Priorities

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You should read Julian Jaynes "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", an excellent book reccommended to me by Widget from these very forums.

Jaynes introduces a lot of basic brain physiology, backed up by some interesting experimental evidence. Basically, we have two language hemispheres, with the left being the dominant on ...[text shortened]... ead the book - it's well developed and researched (in most places), and very well written.

Keep in mind, there is very little actually known about the human mind, let alone the structure of an ameoba for that matter. I accept that this explanation makes sense, that people may eventually hear "voices," but whether this comes from the "supernatural" or our own corrupt sub-conscience is impossible to tell. Even if science was able to track every single neuron in the mind, we would still have a higher degree of decoding difficulty than the human genome.

A "voice," or lack thereof, is NOT an indicator of faith, regardless of what some protestants may think. I don't remember hearing any "voice," but that doesn't mean there isn't God.

Even when voices come from our sub-conscience, while atheists may jump on this as evidence of God's non-existence, this IS NOT proof--or evidence--merely the first steps in a scientific understanding of the human mind.

The writings of St. Thomas Aquinas still stand.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
let's look at this for a second, shall we? I'll take just the last line from a number of your paragraphs.

[b]Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

th errors, and whilst they may be foolproof, they are, alas, not clever-person-proof.[/b]

"So, basically, God exists because people say he does. This is absolute rubbish."

Is it now? If many people say something that is consistantly the only explanation for the creation of the universe, do you really think you're in the right? Before claiming that you see what others do not, assess your position again, and don't think that your right and everyone else's wrong. You're showing something of childish impatience by not evaluating your own stance. Do you really think that you can stand up to the only logical explanation of the universe's origin without proposing a better genesis story?
......

If I fall out of a ten story building, why are you saying that's a bad thing? What if I ended up stopping a worse event, like, say:

I see an assasin on the building across from mine. I see that a bullet will intercept the course of a "random" individual. I could shout to the individual, but he wouldn't hear me, I'm too high up, and I would be shot by the assasin for almost inturrupting his plans. Then I think of calling the police, but it would be too late by then. I dive to the pavement to prevent the individual from being killed. He scampers off, my demise distracts the assasin, who may be apprehended by law enforcement investigating my death, and new laws get passed to prevent lousey windows from breaking.

What were you saying again?

....

"In reality, Aquinas' teachings were riddled with errors, and whilst they may be foolproof, they are, alas, not clever-person-proof."

Really? Notice how you haven't yet come up with a good refutation? You also missed the point, which is that only theism has supported a logical theory of existence. "Aliens?" "Random?" Give me a break.

Every theory atheists put forward of our origin can easily be countered with the fact that atheists will still have to explain the origin of THAT origin. Logical indeed.

- LCM

Originally posted by legochessmaniac
Keep in mind, there is very little actually known about the human mind, let alone the structure of an ameoba for that matter. I accept that this explanation makes sense, that people may eventually hear "voices," but whether this comes from the "supernatural" or our own corrupt sub-conscience is impossible to tell. Even if science was able to track ev ...[text shortened]... understanding of the human mind.

The writings of St. Thomas Aquinas still stand.

There is lots known about the human mind. Your ignorance towards the subject cannot, and does not, change that.

Originally posted by legochessmaniac
"So, basically, God exists because people say he does. This is absolute rubbish."

Is it now? If many people say something that is consistantly the only explanation for the creation of the universe, do you really think you're in the right? Before claiming that you see what others do not, assess your position again, and don't think that your ...[text shortened]... on-proof."

Really? Notice how you haven't yet come up with a good refutation?

Yes. Reality is not a popularity contest. The truth is not something voted upon. If that were the case, Christianity would almost certainly be wrong, since more people believe in other things than everyone who believes in Jesus put together.

It used to be believed by the majority of people that the earth was flat. Doesn't make it so.


You don't believe that your falling off a 10 story building wouldn't be a bad thing FOR YOU? Certainly, it might increase the average IQ of the planet, but it would definitely be a bad thing for you personally.


Aquinas works are just horrible. Especially the unmoved mover concept (which Aristotle invented, anyway). It certainly doesn't work in a universe where we have the Big Bang. The main reason is that Aquinas' "proof" assumes causality. This assumes a time component, a before and an after. Since the Big Bang was the origin of the dimensions we inhabit (including time), there was no "before". The use of "common sense" is non-sensical when applied to this problem.

Likewise, his "all things that move must have a mover" is simply not true, especially at the atomic and quantum levels.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
There is lots known about the human mind. Your ignorance towards the subject cannot, and does not, change that.

Not about the inner-workings. Only BASIC operations. Show me the medical journal where it says that one neuron know something more than another. Show me where we can pinpoint a human thought in someone's mind? WHERE'S THE MIND READING MACHINE?!? Stupid.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes. Reality is not a popularity contest. The truth is not something voted upon. If that were the case, Christianity would almost certainly be wrong, since more people believe in other things than everyone who believes in Jesus put together.

It used to be believed by the majority of people that the earth was flat. Doesn't make it so.


You don must have a mover" is simply not true, especially at the atomic and quantum levels.

I wasn't saying that it was a popularity contest. You're missing the point again. What does it matter if the world was flat? Nothing. I didn't say humans are perfect, I said just the opposite. But you atheists think you're soooo smart.

Again, your claiming that people know more about something (this time the quantum level) than they really do. Science doesn't know what ultimately makes it tick. It never will. No microscope goes down to the quantum level of string theory. Only when one accepts God's existence do certain things make sense. But if you refuse the obvious, who am I to stop you?

Aquinas works are just horrible. Especially the unmoved mover concept (which Aristotle invented, anyway). It certainly doesn't work in a universe where we have the Big Bang. The main reason is that Aquinas' "proof" assumes causality. This assumes a time component, a before and an after. Since the Big Bang was the origin of the dimensions we inhabit (including time), there was no "before". The use of "common sense" is non-sensical when applied to this problem.

The whole point of God is that he exists without the neccesity of time. Or anything else for that matter. Really, who do you think you can miss this core theological concept and still try to argue? DO YOUR RESEARCH!


Aquinas still stands:

Article 1. Whether the existence of God is self-evident?

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.

Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"😉, "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

Reply to Objection 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

Reply to Objection 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.

...........

You atheists still cannot refute theism as the only source of a logical genesis.

- LCM

PS

If you're so smart, tell me what makes the quantum level tick? I'm curious. And what makes it's ticker tick? etc. We're back to the original theory of the Big Bang creating itself. And we all know the universe had a beginning.

Originally posted by legochessmaniac
Not about the inner-workings. Only BASIC operations. Show me the medical journal where it says that one neuron know something more than another. Show me where we can pinpoint a human thought in someone's mind? WHERE'S THE MIND READING MACHINE?!? Stupid.

It's called an EEG. CAT scanners work relatively well too, mind you.

Neurons individually do not know anything. In much the same way that neither the transistors in a microchip nor the ones and zeros in a computer program know what a "right-click" is.

Originally posted by legochessmaniac
I wasn't saying that it was a popularity contest. You're missing the point again. What does it matter if the world was flat? Nothing. I didn't say humans are perfect, I said just the opposite. But you atheists think your soooo smart.

Again, your claiming that people know more about something (this time the quantum level) than they really do . And we all know the universe had a beginning.

I wasn't saying that it was a popularity contest. You're missing the point again.

Yes you did, and no I'm not. Not unless your point is so unclear as to be unintelligeble.

...you atheists think your soooo smart.

Well, it does help that we're typically much better at grammar.

Again, your claiming that people know more about something (this time the quantum level) than they really do. Science doesn't know what ultimately makes it tick. It never will. No microscope goes down to the quantum level of string theory. Only when one accepts God's existence do certain things make sense. But if you refuse the obvious, who am I to stop you?

Yes. We certainly have a lot more to study. However, "goddunit" is not an acceptable answer, and no substitute for real science.

The whole point of God is that he exists without the neccesity of time. Or anything else for that matter. Really, who do you think you are to miss this core theological concept and still try to argue? DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Mainly, it's because this concept doesn't make any sense. Show me ANYTHING REAL that exists independently of time. Anything at all. Anything I can put my hand on, or see or smell or touch.

Then answer this question, what is the mass of a rock that exists for zero seconds?

Your copy and paste jobs are just annoying. Come up with something yourself.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It's called an EEG. CAT scanners work relatively well too, mind you.

Neurons individually do not know anything. In much the same way that neither the transistors in a microchip nor the ones and zeros in a computer program know what a "right-click" is.

Oh, and you call it a mind reading machine? Why haven't prisoners been put into this? Why haven't we been able to read these people's minds? EEGs and CAT scans are ONLY lie detectors, not magical whodunnit mystery solvers. We'd even be able to peer into people's sub-conscience memory. Sheesh, know what your talking about before saying it. How many times must it be emphasized?

- LCM

Originally posted by legochessmaniac
Oh, and you call it a mind reading machine? Why haven't prisoners been put into this? Why haven't we been able to read these people's minds? EEGs and CAT scans are ONLY lie detectors, not magical whodunnit mystery solvers. We'd even be able to peer into people's sub-conscience memory. Sheesh, know what your talking about before saying it. How many times must it be emphasized?

- LCM

Well, it allows us to map the regions of the brain which are active during any given task. If that's not mind reading, I don't know what else you'd like to call it.

Your concept of mind-reading sounds more like listening into someones internal monologue, rather than actually having any understanding of the functioning of the brain.

Since when did science not having a mind reading machine become proof of God anyway?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]I wasn't saying that it was a popularity contest. You're missing the point again.

Yes you did, and no I'm not. Not unless your point is so unclear as to be unintelligeble.

...you atheists think your soooo smart.

Well, it does help that we're typically much better at grammar.

Again, your claiming that people know mor ...[text shortened]... onds?

Your copy and paste jobs are just annoying. Come up with something yourself.

Mainly, it's because this concept doesn't make any sense. Show me ANYTHING REAL that exists independently of time. Anything at all. Anything I can put my hand on, or see or smell or touch.

Why? Are you that incompetent to figure out that the existant can only be explained by that which we cannot see? I shouldn't need to believe in String Theory (quantum), but it makes sense. We can't prove that the theory is true, we will never detect it. It's beyond any sensory perception. And yet String Theory is still widely accepted. And yet, it too must also have an origin.

What do I call a "mass of rock that exists for zero seconds?" A miracle.

- LCM

Originally posted by legochessmaniac
[b]Mainly, it's because this concept doesn't make any sense. Show me ANYTHING REAL that exists independently of time. Anything at all. Anything I can put my hand on, or see or smell or touch.

Why? Are you that incompetent to figure out that the existant can only be explained by that which we cannot see? I shouldn't need to believe in String ...[text shortened]... in.

What do I call a "mass of rock that exists for zero seconds?" A miracle.

- LCM[/b]

Why do you feel the need for the ad hom attacks? Do you think Jesus would be proud of you?

So, existence can only be explained by things we cannot see? Like invisible unicorns, for example? Or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

We cannot prove any theory is true, ever. It's impossible to prove that. However, String Theory does have an origin; it originated in a scientist's mind (that's a real person I can see, touch, and if we're friendly enough, taste).

Anything which exists for zero seconds doesn't exist.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why do you feel the need for the ad hom attacks? Do you think Jesus would be proud of you?

So, existence can only be explained by things we cannot see? Like invisible unicorns, for example? Or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

We cannot prove any theory is true, ever. It's impossible to prove that. However, String Theory does have ...[text shortened]... if we're friendly enough, taste).

Anything which exists for zero seconds doesn't exist.

You obviously haven't read the entire thread. I already addressed the "pink unicorn god on the far side of Jupiter" theory.

Two things are necessary to be scientific.

1. A logical theory

2 No proof to the contrary

Again, as I've said before, atheism lacks the former. It cannot explain for it's existence without attributing it ultimately to an entity beyond the natural laws of physics.

As for the whole CAT and EEG scans mapping question, I call mapping the human mind "mapping the human mind." I don't call it mind reading. You can map a five-year-old child's drawing. Whether or not you can read the scribbles is another matter. Every scribble is unique. Every human brain is unique in it's arrangement of neurons. Every fingerprint is unique. Every iris is unique. Except in identical twins, every DNA sequence is unique. Every particle in the universe is unique since it is logically impossible for two particles to occupy the exact same space.

There may be two similiar maps of the human mind, but none are identical. It is impossible to read the precise thoughts of someone, only their general thoughts, such as hate, love, happiness, fear, lying, etc.


You say that string theory originated in a scientists mind, and that is something you can associate with.

1. A scientist wasn't the one who came up with the idea. (that is certain) It was a simple layman.
2. If it was thought up in someone's mind, you should have less faith in it than God.
3. It existed far before it was thought of. If you believe that, you are incredibly biased not to believe in God.
4. Things don't have to be thought of to exist.
5. Your mind thinks two-dimensionally if you think that thoughts exist at the same time. Namely, the thoughts of God's existence and non-existence being thought of at the same time.

The theory exists. The proof to fools does not. In both cases. Except if you realize that it has to exist before other things can, which is psychological proof in both cases.

Anything that exists for zero seconds doesn't necessarily exist in our dimension. There is more than meets the eye, you should know that. There is nothing that says there aren't alternate dimensions. Nothing else accounts for the matter between that which is seen.

Within the span of of space, one can logically assume that there are multiple alternate dimensions. If God exists outside of them all, self-suffecient, then can't He affect them all? Or did you finish reading that quote of St. Thomas Aquinas?

If you only believe in what you see, then you are sadly misinformed. What point is seeing what you believe? The rewards are much greater if one trusts what is believed and unseen?

Nicean Creed:

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, one in being with the Father, by whom all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins, look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."

What is the atheists creed?

Oh, and you know who came up with the idea for religious freedom? St. Constantine the Great, Emperor, of Constantinople, (look it up on an ancient map, now Turkey, I think) who declared it legal to be Christian. He became emperor against all odds, and in the "Sign of the Cross" conquered those who opposed his assumption to the throne. Afterwards he was Baptized. Don't think the idea of religious freedom belongs to the atheists.

- LCM

Originally posted by legochessmaniac
You obviously haven't read the entire thread. I already addressed the "pink unicorn god on the far side of Jupiter" theory.

Two things are necessary to be scientific.

1. A logical theory

2 No proof to the contrary

Again, as I've said before, atheism lacks the former. It cannot explain for it's existence without attributing it ultimately t ...[text shortened]... n't think the idea of religious freedom belongs to the atheists.

- LCM

Two things are necessary to be scientific.

1. A logical theory
2 No proof to the contrary

This is not true. Proof of existence is also required (also, you are misusing the word theory, but that's for another time). For example, I could propose that an invisible person is sitting next to me, and I have no proof it isn't true. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS TRUE. I would have to do some more tests to find out if it is true. But it's very testability, such as trying to touch the invisible person, allows it be become a scientific hypothesis, albeit a not very successful one. I appreciate that you are going to try and deny my position, but as a working scientist with a PhD I can assure you you are wrong.


Again, as I've said before, atheism lacks the former. It cannot explain for it's existence without attributing it ultimately to an entity beyond the natural laws of physics.

Erm, wait a second, you are the one with the totally unproven assumption of a magic man doing it. WE don't try to say how it all got here. We have the Big Bang theory (tested hypothesis) that explains what happenned at the very beginning of time. You can speculate what happenned "before" that (although to talk in terms of time is illogical), but we have no way of investigating it, or even of knowing if any investigation is logical or necessary. Probably, that all just went straight over your head.

As for the whole CAT and EEG scans mapping question, I call mapping the human mind "mapping the human mind." I don't call it mind reading. You can map a five-year-old child's drawing. Whether or not you can read the scribbles is another matter. Every scribble is unique. Every human brain is unique in it's arrangement of neurons. Every fingerprint is unique. Every iris is unique. Except in identical twins, every DNA sequence is unique. Every particle in the universe is unique since it is logically impossible for two particles to occupy the exact same space.

Fine, you want to call it mind mapping, fine. No problems with that at all. However, you seem to have some problem with your definition of "a thought". Please, define for me exactly what "a thought" actually is. What exactly is a thought made of? How is it formed? If you think about it, the letters on the screen are only formed of ones and zeros, yet you can interpret them fine. Current ideas hold that "ideas" are emergent properties of an analogue system, not unlike an analogue computer.

1. A scientist wasn't the one who came up with the idea. (that is certain) It was a simple layman.
2. If it was thought up in someone's mind, you should have less faith in it than God.

WHAT?!!! This makes no sense. WHY should I have less faith in someones logical conjecture than your imaginary friend?

Anything that exists for zero seconds doesn't necessarily exist in our dimension. There is more than meets the eye, you should know that.

No, for something to exist it was to have matter-energy and occupy space-time.

What any given atheist choses to believe is quite up to them.

Furthermore, I don't care who came up with religious freedom. The church burned non-believers alive for hundreds of years - they still regularly try it with abortion clinics. For that reason alone, it's hard to take anyone who claims that Christians came up with the ideas of religious tolerance seriously.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Two things are necessary to be scientific.

1. A logical theory
2 No proof to the contrary

This is not true. Proof of existence is also required (also, you are misusing the word theory, but that's for another time). For example, I could propose that an invisible person is sitting next to me, and I have no proof it isn't true. THAT DOESN' ...[text shortened]... hat Christians came up with the ideas of religious tolerance seriously.[/b]

Furthermore, I don't care who came up with religious freedom. The church burned non-believers alive for hundreds of years - they still regularly try it with abortion clinics. For that reason alone, it's hard to take anyone who claims that Christians came up with the ideas of religious tolerance seriously.

Just so you know, the "church" wasn't part of the Salem Witch stake burning. Secondly, I told you atheists earlier that there isn't any mortal soul within the church that is perfect. Only the beliefs are foolproof. Not it's members. Whatever the members do may hurt the body, but it has never killed itself. Thirdly, get this right, Christians were publicly burned at the stake at pagans' hands, not the other way around. Fourthly, the Catholic Church is against abortion. Fifthly, you better care who came up with religious freedom, especially if you regard it so highly.

No, for something to exist it was to have matter-energy and occupy space-time.


Prove it. There isn't any "proof" of String Theory, there is proof of God, as perfectly illustrated when brobluto played Devil's Advocate.

There is no such thing as proof to anyone who refuses it.

If you're a PhD, you'd do well to read this entire thread, and you would've realized that much of this has already been said before.

Explain Anti-matter. There is no "proof" of it. You can't touch it, see it, hear it, smell it, it merely exists because scientists say it does, and that there's no other explanation. True explanation is through a process of elimination. Atheism still does not account for our origin.

No one can really comprehend anything we can't understand. Theists don't understand the concept of "out-side time," but through a process of elimination, there is no other logical explanation.

Also, one MUST aply equal arguments to both sides of the equation.

Let's assume both theism and atheism are wrong. First question. Which one explains for the universe's creation? Theism. Atheism's beliefs go against the laws of finite time. If time were infinite, there would be no time, unless time existed unto itself, and no one believes that time exists in that way.

You do the math. And the Research.

- LCM