Existence of God/the nonphysical discussion thread

[tremendoustie]

This thread is for the discussion of the existence of God, and/or the existence of the nonphysical. Let's keep the discussion thoughtful, reasoned, and respectful. If you don't want to take the time think something through, don't post. For example, constructing straw man arguments, or engaging in mockery is unhelpful -- instead, take the time to make your best effort to explain the reasoning behind your disagreement or agreement with the specific points being made.

As a starting point, I will post the ongoing discussion between me and hypnagogue. If you haven't been following it, and don't want to read the whole thread, feel free to just read the last couple posts to get an idea, and feel free to post your own ideas even if they go in a different direction .

 

[tremendoustie]

Scientific evidence is by definition physical, repeatable, quantifiable, and communicable. There is no scientific evidence that could prove the supernatural, even in theory. Even if an observation were made which was unexplainable using current scientific theory, it would simply be classified as a new natural phenomenon -- certainly not a supernatural one. A new theoretical framework would then evolve to describe this new type of observation.

Given, then, that scientific observations cannot answer the question of whether the non-physical exists, are you willing to consider unscientific observations? For example, observations about the nature of one's own mind? We realize we are self aware, and develop the more basic logical rules because of these observations, for example.

Actually, self-awareness itself is a non-physical attribute. Any physical object is completely explained by its physical characteristics. For example, if we suppose that a rock is purely physical, then I would be able to completely explain it by determining the nature and position (or velocity) of all its particles. There would be nothing further to say about the rock. Similarly, any physical attribute can be described in the same way. To be green is a physical attribute. It literally means that, in response to broadband light radiation, an object reflects mainly light of a green wavelength. All of this is, at least in theory, is scientifically measurable.

Yet, even in theory, I cannot use physical observations to prove whether or not you are self aware. Even were I able to determine the position and nature of every particle in your brain, I would not be able to determine your self awareness. I might conjecture that self awareness corresponds to a particular structure, but it would only be conjecture. The actual attribute of self awareness itself can literally only be determined by you -- only your self can know that it is aware of itself.

Since this is an attribute that cannot be determined even in theory, despite perfect physical knowledge, it is not a physical attribute.

Yet, I know, by the unscientific observation of self examination, that I am indeed self aware. Thus, we have made an unscientific observation, to determine a non-physical, or, I would say, supernatural attribute (if one defines natural as it usually is defined -- the physical universe comprised of matter and energy).

 

[tremendoustie]

//

There cannot, even in theory, be scientific evidence for or against a supernatural being, because of the definition of scientific evidence and the definition of supernatural.

I actually did address this in one of my earlier posts. I said that it's very common for people to craft their definitions of god in such a way that they can not currently be verified by science.

Consider this; if something is unverifiable it must be undetectable. If it is undetectable it must have no effect on anything. Thus, in order for the supernatural to be unverifiable to science it must have no effect on anything. If that's the case, it may as well not exist.

Science continues to shrink the corner of the unverifiable into which god has been backed. How long will it be until the only definition of god which could be proposed without being immediately refutable is so impotent as to be unworthy of any such title. A being which is nowhere, does nothing, but hey, he loves you and that's what matters.

 

[tremendoustie]

I actually did address this in one of my earlier posts. I said that it's very common for people to craft their definitions of god in such a way that they can not currently be verified by science.

Consider this; if something is unverifiable it must be undetectable. If it is undetectable it must have no effect on anything. Thus, in order for the supernatural to be unverifiable to science it must have no effect on anything. If that's the case, it may as well not exist.

Science continues to shrink the corner of the unverifiable into which god has been backed. How long will it be until the only definition of god which could be proposed without being immediately refutable is so impotent as to be unworthy of any such title. A being which is nowhere, does nothing, but hey, he loves you and that's what matters.

There is a difference between unverifiable and scientifically unverifiable. Why must we exclude, a priori, with apparently no basis whatsoever, all truth that is not observable through the senses, repeatable, quantifiable, and communicable? Science is an excellent tool for finding scientific truth, but not all truth is scientific.

Did you read my example, regarding self awareness? I feel my post warrants more thought than you have given it. Please explain to me how this does not disprove the idea that all of existence is purely physical.

Also, explain to me what scientific evidence showed you that you are self aware. Explain to me what scientific evidence convinced you the rule of inference holds. Furthermore, explain to me what scientific evidence would prove to your satisfaction that a supernatural being exists? Because if there is no scientific evidence that could do so, even in theory, than a lack of such evidence really does not show anything.

Most of your understanding of yourself does not come through the five senses, and even less was quantifiable, repeatable, or communicable. So, I ask again, why should we seek to exclude all evidence which does not fit into the narrow box of science?

Yes, you can come up with a purely physical definition of the universe which admits only scientific (physically observable, quantifiable, repeatable, communicable) evidence, although you will have to ignore all internal observations about your own mind. I could come up with a purely non-physical definition of the universe which admits only non-physical evidence. I would just reject the assumption most of us make, that the things we observe through the senses are real, and suppose that I am only a consciousness, floating somewhere, and imagining everything I perceive through the senses. As an added bonus with this model, I don't even have to ignore any evidence, I simply explain my observations away by supposing that I hallucinate them.

There are at least two similarities between these worldviews. They are both internally, logically consistent, and, if actually taken to their logical conclusion, both lead to a shriveled and meaningless existence. Try really going through a day accepting only physical evidence, and ignoring your own self awareness or all perceptions about your own mind, or try going through a day really assuming that all your external perceptions are your own imagination, and you will know insanity.

 

[tremendoustie]

//

Well that's an interesting post. Where to begin?

First, I confess that in order to convincingly debate using the rule of inference as our tool, I would have to know much more about formal logic in general. It's simply not something which I have studied. I can say though, at first blush, I don't see how the rule of inference has a special place in this discussion beyond it simply being a representation of the functioning of logic. That is, it seems to me, the point you were trying to make was the fact that logic exists undermines the suggestion that all which exists can be scientifically verified.

I think I can address both that suggestion and your second one simultaneously, since they are so nearly linked. Self awareness is scientifically verifiable. I am observing it right now. All of the people whom I've met have claimed the same thing. That alone is enough to tell me, scientifically, that I am self aware and that the others around me very likely are too. That is a scientific observation. From these observations I formulate a theory. My current theory is that self awareness exists, I have it, and everyone else does too. It's not a very strong theory, and it's not very developed, but it meets the criteria of scientific thought.

There are many scientists right now working to uncover more observations regarding self awareness in order that they may improve and expand the theory. These people are neurologists and they have not been without some success. The fact that this is a very complex phenomena, and very difficult to measure, should not lead one to believe that it is somehow scientifically insurmountable.

So why then do I continue to believe that self awareness won't turn out to be something scientifically unverifiable? Because I am observing a trend. Those things which were once unfathomable and were dominated by superstition have in time been explained scientifically. The vast amount of knowledge which has replaced superstition in this way is amazing.

In truth all the suggestions of deities, angels, ghosts, afterlife, etc. are scientific theories! They're just totally awful ones. They are based on weak observations, or none at all, and extrapolate wild, unsupportable conclusions. They offer no explanation which could be used to verify with experimentation. They leave us understanding no more than we did before.

People point to that which is poorly understood scientifically as evidence of the divine in all times. Long ago it was the sun and the moon and the movement of the stars, or the way a seedling grows. Until, of course, it was learned that the sun is a titanic hydrogen fusion furnace in whose gravity we are caught, and that through photosynthesis and cellular biology do plants grow. In the very same way the day will come when the mysteries of self awareness, of thought, and of mind have been replaced by scientific understanding. At least, that's my theory.

 

[tremendoustie]

Well that's an interesting post. Where to begin?

First, I confess that in order to convincingly debate using the rule of inference as our tool, I would have to know much more about formal logic in general. It's simply not something which I have studied. I can say though, at first blush, I don't see how the rule of inference has a special place in this discussion beyond it simply being a representation of the functioning of logic. That is, it seems to me, the point you were trying to make was the fact that logic exists undermines the suggestion that all which exists can be scientifically verified.

You're right, I should have better clarified that. What I'm trying to say is that we accept the basic rules of logic because they are self evident. If you accept "All geese are birds", and "I am holding a goose", then you necessarily conclude "I am holding a bird". It does not require running around and examining waterfowl to accept this rule, and in fact, it would be impossible to prove by doing so.

Or, take a simpler rule -- a statement A cannot be both true and untrue at the same time, in the same sense (non contradiction).

I think I can address both that suggestion and your second one simultaneously, since they are so nearly linked. Self awareness is scientifically verifiable. I am observing it right now. All of the people whom I've met have claimed the same thing. That alone is enough to tell me, scientifically, that I am self aware and that the others around me very likely are too. That is a scientific observation. From these observations I formulate a theory. My current theory is that self awareness exists, I have it, and everyone else does too. It's not a very strong theory, and it's not very developed, but it meets the criteria of scientific thought.

I agree that you certainly observe it, but I do not think this observation is scientific. What you observe does not come through the senses at all, nor is it quantifiable or repeatable. I cannot sit down in a lab with you, follow your notes, and make the same observation about your self-awareness that you have, I can only examine my own. These are basic criteria for scientific evidence.

Other people may claim the same thing, but what they claim is unverifiable to you. I could program a computer to say, "I am self-aware" but it wouldn't make it true. All the people in the world, besides you, could in fact not be self-aware at all, and you would not know the difference. Science does not mean taking someone's word for it -- science is verifiable, physical evidence, criteria which these observations do no fit.

There are many scientists right now working to uncover more observations regarding self awareness in order that they may improve and expand the theory. These people are neurologists and they have not been without some success. The fact that this is a very complex phenomena, and very difficult to measure, should not lead one to believe that it is somehow scientifically insurmountable.

I think there is a fundamental difference. Let me quote the relevant portion of earlier post I was referring to.

Actually, self-awareness itself is a non-physical attribute. Any physical object is completely explained by its physical characteristics. For example, if we suppose that a rock is purely physical, then I would be able to completely explain it by determining the nature and position (or velocity) of all its particles. There would be nothing further to say about the rock. Similarly, any physical attribute can be described in the same way. To be green is a physical attribute. It literally means that, in response to broadband light radiation, an object reflects mainly light of a green wavelength. All of this is, at least in theory, is scientifically measurable.

Yet, even in theory, I cannot use physical observations to prove whether or not you are self aware. Even were I able to determine the position and nature of every particle in your brain, I would not be able to determine your self awareness. I might conjecture that self awareness corresponds to a particular structure, but it would only be conjecture. The actual attribute of self awareness itself can literally only be determined by you -- only your self can know that it is aware of itself.

Since this is an attribute that cannot be determined even in theory, despite perfect physical knowledge, it is not a physical attribute.

Yet, I know, by the unscientific observation of self examination, that I am indeed self aware. Thus, we have made an unscientific observation, to determine a non-physical, or, I would say, supernatural attribute (if one defines natural as it usually is defined -- the physical universe comprised of matter and energy).

Please read this carefully, and let me know what you think. These neurologists may conjecture that self awareness corresponds to a particular structure, but their conjecture is completely unverifiable, even if they had perfect physical knowledge.

So why then do I continue to believe that self awareness won't turn out to be something scientifically unverifiable? Because I am observing a trend. Those things which were once unfathomable and were dominated by superstition have in time been explained scientifically. The vast amount of knowledge which has replaced superstition in this way is amazing.

Of course there is a trend - science is succeeding in discovering more and more scientific truth. Yet, that does not imply all truth is scientific. I could spend my lifetime exploring more and more of my state -- would that prove that all of the earth is California?

I could spend my life making more and greater unscientific internal examinations about the nature of my own mind, and ignoring physical existence. Would that imply that the physical does not exist, or that science is not valid?

In truth all the suggestions of deities, angels, ghosts, afterlife, etc. are scientific theories!

I don't think so. A scientific theory would be verifiable scientifically. Please explain to me what scientific observations would prove to you that supernatural beings exist. This is a very important question. If no such evidence could prove it to you, even in theory, then clearly the lack of such evidence shows nothing -- the question is not scientific at all.

They're just totally awful ones. They are based on weak observations, or none at all, and extrapolate wild, unsupportable conclusions. They offer no explanation which could be used to verify with experimentation. They leave us understanding no more than we did before.

This may be so in the context of science, but not so in the context of overall truth.

Suppose each of us comes up with a theory to explain Joe's day to day existence. You propose the theory that he is an automaton, with no self awareness. You cannot explain all of his behaviors, because of quantum mechanical uncertainly and the famed "butterfly effect", yet you do a pretty good job for certain short term predictions, and you are sure that his behaviors are deterministic, with some randomness thrown in.

I propose the theory that Joe has something called a "mind", and a significant portion of his actions are due to the conscious choice of that mind. These are the actions which have a component of "randomness" in your model. The only things I know about Joe are from external observation, so I really don't do any better job of prediction than you do.

From a scientific perspective, my theory is superfluous. I do not make any predictions which are better than yours, and I suppose a "mind", which your model does not require. From a purely scientific perspective, my theory "leaves us understanding no more than we did before."

Yet, suppose we now consider Joe's perspective. These theories become quite different, and since he can observe his self-awareness, he knows that my model is in fact correct, and the other false. It turns out that my theory does have important implications, but they are not SCIENTIFIC implications.

Or, in a more abstract context, consider a number of three dimensional shapes, which pass through a flat plane, as in a paper. A couple spheres are debating whether all that exists is the plane, or whether there is a third dimension. The sphere in favor of the two dimensional model says, "You suppose a third dimension, but look, it has no predictive power on the plane. I can explain everything on the plane by supposing we are only growing and shrinking circles, and I use only instruments which measure along that plane. Your theory is unnecessary." The other replies, "Yes, but you ignore the third dimension -- we are not only circles you know, and we have ways of observing that as well, but we must use different instruments."

People point to that which is poorly understood scientifically as evidence of the divine in all times. Long ago it was the sun and the moon and the movement of the stars, or the way a seedling grows. Until, of course, it was learned that the sun is a titanic hydrogen fusion furnace in whose gravity we are caught, and that through photosynthesis and cellular biology do plants grow. In the very same way the day will come when the mysteries of self awareness, of thought, and of mind have been replaced by scientific understanding. At least, that's my theory.

Yet, we must also examine the theoretical limitations of science, some of which I think I've outlined here. To explain something physically is not necessarily to explain it entirely -- as is certainly the case with a person. Actually, science can't even completely determine the physical -- consider for example the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. There is a certain amount of randomness in the universe. Science advancement has not only illuminated a great deal about the physical universe, it has also illuminated certain fundamental limitations.

Even if I had complete physical knowledge of the entire universe, and had a grand unified theory which explained all physical behavior, I could not prove scientifically that you experience self awareness. That is a fundamental limitation of science, and proof of the non-physical, right there.

I agree that we as rational people must derive our understanding of the universe from our observations. However, there is no reason to assume that all observations will fit the definition of scientific evidence.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, and I look forward to your reply.

 

[tremendoustie]

//

It's always kind of hard to reply to post dissections in a thoughtful manner. I find the practice tends to devolve into a back and forth of quips and one-liners. I'll try to distill your main points as I see them.

I have to disagree with the assertion that personal observation of self-awareness is somehow a non-scientific observation. No doubt it is a very tricky subject at the very least because I have no proof for the claim that I am self-aware that I could show to someone else. I do, however, have proof which I myself can observe. My mind is very much observable, but it is locked in a room into which only I can enter, metaphorically speaking. I believe this will change in time. Already the process has begun. Through brain imaging an observer can witness different moods, or even what kinds of thoughts a person is having. For example whether they are thinking about a mathematical problem or an emotional one. These are the beginning inroads into the verifiable observation of the mind. I see no fundamental obstacle preventing the eventual thorough explanation of the mind. Included in that would be the operative processes of logic. Consider that even now certain logic operations can be replicated via computer. Obviously the computer has no awareness of these operations, or anything for that matter, but on an effective basis it is the same.

Your second question I think offers some fertile grounds for discussion; what evidence could be offered to support the existence of the supernatural scientifically? This of course varies widely depending on the theory presented. Let's take the topic theory of this thread. The theory goes, god exists. That really doesn't give us much to work with. First we'd have to define god. We've hit a roadblock already. Nobody agrees on what god would actually be. The best we could do is to pick one of the theories involving a god and seek to test that one. We'll take the christian mythos since most of us here are familiar with it. According to the christian theory god exists and that he has a set of properties.

1. He created and controls everything
2. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good
3. He can and does intervene in human affairs
4. He rewards and punishes souls for their deeds in life

For each one of these properties evidence would have to be put forth to justify their belief. Beginning with the first some kind of explanation would have to be offered describing how god would have created the universe and from that theory predictions would have to be made. Perhaps one might theorize that god would write his name on things. That seems sort of absurd, but what other predictions could be made based on the theory that god caused existence? I know of none. The second half of the assertion is a little easier to address. Control of something implies action. If it could be shown that something which used to work in a certain way, but now works in another way, with a degree of certainty greater than the probability that it is simply human error could be counted as evidence that some force is acting upon the universe. An example would be, fire used to burn but now it does not. It's not the humidity, it's not the wood, it's not our ignition. The universe has changed in an arbitrary way. That would be the beginning of evidence for a supernatural god. We should note here, such a thing has never been observed.

The second listed property would be extremely difficult to ascertain. In order to determine if a being was all-knowing, we would first have to be able to communicate with them. No common theory of god supposes that you can seriously have a conversation with it. Further, in order to judge all-knowing-ness we ourselves would have to know everything! We could formulate no test without possessing such. All-powerful could be tested to the degree that our imaginations can formulate actions. All-good is practically an oxy-moron. I suggest that the very notion could not be.

The third property is the kicker here, because it largely justifies any interest in a god, and consequently is the most accessible to science. Testing this would be fairly simple. All one would have to do is record a miracle. Not just good luck, a real miracle. A man walking on water without any assistance or bringing the dead back to life without the aid of any applicable scientific knowledge. In order for this to be evidence of the christian theory of a god some connection would have to be found with the christian god. For example are these acts only performable by those who meet certain criteria in line with Christianity, be they priests or prophets or simply good people by the metrics of Christianity. Once again, I must point out, no such record has ever been made.

Finally there's the topic of immortal souls. What is it that a soul does again, exactly? What does it affect? I don't think any serious answer to those questions have ever been put forth. One would have a difficult time scientifically verifying souls for the very fact that the definition of a soul is so empty. In other words, there is no evidence to support the belief in a soul. It's not required to explain anything.

I've indulged your question here, and in the end it must be said such an approach is the absolute wrong way to seek knowledge. One does not produce a theory and then seek evidence for it. The correct method is to observe phenomena and then to propose a theory explaining it. There is no phenomena for which god is a theorized explanation. For these reasons do I and many others reject the idea that a god exists.

For each and every theory it must be evaluated on it's own merits. There is no single argument against the supernatural, but one for each claim. That's a rather exhausting approach to take to supernatural phenomena anyway. I'd much prefer simply treating it like any other theory; present the evidence. It's been said to death but the onus is on the claimer. If you believe that some supernatural phenomena is occurring, then prove it.

I find it hard to address your other suggestion that there were kinds of observation which are not scientific. Perhaps my imagination is failing me here. If you could give an example of a phenomena which you believe is described and explained without scientific methods, then perhaps I will be able to respond.

 

[tremendoustie]

It's always kind of hard to reply to post dissections in a thoughtful manner. I find the practice tends to devolve into a back and forth of quips and one-liners. I'll try to distill your main points as I see them.

I'm sure we can avoid that fate . I certainly appreciate the time you are taking with this, and am confident that we can maintain a civil and academic tone. I doubt anything of significance was well communicated with one line quips after all .

I have to disagree with the assertion that personal observation of self-awareness is somehow a non-scientific observation.

Ah! I think my definition of scientific is quite a lot stricter than yours, I probably should have noticed this sooner. We should agree on semantics. It's hard to discuss something if you can't nail down what you're discussing after all .

Specifically, I agree with the definition that scientific observations should be empirical, repeatable, and public.

I think one good description is found in, "Experimental Methods for the Behavioral and Biological Sciences", by Dr Jay Gould, under "Requirements for Scientific Observation", which can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=FSOKh3tsk90C&pg=PA24

Of special note, he further explains the definition of public, "By public it is meant that observations must occur in a manner, place, and time such that it is possible for others to make them."

He also specifically addresses the question of introspection, "Subjective observations of what is occurring in one's own mind is referred to as introspection ... Introspection is not public, and hence is not considered scientific observation." This, according to Gould, is because:

- Other individuals cannot share in the experience
- Instead, others can only observe reports of the experiences and then draw inferences about the actual mental events.
- The problem with introspection is that the reports may not be true reflections of the experiences -- they might be false, inaccurate, or incomplete; and the terms used to describe the experiences might be imprecise or ambiguous.

There is more here, I recommend reading the entire section. Below are some other examples of authors who require these three key characteristics for scientific evidence:

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/28/04713691/0471369128.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=eCVU0VRPJIYC&pg=RA1-PA179
http://books.google.com/books?id=u7JmdWRlrAcC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6#PPA4,M1

Would you be willing to accept this definition? It's not key to the argument, we really could use any definition, but I think this definition would more closely match the common understanding. Most would probably say that as much as the overworked grad student may wish them to be, his own introspective musings do not constitute scientific evidence.

However, if it is important to you, I am willing to call these kinds of observations scientific -- just as long as we're clear on our terms.

No doubt it is a very tricky subject at the very least because I have no proof for the claim that I am self-aware that I could show to someone else. I do, however, have proof which I myself can observe. My mind is very much observable, but it is locked in a room into which only I can enter, metaphorically speaking.

So, we both agree that this is another method of observation -- scientific or not. These observations clearly do not come through our five senses. Do you agree that these kinds of observations might be useful, along with the five senses, for determining the nature of things?

If so, one of the first observations I make is that I am a self-aware, conscious mind, with the capability to make decisions, rather than only a collection of particles whose behavior is completely determined by physical laws and QM. This model explains the physical domain just as well as the mechanical view, but it more closely matches the observations I make about my own mind. Are you willing to consider this model, and if not, why not?

I believe this will change in time. Already the process has begun. Through brain imaging an observer can witness different moods, or even what kinds of thoughts a person is having. For example whether they are thinking about a mathematical problem or an emotional one. These are the beginning inroads into the verifiable observation of the mind. I see no fundamental obstacle preventing the eventual thorough explanation of the mind.

Strictly speaking, what the observer would actually witness is the physical behavior of the brain -- not the actual mental state of the participant. Just as the example with the rock, all the observer can really determine is the physical state of the system.

Consider this for example: Suppose at some future date, you are lying in the ultimate medical imaging machine, which can completely determine the physical state of your brain at infinite detail, in real time. You may surmise that there would be a correlation between the physical state of your brain, and the internal state of your mind -- and you might be right.

But, you have just made a key admission. You have admitted that despite that perfect physical knowledge that the machine gives you, there are other attributes with which this perfect physical knowledge can be correlated -- namely, your internal observations. This is key -- according to a mechanical definition of the universe, there IS nothing other than the physical state. There should be nothing to correlate to -- once you know the complete physical state, you should know everything -- game over. The fact that you are now taking this perfect physical knowledge and trying to correlate it with something means you admit that there are attributes which are not physical.

Any attribute, in a mechanical universe, is literally defined by a physical observation or physical state. Yet, self awareness is not defined in this way, because quite simply, it is not a physical attribute. Any correlation between brain state and self-awareness which scientists "discover" would have to be based on taking a participant's word for it, which is faulty at best - and certainly not based on only physical evidence.

Included in that would be the operative processes of logic. Consider that even now certain logic operations can be replicated via computer. Obviously the computer has no awareness of these operations, or anything for that matter, but on an effective basis it is the same.

Sure, I think I still have not made clear what I was trying to say by bringing up logic. I certainly agree that computers can perform logical operations. What I am saying is that we believe logical operations are valid or invalid not by observation through the senses, but internal observation.

You believe "A and not A" is a logical contradiction simply because it does not match the hard wiring of your own mind. Similarly, if you accept "All As are Bs", and "C is an A", then you will accept "C is a B" -- again, because it matches the basic nature of your mind.

I was simply saying that basic logic, which really is a fundamental basis of all reason and scientific thought, is another valid observation we make by internal examination which does not come through the senses.

Your second question I think offers some fertile grounds for discussion; what evidence could be offered to support the existence of the supernatural scientifically? This of course varies widely depending on the theory presented. Let's take the topic theory of this thread. The theory goes, god exists. That really doesn't give us much to work with. First we'd have to define god. We've hit a roadblock already. Nobody agrees on what god would actually be. The best we could do is to pick one of the theories involving a god and seek to test that one. We'll take the christian mythos since most of us here are familiar with it. According to the christian theory god exists and that he has a set of properties.

1. He created and controls everything
2. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good
3. He can and does intervene in human affairs
4. He rewards and punishes souls for their deeds in life

For each one of these properties evidence would have to be put forth to justify their belief. Beginning with the first some kind of explanation would have to be offered describing how god would have created the universe and from that theory predictions would have to be made. Perhaps one might theorize that god would write his name on things. That seems sort of absurd, but what other predictions could be made based on the theory that god caused existence? I know of none. The second half of the assertion is a little easier to address. Control of something implies action. If it could be shown that something which used to work in a certain way, but now works in another way, with a degree of certainty greater than the probability that it is simply human error could be counted as evidence that some force is acting upon the universe. An example would be, fire used to burn but now it does not. It's not the humidity, it's not the wood, it's not our ignition. The universe has changed in an arbitrary way. That would be the beginning of evidence for a supernatural god. We should note here, such a thing has never been observed.

But, don't you think such historical evidence would be discounted? After all, the ancient Greeks and Romans used to believe in gods, and claimed that they interacted with people all the time. There are numerous stories about dragons, travels to the underworld, travels to heaven, etc, in the ancient texts. People for millenia believed that the world was flat, and there are stories about travels to the edge of the earth. Yet we do not believe that dragons really existed with people, and went extinct, or that people really traveled to the underworld, or to the edge of the earth.

If fire stopped burning, our descendants would quite likely view our fire burning as a curious series of mythical stories which we concocted based on our primitive view of the universe.

Furthermore, something would have to change for fire not to burn. Even if the fundamental laws of the universe were changed, it would have to manifest itself in a certain way. You say we should check that "It's not the humidity, it's not the wood, it's not our ignition". Yet, if a god chose to change the universe so fire did not burn, he/she would no doubt change one of these things. For example, perhaps the chemical composition of wood would change, or the atomic composition of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Perhaps the amount of energy contained in these chemical bonds would change. Something would change -- and science would say, "aha! we knew this was not a supernatural event! Now, let us examine why these chemical bonds are not as strong as they used to be". There would indeed be a reason for that .. and on we would go. Perhaps, if we were really bright, we could follow it all the way down to find that a fundamental variable -- say Planck's constant, had changed. Would this be evidence for that god? Hardly.

Take this for example:
http://www.universetoday.com/2003/11/25/fundamental-force-of-nature-has-changed-over-time/

Quote: "Physicists from Northeastern University believe that a fundamental force of nature, the bond between electrons and protons, has been strengthening since the Big Bang."

Now, assuredly these physicists have all become theists, No?

Just as the sphere can always, self consistently explain himself as a two dimensional circle on a plane, we will always be able to describe the purely physical in terms of the purely physical, and what is left is simply "changing variables" or "randomness". It is impossible to prove the third dimension by looking only at the first two.


Let me note here that going straight for a description of evidence for God is a bit like modeling a heavy metal before trying hydrogen, but we can go with it. The point I was trying to make is that using public, repeatable, objective, physical evidence, one could only prove truths that are physical, public, and repeatable. Thus, any example of where science could jump outside these bounds would suffice.

The second listed property would be extremely difficult to ascertain. In order to determine if a being was all-knowing, we would first have to be able to communicate with them. No common theory of god supposes that you can seriously have a conversation with it. Further, in order to judge all-knowing-ness we ourselves would have to know everything! We could formulate no test without possessing such. All-powerful could be tested to the degree that our imaginations can formulate actions. All-good is practically an oxy-moron. I suggest that the very notion could not be.

I could speak to how we could formulate theories about God, but I think we'd be getting ahead of our selves. I'm looking for scientific evidence that could prove the supernatural. I think you'd agree none of these ideas are scientific.

Basically, I'm saying, that if there is no piece of scientific evidence even in theory which would prove to you that the non-physical exists, then the lack of such evidence shows nothing, and the question is not scientific. Any description of a scientific test which, if successful, would prove the existance of something that is non-physical or supernatural will do -- I think coming up with scientific tests to prove the attributes of God is a bit of a tall order .

The third property is the kicker here, because it largely justifies any interest in a god, and consequently is the most accessible to science. Testing this would be fairly simple. All one would have to do is record a miracle. Not just good luck, a real miracle. A man walking on water without any assistance or bringing the dead back to life without the aid of any applicable scientific knowledge. In order for this to be evidence of the christian theory of a god some connection would have to be found with the christian god. For example are these acts only performable by those who meet certain criteria in line with Christianity, be they priests or prophets or simply good people by the metrics of Christianity. Once again, I must point out, no such record has ever been made.

Try to break this down into specific experiments. Let's take the example of walking on water. Now, for this to be real scientific evidence, it must be public, repeatable, etc. Let's say we observe that all people who claim to be Christians can walk on water, repeatably. We do this in the lab. Now, it has to happen in a certain way -- let's say the water viscosity increases enough so that it can support their weight momentarily.

We would then isolate for false claims -- let's try people who for the purposes of the test make the claim to be Christian, but aren't. Suppose we find that it does not work for them. We then will isolate for other attributes. Perhaps a particular brain state is common among the people who are Christians. Surely a belief like this would generate a different brain state in certain ways. Now we're getting somewhere.

For now, we will label this a theory -- this physical brain state causes the increase in water viscosity beneath the feet. There will be further investigations, to break the causal chain down further, but it has already become science, not requiring the supernatural.

This is the same thing we do will all observations. Think about it. Why do you not consider it a miracle when two magnets repel each other at a distance? I am sure most children are surprised by it the first time they see it. It certainly seems "spooky" to me. Yet, because we are familiar with it, and have worked hard to develop detailed descriptions of how it works (by "how" here I mean only the manner, not the cause), we label it "science".

If magnets only worked half of the time would it be considered supernatural? No, probably not, we'd just try to figure out what causes it not to work sometimes, or if we couldn't do that, we'd mark it up as a random effect, like we do with QM.

Or, take QM for instance. Here we have the definition of "spooky" behavior. We've got random causation, particles behaving like waves sometimes and like particles other times. Particles going from one point to another without passing any point in between. Yet, this is not considered supernatural.

Finally there's the topic of immortal souls. What is it that a soul does again, exactly? What does it affect? I don't think any serious answer to those questions have ever been put forth. One would have a difficult time scientifically verifying souls for the very fact that the definition of a soul is so empty. In other words, there is no evidence to support the belief in a soul. It's not required to explain anything.

To me, mind=soul, and the mind can be observed directly, by introspection. But again, I really didn't intend to ask for a description of possible evidence for all ideas connected to the traditional Judeo-Christian idea of God.

One example of a scientific experiment which would prove any non-physical or supernatural entity is all I'm looking for.

I've indulged your question here, and in the end it must be said such an approach is the absolute wrong way to seek knowledge. One does not produce a theory and then seek evidence for it. The correct method is to observe phenomena and then to propose a theory explaining it.

I certainly agree, and I fear you have indulged me too much, although I certainly appreciate your thoughts on this. I absolutely agree that we shouldn't jump ahead to theories before we've examined the underlying evidence.

What I was trying to say is that physical, objective, repeatable, public scientific evidence (and here I am using Dr. Gould's definition) cannot prove or disprove the non-physical, just as I cannot prove the third dimension by observing only two. If we accept this idea, then it follows that the question of the existence of the non-physical can only be answered by evidence not gathered using these criteria.

There is no phenomena for which god is a theorized explanation. For these reasons do I and many others reject the idea that a god exists.

I disagree, of course, I think that there are observations for which God is a theorized explanation. But, before we get there, I'd really like to focus on the idea of the non-physical mind. We must agree that the non-physical exists before we can discuss the nature of the non-physical universe.

To do otherwise would be something like discussing models of the orbit of the electron among two parties, one of whom does not believe electrons exist.

For each and every theory it must be evaluated on it's own merits. There is no single argument against the supernatural, but one for each claim. That's a rather exhausting approach to take to supernatural phenomena anyway. I'd much prefer simply treating it like any other theory; present the evidence. It's been said to death but the onus is on the claimer. If you believe that some supernatural phenomena is occurring, then prove it.

Ah, I agree! I think the mind is the first and most obvious example of a supernatural entity. A purely mechanical model, and a supernatural model of the mind are equally predictive of observations by the senses. But, when we consider the evidence of self-observation, it's quite obvious we perceive ourselves to be self-aware, conscious, decision making minds. Thus, I would say the latter model has the advantage, because while both equally match the evidence taken through the five senses, the latter much more closely matches observations taken in that, "room into which only I can enter", as you would put it, using observations which you may call scientific, and I might not, but I think we both would consider valid.

I find it hard to address your other suggestion that there were kinds of observation which are not scientific. Perhaps my imagination is failing me here. If you could give an example of a phenomena which you believe is described and explained without scientific methods, then perhaps I will be able to respond.

I was mainly referring to observations about our own minds. The mixup is only because we have been using different definitions of "scientific". I think that will be cleared up one way or another by the next post.

Regards

 

[tremendoustie]

//

Okay, let's scrap the whole potential evidence for a deity thing. It's a terrible way to approach things, and I even realized that after having written it all. I was compelled to address it because it is that very same question which I have been asked on several different occasions. My answer never seems to satisfy, that I don't know of any and that I don't need to know in order to justify disbelief. Either that or if I'm feeling flippant I suggest that said deity should simply drop by sometime and introduce himself so we could be done with all this confusion.

I'll begin by addressing Dr. Gould's definition of scientific evidence. I believe his definition is more a practical definition rather than a theoretical one, and even only one stipulation, that it be public, creates this distinction. From the stance of scientific academia, there is little to no use for evidence which can't be demonstrated for the reason that misrepresentation, either through fraud or error, can easily occur. The simplest argument against that stipulation being fundamental is to ask oneself whether any measure of science can be conducted in solitude. That is to say, if you were trapped upon an island and you applied the principals of the scientific method, but had no one to show, would you somehow have not been conducting science? I think the answer is no. The danger of misrepresenting evidence to oneself is far less than the danger of misrepresentation to another. There remains the risk of self-deception, but no amount of publicity is a cure for that. So I agree with Dr. Gould's definition in almost any practical situation but not theoretically.

Applied to the case of the mind, one can make a personal scientific observation that they experience self-awareness. This is scientific because it makes no claim beyond the basic declaratory. Postulating more than that, I believe diverges from the scientific method. The same can be said of memory. I can make the scientific observation that I experience memories. I need not offer any explanation, and indeed it is when explanations are offered which theorize more than can be supported by that single, simple observation, that error occurs.

You made a very important suggestion which I think highlights some of the core differences between those who support naturalist and supernaturalist beliefs.

...one of the first observations I make is that I am a self-aware, conscious mind, with the capability to make decisions, rather than only a collection of particles whose behavior is completely determined by physical laws and QM.

I do not believe these are oppositional positions! There is no reason that something could not both experience self-awareness and be capable of making decisions all while being fully caused by physical laws and quantum mechanics. I believe that if a perfect understanding of the physical sciences could be reached and that perfect observation could be made, then an observer would be fully capable of predicting the behaviors which will be demonstrated, in much the same way that we now with our limited understanding and limited observation can calculate the trajectories of flying objects.

The reason the experience of free will occurs is that the awareness under the control of these laws can not observe them. Indeed, may not even be capable of comprehending them. We need not go that far however. Already there is growing evidence that the majority of our decision making is done by parts of our nervous system which exist outside the scope of our awareness, the sub-conscious. This serves as an excellent analogy for how a mind may feel in charge of all their decisions, but in truth be under the influence of forces totally outside their control. As our consciousness is increasingly understood to be the product of the sub-conscious, why could it not be so that the sub-conscious is in turn the product of the physical laws? If the existence of this sub-conscious control does not conflict with our observed experience of self-awareness and self-determination, then why would a still deeper layer, below the subconscious reaching directly to the physical contradict it?

 

[tremendoustie]

Okay, let's scrap the whole potential evidence for a deity thing. It's a terrible way to approach things, and I even realized that after having written it all. I was compelled to address it because it is that very same question which I have been asked on several different occasions. My answer never seems to satisfy, that I don't know of any and that I don't need to know in order to justify disbelief. Either that or if I'm feeling flippant I suggest that said deity should simply drop by sometime and introduce himself so we could be done with all this confusion.

If we could, I'd like to deal with a scaled down version of the question -- simply this: Can there be scientific proof of the non-physical, or supernatural? Forget about the idea of a deity -- is science capable of proving anything outside of naturalism? I really think the answer is no*. Could you give me an example of such a proof?

By the way, if God introduced himself, wouldn't you just conclude he's a collection of particles too?

*I use Gould's definition here -- I do think there is a proof of the non-physical, based on self-awareness, which I am attempting to outline.

I'll begin by addressing Dr. Gould's definition of scientific evidence. I believe his definition is more a practical definition rather than a theoretical one, and even only one stipulation, that it be public, creates this distinction. From the stance of scientific academia, there is little to no use for evidence which can't be demonstrated for the reason that misrepresentation, either through fraud or error, can easily occur. The simplest argument against that stipulation being fundamental is to ask oneself whether any measure of science can be conducted in solitude. That is to say, if you were trapped upon an island and you applied the principals of the scientific method, but had no one to show, would you somehow have not been conducting science? I think the answer is no. The danger of misrepresenting evidence to oneself is far less than the danger of misrepresentation to another. There remains the risk of self-deception, but no amount of publicity is a cure for that. So I agree with Dr. Gould's definition in almost any practical situation but not theoretically.

Applied to the case of the mind, one can make a personal scientific observation that they experience self-awareness. This is scientific because it makes no claim beyond the basic declaratory. Postulating more than that, I believe diverges from the scientific method. The same can be said of memory. I can make the scientific observation that I experience memories. I need not offer any explanation, and indeed it is when explanations are offered which theorize more than can be supported by that single, simple observation, that error occurs.

Ok, I can accept this definition - as long as there are no other implications riding on "scientific", and it is only a description of a particular kind of evidence. So, when I observe that I am self aware, or that I have memory, we'll call it scientific evidence, but when I remember something specific, or observe my thoughts, we'll call it non-scientific evidence. We should note that I observe both of these kinds of evidence by the same means -- internal observation.

...one of the first observations I make is that I am a self-aware, conscious mind, with the capability to make decisions, rather than only a collection of particles whose behavior is completely determined by physical laws and QM.

You made a very important suggestion which I think highlights some of the core differences between those who support naturalist and supernaturalist beliefs. I do not believe these are oppositional positions! There is no reason that something could not both experience self-awareness and be capable of making decisions all while being fully caused by physical laws and quantum mechanics. I believe that if a perfect understanding of the physical sciences could be reached and that perfect observation could be made, then an observer would be fully capable of predicting the behaviors which will be demonstrated, in much the same way that we now with our limited understanding and limited observation can calculate the trajectories of flying objects.

I don't think this will be possible, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions. However, suppose it were. Suppose we could combine a perfect knowledge of the physical state of a person's brain and environment with a perfect theoretical knowledge of physical behavior, to predict all future states of that person's brain. Thus, whatever actions the person takes, whatever they say, etc, is fully predicted by us beforehand. Now, let us ask the question, is that person self aware? We still cannot answer the question, despite perfect physical knowledge. All we can describe are the physical states of the brain, and future states -- we cannot know if the "brain" has a perspective of its own -- if it experiences "awareness". All we can say is that the physical system is in a certain state, and certain inputs through the senses necessarily cause other states. This shows that self-awareness is not a physical attribute at all.

My statement that you responded to was not intended as proof of the non-physical, but only a description of our face value observations regarding the nature of our own minds - it's not really the point of my argument. The point is that self-awareness itself is a non-physical attribute.

The reason the experience of free will occurs is that the awareness under the control of these laws can not observe them. Indeed, may not even be capable of comprehending them. We need not go that far however. Already there is growing evidence that the majority of our decision making is done by parts of our nervous system which exist outside the scope of our awareness, the sub-conscious. This serves as an excellent analogy for how a mind may feel in charge of all their decisions, but in truth be under the influence of forces totally outside their control. As our consciousness is increasingly understood to be the product of the sub-conscious, why could it not be so that the sub-conscious is in turn the product of the physical laws? If the existence of this sub-conscious control does not conflict with our observed experience of self-awareness and self-determination, then why would a still deeper layer, below the subconscious reaching directly to the physical contradict it?

It is not a logical contradiction to suppose that our physical actions are really only the product of physical processes in our brains. However, it is a logical contradiction to suppose that the attribute of self awareness (or really, awareness of any kind) is only physical processes.

Furthermore, even if we were to ignore that objection, as I will for the remainder of my response (please do address it however), I think that the balance of evidence is against it. Physical observations through the senses could never prove the existence of the non-physical, even in theory. Physical observations, then, tell us nothing about the existence or non-existence of the non-physical. The only method of observation left to us, of which I am aware, is self observation. We must turn there then, to answer the question of whether the non-physical exists, and if it does, the question of its nature. The most straightforward explanation of what we perceive when we make the these kinds of observations is that we do have minds (not collections of inanimate particles), and a will, and the capability for intentional actions and thoughts -- just as we percieve. It seems that the most straightforward explanation is the most reasonable, since it fits the facts as well as any other. I find the assumption that all of these perceptions are wrong, and that our actions are all dictated by the deterministic behavior of particles, to be an extra, unnecessary assumption, which is unjustified.

I could also propose that all of my perceptions through my five senses are only my imagination, and that I am only a consciousness somewhere hallucinating everything. It would be logically consistent and consistent with the evidence. It would be "simpler" as well, because I could posit only the existance of mind, and would not require the existance of matter or energy. But, it would be objectionable for three reasons:

1. It does not fit the facts any better than the obvious explanation -- namely that the physical things I perceive about the world around me are real.

2. It is unhelpful for living. None of my decisions have any real significance in this model, since the things they affect are not real. They are meaningless.

3. It precludes critical thought and exploration. If my physical experience is only my imagination, there is no real reason to explore or study the nature of the physical.

The proposition that most perceptions about my own mind are only my imagination, and that all my words and actions (though perhaps not awareness) are completely dictated by the deterministic interactions of particles is logically consistant and consistant with the evidence. Like my earlier model, it is also "simpler", because it only posits the existance of matter and energy, and not mind. It, however, is also objectionable, for the same reasons.

1. It does not fit the facts any better than the obvious explanation -- namely that the non physical things I perceive about my own mind are real.

2. It is unhelpful for living. None of my decisions have any real significance in this model, since they themselves are not real, but only the necessary result of physical processes. They are uncontrollable.

3. It precludes critical thought and exploration. If my mental and spiritual experience is primarily an illusion, there is no real reason to explore or study the nature of the spiritual or mental.


So, the question is, why do you prefer the second model over the first, and even prefer it over the more complete model? Wouldn't it be reasonable to take things at face value, unless disproven, and accept both the physical and the mental/spiritual nature of things? The complete view matches the evidence as well or better than any other model, it is the most readily apparent, straightforward view, and it leads to the greatest scope for exploration, and the greatest significance to life.

 

[Kludge]

The first ten posts are entirely subjective. Science is subjective.

I propose the following theory:

My real self is a brain in a jar (located in the real real world) and I have created this world I'm "living" in. You are all figments of my imagination, as is this universe. I have placed myself on this imaginative world because I find it more enjoyable than the one I lived in previously. My real self thinks up events and people to make this imaginary life more realistic and entertaining, though, for reasons unknown to (at least) my imaginary self, I sometimes make life difficult for my imaginative self. Because all "laws" are subject to be manipulated by my real self at any time I desire (my real self can change my imaginative self's memories, remember), working is unnecessary and detrimental to my ultimate purpose in life, which is likely to be as happy as I can.

Thus, based on the presented theory, you do not exist (or, if you're as self-centered as myself, I do not exist). Scientific "laws" will change whenever my real self imagines it.

 

[M House]

Arguing, you're not real is a word game Kludge nothing more or less. I mean what's real? Anyway, though it would be tough to disprove a brain doesn't do too well without a body to live in. If your not working your noradrenergic circuits and endocrine system your brain will be close to useless. Also people don't have this massive imagination without a frame of reference anyway. There's gotta be something to observe, feel, whatever to stimulate shit.

 

[Kludge]

Arguing, you're not real is a word game Kludge nothing more or less. I mean what's real? Anyway, though it would be tough to disprove a brain doesn't do too well without a body to live in. If your not working your noradrenergic circuits and endocrine system your brain will be close to useless. Also people don't have this massive imagination without a frame of reference anyway. There's gotta be something to observe, feel, whatever to stimulate shit.

You're talking about your brain, the one which my real self has imagined for you. You are thinking with only the "logic" my real brain permits you to. My real self controls what you think of and how you think. Perhaps there is another "higher-up" brain which answers why you think.

 

[M House]

Your brain controls me.....weird? Just accept the science of its known operations and not make it complicated, okay. As long as you don't make it more complicated and start asking stupid questions, you won't be freaked out. Arguing for and against existence, whether or not you got a soul, or how conscious you are in the end is pretty futile. Freud and philosophy tend to turn things into a joke sometimes. It's still an organ and a mechanical biological element. Anyway, if that makes you start thinking your a machine slap yourself and hit your head on a desk. If you actually do that well maybe you are, but I doubt you'll go that far.

 

[Kludge]

Your brain controls me.....weird? Just accept the science of its known operations and not make it complicated, okay. As long as you don't make it more complicated and start asking stupid questions, you won't be freaked out. Arguing for and against existence, whether or not you got a soul, or how conscious you are in the end is pretty futile. Freud and philosophy tend to turn things into a joke sometimes. It's still an organ and a mechanical biological element. Anyway, if that makes you start thinking your a machine slap yourself and hit your head on a desk. If you actually do that well maybe you are, but I doubt you'll go that far.

We should ignore the possibility of non-existence because it will "make it complicated"?

As I've theorized before, my real brain makes my imaginary brain register pain, but I am not permitted to know why. Perhaps it is to make a subsequent series of better-feeling events more "logical", or perhaps it's just to make life interesting.

 

[M House]

You need to clear this Nihilism from your brain. Let me just say personally after taking plenty of different psycho-pharmaceuticals and feeling the mental sludge and drain, you definitely will appreciate how real and biological it is. There's nothing magical or imaginary about it. Anyway, not sure why you accepted this theory but if it's how you deal with reality and stimuli it just is what it is. If you don't exist, you don't think feel or do anything. I mean it's just a word game here.

 

[tremendoustie]

The first ten posts are entirely subjective. Science is subjective.

I propose the following theory:

My real self is a brain in a jar (located in the real real world) and I have created this world I'm "living" in. You are all figments of my imagination, as is this universe. I have placed myself on this imaginative world because I find it more enjoyable than the one I lived in previously. My real self thinks up events and people to make this imaginary life more realistic and entertaining, though, for reasons unknown to (at least) my imaginary self, I sometimes make life difficult for my imaginative self. Because all "laws" are subject to be manipulated by my real self at any time I desire (my real self can change my imaginative self's memories, remember), working is unnecessary and detrimental to my ultimate purpose in life, which is likely to be as happy as I can.

Thus, based on the presented theory, you do not exist (or, if you're as self-centered as myself, I do not exist). Scientific "laws" will change whenever my real self imagines it.

Check out the end of post #10 . For my part, I think your position is entirely logical and self consistent, and it fits the facts as well as any theory. However, I have the following three objections.

1. It does not fit the facts any better than the obvious explanation -- namely that the physical things I perceive about the world around me are real.

2. It is unhelpful for living. None of my decisions have any real significance in this model, since the things they affect are not real. They are meaningless.

3. It precludes critical thought and exploration. If my physical experience is only my imagination, there is no real reason to explore or study the nature of the physical.

Actually, M House, I think a very similar set of 3 objections apply to your view (see post #10)

 

[M House]

Um which parts are similar you just countered alot of Kludge?

 

[Kludge]

You need to clear this Nihilism from your brain. Let me just say personally after taking plenty of different psycho-pharmaceuticals and feeling the mental sludge and drain, you definitely will appreciate how real and biological it is. There's nothing magical or imaginary about it. Anyway, not sure why you accepted this theory but if it's how you deal with reality and stimuli it just is what it is. If you don't exist, you don't think feel or do anything. I mean it's just a word game here.

It's an argument that nothing is objective, because you are not capable of determining absolute truth. The mere possibility of being a figment of my "real" imagination (or me being a figment of your "real" imagination) makes it self-evident that your labor and virtue is without merit. If nothing is objective, then pondering ethics or morality is always fruitless, because we are incapable of determining "a" in a=a.

Read the end of post #10 . I think your position is entirely logical and self consistent, and it fits the facts as well as any theory. However, I have the following three objections.

1. It does not fit the facts any better than the obvious explanation -- namely that the physical things I perceive about the world around me are real.

2. It is unhelpful for living. None of my decisions have any real significance in this model, since the things they affect are not real. They are meaningless.

3. It precludes critical thought and exploration. If my physical experience is only my imagination, there is no real reason to explore or study the nature of the physical.

1. I don't contend that it is. I'm just arguing that it's possible. It's only a theory.

2. It's incredibly unhelpful. If the world were full of Nihilists, there wouldn't likely be any civilization.

3. I agree, unless a person is curious and wants to discover the mysteries they created for themselves to discover. I imagine (based on my own experience) that most people get a bit of a high when they figure something out. Thus, discovery provides stimulation, even if ultimately delusional and pointless.

 

[M House]

1. It does not fit the facts any better than the obvious explanation -- namely that the physical things I perceive about the world around me are real.

2. It is unhelpful for living. None of my decisions have any real significance in this model, since the things they affect are not real. They are meaningless.

3. It precludes critical thought and exploration. If my physical experience is only my imagination, there is no real reason to explore or study the nature of the physical.

The proposition that most perceptions about my own mind are only my imagination, and that all my words and actions (though perhaps not awareness) are completely dictated by the deterministic interactions of particles is logically consistant and consistant with the evidence. Like my earlier model, it is also "simpler", because it only posits the existance of matter and energy, and not mind. It, however, is also objectionable, for the same reasons.

1. It does not fit the facts any better than the obvious explanation -- namely that the non physical things I perceive about my own mind are real.

2. It is unhelpful for living. None of my decisions have any real significance in this model, since they themselves are not real, but only the necessary result of physical processes. They are uncontrollable.

3. It precludes critical thought and exploration. If my mental and spiritual experience is primarily an illusion, there is no real reason to explore or study the nature of the spiritual or mental.


So, the question is, why do you prefer the second model over the first, and even prefer it over the more complete model? Wouldn't it be reasonable to take things at face value, unless disproven, and accept both the physical and the mental/spiritual nature of things? The complete view matches the evidence as well or better than any other model, it is the most readily apparent, straightforward view, and it leads to the greatest scope for exploration, and the greatest significance to life.

Okay I needed to cut that down which points are you referencing?