have thoughts that are totally independent of the biology of the brain.

 

[El Cid]

The waves aren't the sound we experience. The sounds we experience are produced by the waves hitting our ear drums and then through electrical activity the brain gives us the experience of sound. The sound we experience doesn't exist in itself.

Yes it does. All you have to do is put a microphone and record the sound when no humans are present and then replay the sound when a human is present, and it matches it almost perfectly.

If the brain can produce this experience of sound through electrical activity, why not thought?

Because there is evidence that we can have thoughts totally independent of brain biology.

 

[Whatsisface]

Yes it does. All you have to do is put a microphone and record the sound when no humans are present and then replay the sound when a human is present, and it matches it almost perfectly.

But that's because the mechanism of recording and playing back reproduces the original waves in the air via speakers or headphones which hit our eardrums and then again through electrical activity the brain gives us the experience of sound. The sound we experience doesn't exist in itself.

Because there is evidence that we can have thoughts totally independent of brain biology.

I find this baffling, that you make such a claim and yet not give the evidence. What is the evidence?

 

[El Cid]

You need to show the reasons he thinks it, not just state he thinks it.

He and others have observed them violating the laws of physics.

 

[Whatsisface]

He and others have observed them violating the laws of physics.

Please, give examples. My understanding is Hynek never saw a UFO himself.

 

[Eightcrackers]

He and others have observed them violating the laws of physics.

Did they record these observations?

 

[El Cid]

No, there aren't. I've seen you produce some of these things and not one of them holds up to rational scrutiny, any more than Muslims' similar claims about the Koran do.

Evidence?

 

[El Cid]

To be correct, Hynek has claimed (without being able to demonstrate) that UFOs have violated the laws of physics.

He has seen videos that show them behaving outside the laws of physics, and now we have many more videos released by DOD showing even more behaviors outside the laws of physics, and even more observations by military scientists.

 

[El Cid]

Tiburon: In what way?

Only the Christian God provides a rational basis for an objective reality, language, love, and the structure of the universe, ie diversity within a unity, among other things.

So Vishnu or Allah don't do that?

It is unlikely they will be able to. Since both gods are unified solitary beings, how would they know what language is since they never spoke to anyone for the eternity before they created the universe. Though of course, Vishnu became the universe, therefore it is basically not a personal being. So it would not know what love is in order to create it, and etc.

Your God has been fitted to reality.

No, the ancient hebrews didnt fully understand those aspects of reality or the universe, so they could not have fitted him to reality.

 

[El Cid]

Of course the laws of chemistry are not the same as the abstract laws of logic, nobody would say they were. Thing is, there is far more evidence that the physical brain gives rise to consciousness capable of abstract thought than something else giving rise to consciousness. In fact there is no evidence that something else gives rise to consciousness.

You are claiming that they are if the mind comes from the physical. There is no evidence that chemical reactions can reason.

WIF: One evidence that the physical brain gives rise to consciousness is, that if you damage the physical brain, you damage the corresponding aspect of consciousness. Dementia is a case in point, where the physical brain stops working properly because of plaques that form in the brain. When this happens a person ceases to be who they were, including the ability of abstract thought about concepts such as logic.

el cid: That is one interpretation, but it could also be that the mind uses the brain to interact with the outside world, it would be similar to my keyboard missing several keys, you would think I was mentally damaged when I started typing with my broken keyboard, but in actuality I was mentally ok, so it is with the mind, when the brain is damaged it is like the keyboard of the mind being damaged while in fact there is nothing wrong with mind.

 

[Tiburon]

It is unlikely they will be able to. Since both gods are unified solitary beings, how would they know what language is since they never spoke to anyone for the eternity before they created the universe. Though of course, Vishnu became the universe, therefore it is basically not a personal being. So it would not know what love is in order to create it, and etc.

No, the ancient hebrews didnt fully understand those aspects of reality or the universe, so they could not have fitted him to reality.

Who did the God of the Bible speak to?
What aspects of reality or the universe as presented in the Bible would the ancient Hebrews not have understood?

 

[Whatsisface]

You are claiming that they are if the mind comes from the physical. There is no evidence that chemical reactions can reason.

No I'm not. Of course chemical reactions can't reason in themselves, but a particular combination of brain cells and chemicals can give rise to self consciousness and so reasoning powers. Again, part of the evidence for this is when the brain goes wrong, our ability to reason goes wrong.

WIF: One evidence that the physical brain gives rise to consciousness is, that if you damage the physical brain, you damage the corresponding aspect of consciousness. Dementia is a case in point, where the physical brain stops working properly because of plaques that form in the brain. When this happens a person ceases to be who they were, including the ability of abstract thought about concepts such as logic.

el cid: That is one interpretation, but it could also be that the mind uses the brain to interact with the outside world, it would be similar to my keyboard missing several keys, you would think I was mentally damaged when I started typing with my broken keyboard, but in actuality I was mentally ok, so it is with the mind, when the brain is damaged it is like the keyboard of the mind being damaged while in fact there is nothing wrong with mind.

This is no more than a speculation on your part, you are introducing elements for which there is no evidence.

 

[Komodo]

[to @Whatsisface ]: That is one interpretation, but it could also be that the mind uses the brain to interact with the outside world, it would be similar to my keyboard missing several keys, you would think I was mentally damaged when I started typing with my broken keyboard, but in actuality I was mentally ok, so it is with the mind, when the brain is damaged it is like the keyboard of the mind being damaged while in fact there is nothing wrong with mind.

If a person with dementia insists that her best friend is trying to poison her (which is something that happened to my mother's best friend, near the end of her life), how is that compatible with that person having an undamaged mind? Where is the paranoid delusion taking place, if not in her mind?

 

[El Cid]

P1 is, "If naturalism is true, then chemical actions (which are in themselves non-rational) cause mental states in people such as considering, judging and concluding." Are you saying that "chemical actions cause mental states" is not the claim of naturalism? Then what is the claim of naturalism regarding the cause of mental states?

Or are you -- once again! -- refusing to see the difference between a statement about what naturalism claims to be true, and a statement that naturalism is true? Because if you mean "it has not been demonstrated that chemical reactions cause mental states," that's exactly what you are doing. If P1 had been "chemical reactions cause mental states," then "that has not been demonstrated" would be a reasonable objection. But that's not what P1 says. What P1 says is "If naturalism is true, then chemical reactions cause mental states." That's a true statement, even if naturalism is not true, and chemical reactions do not cause mental states!

"If flat earthers are right, then if you travel far enough in any direction, you will eventually come to the great ice wall." This is a true statement, even though such an ice wall has not, of course, been demonstrated to exist. It's a true statement of what flat earthers believe. The same principle applies to my P1.

Ok,Yes, I dont deny that that is what naturalists believe.

 

[Komodo]

Ok,Yes, I dont deny that that is what naturalists believe.

So you don't dispute P1: "If naturalism is true, then chemical actions cause mental states in people such as considering, judging and concluding."

Do you dispute P2: "A person who is in the mental state of considering, judging and concluding is capable of doing those things well: that is, rationally"?

If you do, on what grounds do you dispute it?

If you don't dispute it, do you dispute that the conclusion logically follows: "If naturalism is true, then chemical actions are capable of producing rational thoughts"?

And if you do not dispute the conclusion, does it not follow that the opposite claim -- "if naturalism were true, then we could not produce rational thoughts" -- is false?

 

[El Cid]

You're not giving any reason to accept this proclamation.

The Big Bang, where the mental produced the physical.

No, P1 ("If naturalism is true, chemical reactions cause logical reasoning") is true, even if the evidence shows naturalism to be false, because it is not a claim about what causes reasoning, it is a claim about the position of naturalism.



If the earth is flat, all the land and sea is surrounded by the great ice wall.
If the land and sea is surrounded by a giant ice wall, it is possible to reach the great ice wall.
Therefore, if the earth is flat, it is possible to reach the great ice wall

This is a valid syllogism. It isn't "hypothetically valid from the viewpoint of someone that believes in a flat earth," it's valid, period. It's valid because the conclusion necessarily follows if the premises are true. It doesn't require any belief in the flatness of the earth in order to be valid. And exactly the same is true of the syllogism I just offered you. So, again: do you dispute the claim that if you are presented with a syllogism, and you do not dispute either premise, and you do not dispute the logic, you cannot dispute the conclusion?

I do not dispute that that is the belief of naturalists as I stated earlier.

So the failure to remember things when the brain is damaged is not evidence that physical events cause mental events, because it's possible that these mental events go on unaffected in the non-temporal realm, secretly and undiscoverable to all observers, despite the apparent loss of memory?

By that standard, of course -- "it may seem that Y doesn't happen without X, but Y may still be happening, in a realm beyond time and space" -- there's nothing at all which could ever be regarded as evidence for anything.

The neurological connections that produce speech may be damaged so, that what the mind intends to say does not what comes out of the mouth. I myself have been dreaming and have said things that I never intended to say, and I could even hear myself say them with my own ears because I actually spoke in my sleep. Given that when sleeping the mind is no longer truly in control and the brain is not really functioning correctly this could be very similar to the situation of brain damage and the minds relationship to it.