OT: The Bible?

[Gar Paxdorf]

Why do you assume that thoughts must have a physical existence?

I don't. In fact, I specifically think that they have a metaphysical existence as their primary identity.

You are saying that because we cannot physically locate or define thoughts (they are just variations in electrical charge in the brain) that there must be a supernatural force that allows them to happen.

No, rather what I'm saying is that thoughts and ideas of the mind are not physical things, and thus couldn't ever be located, found, or studied with the tools of the physical universe (for us, sight, touch, hearing, etc). As for supernatural, I don't really believe Supernatural has an effective meaning. I mean, I believe in God, but to me there is nothing about God that is an anomaly of nature, because what we perceive as the natural universe is all a production of God, thus neither God nor anything else can be "supernatural" in the way that I think people mean when they use the term.

Let's use a metaphor: You take apart your computer looking for the physical place where a file is stored. Upon finding that the file is not physically there (just subtle variations in magnetic field), you must by the same logic conclude that a supernatural force is the source for the files on your computer.

Why do you assume thoughts are more than merely electrical current through our brains?

My argument is that, while they may or may not conceptualize it this way, I believe that when people perceive thoughts to potentially be physically identifiable, they are essentially saying that there is no such thing as a thought, that thoughts do not exist. As I said, I think this is a quite reasonable conclusion and I first entertained it many years ago but haven't agreed with it for almost a decade. Basically, IF the mind and the brain are one and the same, there is no such thing as an "idea" or thought distinct from the idea of the (corresponding) current flowing through an arbitrary neuron in the brain. In your analogy, I would say that there is no such thing as a file. The "file" is nothing more than an arbitrary electron response to a given stimulus, and is not, in fact, an otherwise potentially identifiable entity.

To your last question, we are evidently "present" amidst the collection of currents flowing through our brains. Essentially, our minds/experience/consciousness seem to exist in a different dimension that we are fundamentally unable to explore, but can use to explore the 4th dimensional universe in which all of our perceptions are rooted. If I'm wrong, what is a "file"? Files don't exist in 4 dimensional space (3D + time). Files are ideas of our minds. Math doesn't exist in 4 dimensional space - all that exists is the physical universe, which, as far we can tell (by tell, I mean "echo" because without a mind I don't think we have coherent identities), is just a bunch of particles flying around subject to arbitrary tendencies.

[chadrucf]

To your last question, we are evidently "present" amidst the collection of currents flowing through our brains. Essentially, our minds/experience/consciousness seem to exist in a different dimension that we are fundamentally unable to explore, but can use to explore the 4th dimensional universe in which all of our perceptions are rooted.

Do you have any reason to believe this? Why believe it is something more than is suggested by the evidence? It this leap of faith justified? Why do you assume this extra dimension with thought and not the file when confronted with the same situation?

If I'm wrong, what is a "file"? Files don't exist in 4 dimensional space (3D + time). Files are ideas of our minds.

That's just it: there is no real difference between the two. So why is one evidence of a God and the other not?

Math doesn't exist in 4 dimensional space - all that exists is the physical universe, which, as far we can tell (by tell, I mean "echo" because without a mind I don't think we have coherent identities), is just a bunch of particles flying around subject to arbitrary tendencies.

Math is a description of patterns within the universe, which exist independent of our perception. Our perception of these patterns is of no consequence to the physical universe.

[Gar Paxdorf]

To your last question, we are evidently "present" amidst the collection of currents flowing through our brains. Essentially, our minds/experience/consciousness seem to exist in a different dimension that we are fundamentally unable to explore, but can use to explore the 4th dimensional universe in which all of our perceptions are rooted.

Do you have any reason to believe this? Why believe it is something more than is suggested by the evidence? It this leap of faith justified? Why do you assume this extra dimension with thought and not the file when confronted with the same situation?

The reason I believe it is based on my experience of, well, thinking, and based on divine revelation which to me is the Qur'an. For all I know, a "file" could certainly have a "mind", but there is no word from the files to date reporting that they have such an identity, nor any other evidence of the existence of a file outside the mind of human beings. On the other hand, if you believe that the mind is nothing more than a collection of electrical currents, why, or rather how, do you understand currents to represent, say, an image or an idea? More importantly, since we know from experience that images exist, how do/can you understand electric currents to BE images. We can prove that electric currents correlate with things like image conception, but we haven't a clue as to how they could possibly BE the image. The electrons don't know anything about the picture in your mind of the oak tree, let's say, because all the electrons are doing is flying around experiencing charge and other forces. In order for such a thing as say, the image of an oak tree in your mind, the mind must essentially be in many places at once.

The evidence is that ideas and thoughts are formed and captured somehow, and haven't the slightest explanation for how that might be possible. You might say that ideas are captured in say, a computer, but no, ideas are not captured in a computer. Well, they might be, but we certainly have no reason to believe they are. There has been no report of anything other than electron flow going on inside of computers.

If I'm wrong, what is a "file"? Files don't exist in 4 dimensional space (3D + time). Files are ideas of our minds.

That's just it: there is no real difference between the two. So why is one evidence of a God and the other not?

If an idea exists, then I believe the mind exists as well. And neither can begin to be explained by our scientific endeavors so far, but have been explained by the Almighty. This is why I think that the best argument against my position is to argue that ideas and minds do not exist. If you allow for the existence of the mind distinct in identity from the brain, and/or ideas as distinct from the physical phenomena they represent, then you can start to allow for the existence of God distinct from the universe that God created.

Maybe the mind isn't enough reason for someone to believe in God. There are many other reasons IMO. First, God has been reported and heard, explicitly. Second, God has IMO proven the authenticity of God's reports to those who know. I'm not sure if either of these ideas are present in the Bible/Christianity, but I veered to my beliefs to answer your question here.

[chadrucf]

I veered to my beliefs to answer your question here.

In that case, I don't believe we will be able to reconcile. I can't accept a set of beliefs to provide support of another belief with a lack of evidence. I don't find it convincing.

If we allow thoughts to exist...we allow files to exist. There is nothing supernatural about it, unless you specifically imprint your beliefs onto them in order to support your belief.

[chadrucf]

First, God has been reported and heard, explicitly.

So have many things by many people. People are very impressionable.

Second, God has IMO proven the authenticity of God's reports to those who know.

Quite frankly, that's bloody convenient. As someone who is not a believer, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to understand.

[Gar Paxdorf]

I veered to my beliefs to answer your question here.

In that case, I don't believe we will be able to reconcile. I can't accept a set of beliefs to provide support of another belief with a lack of evidence. I don't find it convincing.

If we allow thoughts to exist...we allow files to exist. There is nothing supernatural about it, unless you specifically imprint your beliefs onto them in order to support your belief.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. When I said my beliefs, I meant veering to islam. I don't know for sure, but IIRC in the Christian tradition and the Bible, there is nothing that is alleged to be a report from God (rather it has just been tradition to believe that it is), and I'm not aware of any marks of authenticity in the Bible, authenticating it to be God's word. I mean, IIRC, the Bible isn't even alleged to be God's word, but is rather just believed to be inspired by God.

I'm allowing files and thoughts to exist. That's my point. Science has produced no description of the metaphysical, such as minds or files. If you don't believe there is anything beyond the realm of science, beyond the physical universe, I don't think it's consistent to believe in files (of course, it would also be inconsistent to believe in beliefs, which gets tricky ).

[Gar Paxdorf]

First, God has been reported and heard, explicitly.

So have many things by many people. People are very impressionable.

Second, God has IMO proven the authenticity of God's reports to those who know.

Quite frankly, that's bloody convenient. As someone who is not a believer, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to understand.

Of course people throughout time have uttered false reports. But reports aren't typically thrown out until they are revealed to be questionable or likely false. I'm not saying the authorship of divine communication is proof of God, but it's a good place to start, until (like IMO in Christianity and the Bible) it starts to all fall apart logically.

Regarding the last comment, there are astonishing truths to learn about the authenticity of the Qur'an IMO. If you are ever interested in knowing more, I might be able to point you in the right direction, but I'm not a dedicated scholar on the topic, that's for sure.

[chadrucf]

Science has absolutely developed an understanding of files. That's why we can make hard drives to store them. If we didn't know how they work, we wouldn't have a chance to make a computer.

I was refuting your claim that because thoughts are non-physical, they must have supernatural cause.

Are you saying that files are evidence of a God, just as thoughts are? If not, why are they different?

[chadrucf]

Of course people throughout time have uttered false reports. But reports aren't typically thrown out until they are revealed to be questionable or likely false.

Actually, I would expect that claims would be thrown out if they are offered without any evidence to provide credibility.

Regarding the last comment, there are astonishing truths to learn about the authenticity of the Qur'an IMO. If you are ever interested in knowing more, I might be able to point you in the right direction, but I'm not a dedicated scholar on the topic, that's for sure.

I'm open to read anything on the subject.

[joshcxa]

@joshcxa- take the good with the bad- sunlight that heats the gulf to produce hurricanes, now you wouldn't consider sunlight to be a negative force, since you cannot have life as we know it without sunlight, i'm not sure why you would think that way when discussing God.

So god had the power to provide sunlight, but was unable to do so without producing hurricanes? That suggests either incompetence through "bad design" or he is just evil.

[joshcxa]

Try to think about what the mind really is, what thoughts really are. The existence of thought, of conscious thought, of complete images and ideas forming singularly as a concept in the mind... how could those rich images and ideas exist within whatever physical/chemical breakdown of the brain we determine? If everything in the brain, everything that we experience, is just protons, neutrons, and electrons, where do the thoughts exist? How can a thought as rich as what we all think at all times be represented or manifest in something as limited as the atomic particles? Our vantage point, our experience, cannot exist as part of such a limited system. That's why I believe in the existence of the mind as something distinct from the brain, though perhaps related to it in an unknown way. If I'm wrong, then wherever there are chemical reactions happening, there must be thoughts and ideas and a vantage point and experience, no? To me, the mind is a miracle, and I accept it as perhaps the greatest gift from God.

This could be another god of the gaps argument. Where would your point stand if science was able solve all the little mysteries of the brain.

That doesn't paint a very good picture for your god then. Being responsible for many natural disasters and diseases. Even if there was a god, I would not worship one as bad as him.

IMO, God didn't create the world explicitly and exhaustively to facilitate human pleasure and benefit. I believe that this life is extremely glimpsing and fragile, and what we experience in it is of very, very little meaning or importance, because the next life is the real, true, full life in paradise. This life may just be meant to give us the gift of thought, mind, freedom, choices, etc and to give a glimpse of some of the horrors and beauty of what alternatives could easily be or have been. This life is a test, not an end-all experience. Every event, including natural disasters, has boundless effects, lessons, rewards and punishments in it for people and individuals.

We only know negativity, horror, unpleasantness, etc by comparison with the good. The gift of existence, of experience, stands as just as beautiful whether one is born very ill and dies young, lives a virtuous long life, lives a long life of sin, etc. People will have their benefits and punishments for what they've done both in this life and the next. But in my belief system, this life is basically just preseason. So whatever happens, even something seemingly very bad, I pray to God with thanks, because there is a benefit and lesson in everything, no matter how dim it may seem. Life is the process of learning and growing, of learning that we are not gods. All who submit to their creator will have their ultimate reward, and need not worry about the mirage of this life and it's fleeting pleasures and horrors. It doesn't mean that you "ignore" life and just wait for death... no, there is a great way to live life while we are here, a way that makes the experience beautiful and comfortable for us and our fellow man, filled with rich knowledge and actions. This way has been implanted in the heart of every man, and reinforced by messengers to every people throughout all of history. Some heed the signs, some are arrogant in their power to ignore them. Some manipulate the signs to corrupt their fellow man, and they will have their day of reckoning in this life and/or the next.

All that just seems like a way to deal with death better. Be good and go to paradise or go to hell and suffer forever. I can see how that caught on in the early stages of religion where so much was unexplained and hard to argue against.

I don't really understand how this life is a test if the outcome is predetermined to god, the all knowing.

[SensiBull]

When a human government, has a building as its embassy, and puts a flag up, and tells the occupants of the land not to touch it, and they do, everyone seems to understand that this act, the denigrating of a cloth flag, against the instruction of the government that put it there, is an act of rebellion, an indication that the people no longer wish to be ruled by the government that put that flag there, and, gave that instruction.
Yet, somehow, when that 'embassy' is a garden, and that 'flag' is a tree, before there was money, before there were machines, before there were even other people to be ruled, that very same act of rebellion is somehow misunderstood to be some sort of trick, or a practical joke, or an attempt to somehow entrap the rebel, or anything other than what it was - a rejection of the ruler who put it there.
This, in turn, explains the subsequent absence of that original ruler, who has been, effectively, voted off the island he built, who did not elect to overstay his welcome, but, despite the foolishness of that rebellion took this cue to leave, until such time as, once and for all, the rebels themselves, and their descendants, recognise for themselves, through centuries of actual experience with independence from him (and not through any self-promoting chest- thumping on his own part) that this was the wrong move, and that it was never in the interest of anyone to have rebelled, because things were just fine as they were.
So, when that understanding has finally, proven itself, everything will be returned to the way it originally was, including people living forever, as they originally would have, if not for the initial rebellion.

[SensiBull]

Read Revelation 21:3,4

[SensiBull]

He cannot allow man to explore the merits (or folly) of earth without his direction without relinquishing control of it.

http://bible.cc/1_john/5-19

[SensiBull]

So, in the mean time, bad things happen to good people, and humans use power unjustly aginst people that they were never designed to rule. - Ecclesiastes 8:9

When will it end?

Mark 13:31-33