Originally posted by InvisibleAngell
I dont care about Annabons,I know this is true and there is nothing you can do to change my mind,if you didn't believe in him you wouldnt be trying to get me not to so bad.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You claim that you know something to be true, I am simply asking you to provide evidence. If you cannot substantiate your claim, then you do not really know, you believe.
Originally posted by InvisibleAngell
I know,give me proof there isn't a god
"Proof" is one of those words tossed around a lot without really examining what it means.
People generally mean "scientific proof," ie, empirical evidence: proof amenable to the senses. This is acceptable when dealing with empirical phenomena: stuff having to do with the physical sciences (though even this is starting to reach its limits with M-theory, but this is beside the point).
For some, this is the only form of acceptable proof, but this position raises problems. For one thing, there is no empirical proof that Mind exists, yet no one will deny the existence of their own subjective realities.
(Some will point to neurochemical activity, or EEG readouts, as empirical evidence of Mind. But these are not, strictly speaking, mental phenomena. They are physical correlates of mental phenomena, but they are not Mind, anymore than a mental image of your mother's face is your mother's face. To confuse/mix physical and mental phenomena--trying to use one to provide proof for the other--is what scientists call a category error. It is an easy mistake to make, but it is still wrong.)
There is, in fact, no direct/empirical evidence for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts." The meaning of any of the sentences you are reading right now are directly amenable only to Mind.
This being the case:
If "God" is generally defined as spirit (leaving any immanent or pantheistic definitions aside for the moment)...
And if Spirit is "higher/more rarified" than Mind (and again, there is no direct empirical evidence for Mind)...
Then it doesnt seem fair, IMO, to require direct empirical evidence for the existence of God.
("Miracles" don't count. They are too open to other forms of interpretation. At best, it could be said they are physical correlates of His work, but they are not direct, anymore than an EEG is direct evidence for Mind).
Meditation, in all its wondrous forms--essentially becoming conscious of being conscious, and maintaining this focus so that one begins to "delve beneath the surface" of their awareness--is the means (so it is said) to directly experience purely spiritual phenomena.
How does one know that the phenomena they will experience is truly reflective of spiritual phenomena, and not, eg, wishful thinking? Apply the same rigorous scientific method one uses with the physical and mental sciences to meditation. Scientific method, basically, is "applied common sense." And to be true to this, both the tools used and the data collected should reflect the domain being studied.
You wanna study the brain? Use a microscope.
You wanna study logic? Use formal rules of logic.
You wanna study God. Meditate.
All phenomena are amenable to scientific method. Just be fair about it.
Thank you for your kind attention. You will now be returned to your regularly scheduled program.
bag
The physical correlates you listed are not mental phenomena, but evidence of mental phenomena.
Moreover, your argument commits a number of logical errors:
[list=1][*]The premise "'God' is generally defined as a spirit," commits the logic fallacies of Begging the Question, Subverted Support, and Untestability.
[*]The premise "Spirit is 'higher/more rarified' than Mind," is false, and even if we presume it to be true, committs the logic fallacies of Subverted Support, and Untestability.
[*]The entire argument commits the logic fallacy of False Analogy and Untestability.[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The physical correlates you listed are not mental phenomena, but evidence of mental phenomena.Moreover, your argument commits a number of logical errors:
[list=1][*]The premise "'God' is generally defined as a spirit," commits the logic fallacies of Begging the Question, Subverted Support, and Untestability.
[*]The premise "Spirit is 'higher/more rarified' than Mind," is false, and even if we presume it to be true, committs the logic fallacies of Subverted Support, and Untestability.
[*]The entire argument commits the logic fallacy of False Analogy and Untestability.[/list]
Category error. They are not evidence, they are correlates. The only direct experience you have of an EEG, for example, is the EEG. It is assumed those black squiggly lines relate to Mind, but since assumption is a faculty of Mind, you are not allowed that assumption, otherwise you're "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps." Even to assume the correlation is dangerous, but hey, we have to start somewhere, and correlation provides less room for error by not stating any cause-effect relationship.
The premise of God as spirit is merely supplying an operational definition for the purpose of correctly arranging a means of testing. What equipment you use and what evidence you will accept will define subverted support and untestability.
Your last statement is a generalization which hopes to make a point by stating rhetoric without being specific, as does your second point, but I was able to salvage that for you.
My suggestion is, if you want to make a point with substance, be specific.
Originally posted by Mindship
Category error. They are not evidence, they are correlates. The only direct experience you have of an EEG, for example, is the EEG. It is assumed those black squiggly lines relate to Mind, but since assumption is a faculty of Mind, you are not allowed that assumption, otherwise you're "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps." Even to assume the correlation is dangerous, but hey, we have to start somewhere, and correlation provides less room for error by not stating any cause-effect relationship.The premise of God as spirit is merely supplying an operational definition for the purpose of correctly arranging a means of testing. What equipment you use and what evidence you will accept will define subverted support and untestability.
Your last statement is a generalization which hopes to make a point by stating rhetoric without being specific, as does your second point, but I was able to salvage that for you.
My suggestion is, if you want to make a point with substance, be specific.
This would be a category error IF the property "brain wave activity" is incorrectly ascribed to the ontological type "electroencephalogram." The fact that you describe these properties as "physical correlates" suggests that a relationship exists between the properties and the ontological type.
Providing an "operational definition" in the premises, of the phenomena intended to be proven to exist in the conclusion, committs the logic fallacy of Begging the Question.
It is your argument that "it is not reasonable to required direct empirical evidence for the existence of God," but without direct empirical evidence, the premise "God exists," is Untestable.
Your argument committs the logic fallacy of False Analogy because it attempts to draw a comparison between two relatively dissimilar things; the mind, which is an evanescent bi-product of brain functioning, and God, a sentient being.
My suggestion is that you provide evidence to support the claim "God exists," instead of fallacious and rhetorical arguments as to why you do not have to.