Is there finally an argument for the existence of God?

[Quim]

@Cognostic

Religion provided tribal identity, group purpose, and territorial boundaries. It gave meaning and purpose to life, reinforced social unity, and served as an agent of social control. Religion promoted psychological and physical well-being, and motivated people to work for the good of the tribe. Those who did not conform to the religious norms were shunned, banished, or killed.

Hmm, don’t take offense, but you don’t need a religion for this; only a football team will suffice. Anyway, I’m not going to initiate new debates at the moment. Let’s take some time to digest everything.

@Sheldon

I would focus on the ubiquitous logical fallacies if I were you.

Alright, I think I need some time to digest everything, so don’t expect a prompt response. If I had to answer, I would focus on stating that my proposal does not really violate Occam’s Razor, or at least not more than current explanations. But let’s give it some time, so don’t be surprised if I’m not commenting for a few days.

There are other interesting questions surrounding this topic that I will probably formulate in the future. For example, “If experience is real and any experience requires a subject, who is the subject of my experience?” The obvious answer is the brain, but… is our brain truly a subject? Or is it only a composite entity that appears unified to an external observer?

I believe that the debate on religion is just a debate on the mind in disguise.

See you all in a few days or weeks.

[Cognostic]

@Quim

So, I like to test them against people who will do everything they can to reject any logic I present

Your going to present some logic? When does that start? That will be a change? Awesome! I know I was beginning to think you were a fucking idiot and incapable of logical thought. Ha ha ha ha ! You really had me going there for a while with that idiotic inability to grasp the simple concept that a possibility had to be demonstrated. Ha ha ha… good one. You got me on that one!

So, what’s next? What “LOGICAL” proposition are you going to bring up that we can discuss?

[Cognostic]

@Quim

I am unsure if there exists a better word or method to explain it without encountering these issues and misunderstandings.

Welcome to the real world. It is the writer’s responsibility to communicate clearly to the reader. That is the way this works. It does not work any other way.

[Cognostic]

@Quim

Hmm, don’t take offense, but you don’t need a religion for this; only a football team will suffice. Anyway, I’m not going to initiate new debates at the moment. Let’s take some time to digest everything.

No one said it required religion. History proves this is the way we did it. Over and over and over. There were a few non-religious tribes. The Story of Civilization , explained that certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers’ reports. Damn your comment was a waste of breath. My comment was in direct response to your post and you have now removed the context (restated below). You have behaved dishonestly. (And, acted like an ass. ) You made the assertion…

@Quim

Moreover, if we observe human tribal groups, it becomes intriguing how diligently they avoid unnecessary resource consumption, despite allocating a considerable amount of energy towards rituals and magic. This contradicts our expectations, as we might have assumed that such behaviors would have been eliminated by natural selection over time. Instead, our observations suggest that this is a universal phenomenon.

I have demonstrated you are incorrect. And my comment, that you took issue with …;

@Cognostic

OH Fuck! Have you ever had a class in Social Anthropology or Sociology? Religion provided tribal identity, group purpose, and territorial boundaries. It gave meaning and purpose to life, reinforced social unity, and served as an agent of social control. Religion promoted psychological and physical well-being, and motivated people to work for the good of the tribe. Those who did not conform to the religious norms were shunned, banished, or killed. You are just talking our your ass again. Don’t you feel stupid yet? When are you going to stop pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it about the place?

Clearly demonstrated you were incorrect and knew nothing of the history of religion, archeology, or ancient sociology. (Perhaps you were just talking about another "POSSIBILITY.)

[Sheldon]

@Quim

I would focus on stating that my proposal does not really violate Occam’s Razor, or at least not more than current explanations.

If you are adding something you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence for (psychism and or a deity) to objectively evidenced facts like species evolution, in order to explain consciousness, then this is a textbook violation of Occam’s razor.

@Quim

“If experience is real and any experience requires a subject, who is the subject of my experience?” The obvious answer is the brain, but… is our brain truly a subject? Or is it only a composite entity that appears unified to an external observer?

Not sure I follow, since it is an objective fact we never see consciousness in the absence of a functioning brain, that is a sound reason to posit that it is an emergent property of the brain, especially since it disappears every time the brain dies. Until we know more why would we add any unevidenced assumptions, when doing so violates Occam’s razor?

@Quim

I believe that the debate on religion is just a debate on the mind in disguise.

Subjective unevidenced beliefs this are not at all compelling. A belief is the affirmation of a claim that something exists or is true, if you think this is true you will need to demonstrate this in here.

@Quim

you don’t need a religion for this; only a football team will suffice.

Even prima facie that doesn’t hold up, superstition is a place holder for science, knowledge, grief, fear, anything we don’t fully understand, it’s easy to see why in the absence of cogent explanations ignorant primitive societies used religion.

You also failed to address your claim about evolution and atheism here:

@Quim

it is quite evident that evolution does not support an atheistic understanding of reality.

SHELDON On the contrary, that’s the funniest thing I’ve read in ages. Given that atheism is far higher among scientists, and is highest among biologists.

“According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics, a percentage of unbelief far higher than in any other scientific discipline.”

"Similarly, according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”

Now you are asking us to believe you understand evolution better than those elite biologists. I think you can see how spectacularly stupid that claim is in this context?

Some cursory research could have disavowed you of this notion.

[Cognostic]

@Quim

it is quite evident that evolution does not support an atheistic understanding of reality.

What is really obvious is that you have no understanding at all of what Atheism is. There is NO atheistic understanding of reality. Atheists don’t believe in God or gods. That is all.

Most atheists I know of believe in evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism. Evolution is the best possible explanation for the diversity of life on the planet that we have. How else do you explain all the existent species? Marsupials isolated in Australia. Rhinos and Hippos only in Africa. The Panda, only in China. A Polar bear in the Arctic and a Grizzly in North America? How else are you going to explain this?

[Tin-Man]

@Cognostic

I just facepalmed my nose out my ass.

How the hell did it get past the rolling pin???

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Cognostic

Rhinos and Hippos only in Africa.

Hippos: yes. Rhinos: no. There are two rhino species in Africa (white and black) and three in Asia (Javan, Sumatran, and Indian rhinos).

Edit to add source: Rhinoceros - Wikipedia

[Randomhero1982]

I’ll give Quim credit where it us due, he/she certainly tries…

But, I must say again, let us touch on the subject of this thread, ‘is there finally an argument for the existence of god’… you have yet to demonstrate that a god exists.

All the semantic word games are wonderful and fluffy, but the major point is being ignored.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Quim

Every time I initiate a debate, I find myself having to explain my true intention behind the term ‘experience,’

This suggests to me that you should use a different word; instead of trying to force one that already means something to others (that is different than what you mean). You are shooting yourself in the foot, right out of the gate. I assume you are spouting gibberish on purpose; but if you happen to be serious, you need a better methodology.

---

@Quim

I am commenting here precisely because I know that this is where my ideas will encounter more resistance.

That is a nice sentiment. It would be more meaningful if you weren’t ignoring statements critical of your ideas.

[Cognostic]

@Tin-Man

How the hell did it get past the rolling pin???

It was traveling really fast and there is such a thing as ‘POSSIBILITY’ Everything happens whether it can happen or not. Even the impossible is logicall possible if you look at it like this It’s a law of reality .

[Tin-Man]

@Cognostic

It was traveling really fast and there is such a thing as ‘POSSIBILITY’ Everything happens whether it can happen or not.

Oh, dang. My bad. How silly of me not consider that possibility. You’re totally right. I mean, whether it could actually happened or not, it obviously DID happen, because it was ALWAYS a possibility. Sorry I asked such a stupid question. It’s a possibility it was probably my lack of sufficient coffee intake prior to my asking that question. Although, it’s rather impossible to know for certain. Unless, of course, we consider the possibility that it COULD BE probable, within the boundaries of anything being possible, naturally. After all, anything could happen anywhere at anytime, regardless of whether it could happen or not. I mean, let’s face the facts here. If I can IMAGINE something, regardless of how impossible it might be, then it should be obvious that whatever I imagine is absolutely possible. Whether or not it could ever possibly happen is totally irrelevent, because there is ALWAYS a possibility it COULD happen. Not sure how I could have forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me, ol’ buddy.

[skriten]

@Tin-Man

Not sure how I could have forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me, ol’ buddy.

Uh… not to pee in your punch bowl, but, it is possible that Cog is just yanking your chain for some self-serving reason…(blatant self-aggrandizement?)…now, maybe you have not considered the possibility that if anything is possible then that must include the possibility that “nothing” is possible, which means that it’s possible that everything came from nothing, including the nothing itself…
Now, you may be asking yourself, how does this nothingness account for my experience?
Well, clearly the nothing is separate and apart from the experience and from your brain.
So rather than resorting to dualism as an explanation, I suggest that you research (google) “ Trinitalitism”, which was obliquely referred to in various random heretofore anonymous examples of bathroom graffiti, but unrecognized by the hierarchy of the invisible being worshipping internet trolls that you have found lurking on your phone…
No thanks necessary, I consider it my personal obligation to serve as a beacon of enlightenment and a traffic signal of ambiguity…

Edit (not to be confused with Trinitarianism, or Discordianism otherwise known as the Law of Fives)

[Tin-Man]

@skriten

maybe you have not considered the possibility that if anything is possible then that must include the possibility that “nothing” is possible, which means that it’s possible that everything came from nothing, including the nothing itself…

Well, I have to admit it is entirely possible that possibility slipped my mind. From my personal experience, however, it’s possibly because there was nothing there to remind me of all the endless possibilities. Just imagine if everything was impossible, meaning nothing would be possible! What an experience that would be! By the way, speaking of nothing…

Do you suppose nothing negates something, or does something negate nothing? Which begs the question, is there anything that negates everything? I imagine there’s a possibility it’s probably based on one’s personal experience. Still, we shouldn’t discard the possible impossibility of such things. After all, if nothing is possible, then we have nothing to lose. Therefore, if we lose nothing, it’s possible we will lose everything. On the other hand, if we have nothing to lose AND nothing to gain, then I would suggest nothing be done about anything. Although, I agree it’s probably best to leave that possibility to personal experience.

(Edit to expound: If nothing is possible, then nothing should be impossible. )

[Cognostic]

Do you think our friend quim has absorbed any of this enlightening dialogue? Fucking possibilities. What a macarooon.

[CyberLN]

I think @Quim is using this as a place to practice and has no interest in the substance of the dialogue, only in collecting arguments s/he figures are less easily challenged (but successfully challenged nonetheless). It think @Quim will then take those arguments and present them to people less likely to successfully challenge them so s/he can walk away feeling superior.

[Sheldon]

@Cognostic

Do you think our friend quim has absorbed any of this enlightening dialogue?

@CyberLN

I think @Quim is using this as a place to practice and has no interest in the substance of the dialogue, only in collecting arguments s/he figures are less easily challenged (but successfully challenged nonetheless). It think @Quim will then take those arguments and present them to people less likely to successfully challenge them so s/he can walk away feeling superior.

I have to say that is a plausible scenario based on the posts I’ve seen from @Quim, though I want to keep an open mind, though by comparison I must say that @WhoAreYou is one of the most dishonest, and closed minded peddlers of superstition I’ve seen on here, and I’d bet my house he’s decades older than @Quim as well.

Some people at least have the potential to become open minded, even if they are not reasoning with an open mind now, and I don’t know yet if @Quim is capable of submitting his / her beliefs to rational critical scrutiny, but I’d bet my house @WhoAreYou is not, and likely never will be able to do this, based on the mindless vapid and dishonest way he peddles that superstition on here.

I just get the sense @Quim is struggling with it, and is disinclined to admit it, whereas @WhoAreYou doesn’t have a doubt in his “mind”, and only came here in the hope he could “save the souls of a few heathens”…by peddling lies for Jesus.

Of course I am often wrong, about a great many things.

[skriten]

@Sheldon

want to keep an open mind, though by comparison I must say that @WhoAreYou is one of the most dishonest, and closed minded peddlers of superstition I’ve seen on here, and I’d bet my house he’s decades older than @Quim as well.

I tend to agree with this. It seems to me that @WhoAreYou is just interested in agitating and has no motivation to learn or change.
@Quim on the other hand has apparently started reading some basic philosophy, with a preconceived notion concerning duality and is looking for a justification for what they have already accepted as true. Upon discovering someone (Chalmers) who “seems” to support their ideas or conclusions, they are reluctant to entertain other contrary ideas, in spite of Chalmer’s atheism.

[Cognostic]

Well, Fuck me… I did not know that there were rhinos in Asia. Damn! Thanks! I actually think that is rather amazing. Ahh… This is starting to make sense… “Rhinoceroses were a very diverse and abundant family of mammals and were the largest terrestrial mammals on all the northern continents from about 35 to about 20 million years ago.” These little guys were everywhere. “During this time, they ranged over all ecosystems and exhibited a wide range of behavior, with many different sizes and morphological adaptations.” Cool!

What an interesting animal… (A short synopsis) We even had them in N. America. (Well, their ancient ancestors.)

1175860259.pdf

[skriten]

“Is that a dog?” “Uh, no that’s Ronnie, my pet Rino”