Coercive miracles?

[tonyrey]

]Assuming you are neither, then you have just said that you aren’t sure that God exists.

I am absolutely sure atheism is false!

Maybe this is a good moment to say something along the lines of ‘whoops – not sure why I said that back there’. Put it down to too much coffee or something. I personally won’t hold it against you.

I’m also sure you’re not absolutely sure God doesn’t exist. We’re quits!

 

[Bradski]

I’m also sure you’re not absolutely sure God doesn’t exist. We’re quits!

I’ve said it innumerable times. I’ve no problem admitting it. It doesn’t stop me being an atheist. Because I don’t* believe* He exists as opposed to knowing that He doesn’t.

I think the situation with yourself might be different. I’m not sure how you can be a Catholic and not know that God exists.

If you are going to insist on maintaining this line then it doesn’t bode well for any further arguments you are going to make based on the undeniable existence of God.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The assumption that the mental activity is reducible to electrical impulses is self-destructive because electrical impulses have no insight whatsoever.

Let’s translate: “The assumption that feeling pleasure or pain is reducible to electrical impulses is “self-refuting”, because the electrical impulses cannot feel pleasure or pain whatsoever”. So let’s do a little experiment. Let’s implant the proper electrodes into the proper parts of your brain and turn on the mild electrical current and see what happens. You really should study neuro-physics.

We are not children.

The point was that you are willing and able to act against your deeply held belief that Santa Claus does not exist, and participate in the charade to prove to children that he does.

Try to change your belief that you are infallible!

You argue for me, and you cannot see it? It was my point that you cannot change your beliefs volitionally. Is the Magisterium a collection of fanatics and lunatics? Answer, please!

So you believe your reasoning is automatic and mechanical? You have no choice whatsoever? Don’t you ever withhold judgement because you haven’t made up your mind?

The acceptance or rejection of a new hypothesis all happens in the sub-conscious. When the evidence becomes convincing then and only then is the “control” returned to the conscious, and then you experience the “Eureka” moment, and experience the enlightment.

You are underestimating the power of fear. That is because your notion of God is inadequate. If you were confronted with the reality of the Creator of the universe you would be paralysed with terror.

Nonsense. Were Adam and Eve terrorized with fear?

Being deeply convinced doesn’t imply that we are constantly aware of God’s presence.

So what? You are convinced that God keeps a detailed roster of all your thoughts, and judges you accordingly. The fact that you are able to commit all those venial and mortal sins - while being aware that your sins are held against you - is sufficient evidence that God manifesting himself to everyone would not be have an effect of “getting paralyzed with fear”. But we can leave this safely to God. Let him come clean and see what the results would be on you and me and everyone else.

---

I am absolutely sure atheism is false!

Then you are either a fanatic or a lunatic (according to your own words). Which one will it be?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m also sure you’re not absolutely sure God doesn’t exist.

There is a flaw in your argument, Brad. Our concepts of knowledge are totally different. You are restricted to impersonal knowledge whereas I include facts about persons such as good and evil. You are restricted to physical causes but I take purpose and free will into account. For you the right to life is merely a human convention but for me it stems from the infinite value of every individual. From that point of view I am certain God exists because otherwise love is romantic nonsense.

 

[tonyrey]

The assumption that the mental activity is reducible to electrical impulses is self-destructive because electrical impulses have no insight whatsoever.

You really should consider the implications of your hypothesis. Are all your conclusions determined by cerebral voltages and amperages?

The point was that you are willing and able to act against your deeply held belief that Santa Claus does not exist, and participate in the charade to prove to children that he does.

Life consists of far more than playing games.

Try to change your belief that you are infallible!

You argue for me, and you cannot see it? It was my point that you cannot change your beliefs volitionally. Is the Magisterium a collection of fanatics and lunatics? Answer, please!

Are you infallible or not? Or are all your beliefs are determined by events beyond your control like what you have had for breakfast and whether you feel happy or depressed? In other words you seem to believe you are a mental slave dominated by physical facts about your body? I thought behavourism is obsolete…

So you believe your reasoning is automatic and mechanical? You have no choice whatsoever? Don’t you ever withhold judgement because you haven’t made up your mind?

The acceptance or rejection of a new hypothesis all happens in the sub-conscious. When the evidence becomes convincing then and only then is the “control” returned to the conscious, and then you experience the “Eureka” moment, and experience the enlightment.

The mental slave hypothesis is self-contradictory because the “self” becomes an illusion if the mind consists of no more than electrical impulses. There is no “you” or “I”, just a lump of tissue inside the skull.

You are underestimating the power of fear. That is because your notion of God is inadequate. If you were confronted with the reality of the Creator of the universe you would be paralysed with terror.

Nonsense. Were Adam and Eve terrorized with fear?

Only Fundamentalists interpret Genesis literally. I’m sure you’re not one of them!

Being deeply convinced doesn’t imply that we are constantly aware of God’s presence.

So what? You are convinced that God keeps a detailed roster of all your thoughts, and judges you accordingly. The fact that you are able to commit all those venial and mortal sins - while being aware that your sins are held against you - is sufficient evidence that God manifesting himself to everyone would not be have an effect of “getting paralyzed with fear”. But we can leave this safely to God. Let him come clean and see what the results would be on you and me and everyone else.

Your anthropomorphic view of the Monster in the Sky prevents you from appreciating the reality of divine love. You live inside a box of your own making which not only excludes the distinction between good and evil but also the reality of freedom, justice and love. The naked ape hypothesis is incompatible with a civilised view of humanity. Which is it to be? To reduce it to its basic elements, life dominated by electricity? What else could there be, I wonder…

 

[Bradski]

From that point of view I am certain God exists because otherwise love is romantic nonsense.

I think we can go with that. That is, I don’t agree but I accept that your conclusion is valid for you.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You really should consider the implications of your hypothesis.

Don’t try to derail the subject. Pain and pleasure are demonstrated to be the result of the electro-chemical stimulation of certain parts of the brain. Exciting other parts of the brain will invoke thoughts and feelings, like love and hate. This is beyond dispute. Do you STILL deny this?

Life consists of far more than playing games.

Another derail attempt. I pointed out that you are able and willing to act against your beliefs. So the beliefs do not “determine” your actions. Not even complete knowledge of the falsity of those beliefs determine the actions.

Are you infallible or not?

Is the Magisterium composed of fanatics and lunatics? Stop evading.

Only Fundamentalists interpret Genesis literally. I’m sure you’re not one of them!

Another derail attempt. Catholics are allowed to interpret it either literally or allegorically.

Your anthropomorphic view of the Monster in the Sky prevents you from appreciating the reality of divine love.

Another derail attempt. As soon as God manifests himself to us, we can see if that manifestation will leave us trembling with terror, and take away our freedom. You simple present an unsupported hypothesis. You should answer those questions I presented before you attempt to posit other ones. Elementary courtesy, my dear Watson… not to mention the forum rules.

 

[tonyrey]

You really should consider the implications of your hypothesis.

determined by cerebral voltages and amperages? Yes or no? And if not what else determines your conclusions?

Life consists of far more than playing games.

Another derail attempt. I pointed out that you are able and willing to act against your beliefs. So the beliefs do not “determine” your actions. Not even complete knowledge of the falsity of those beliefs determine the actions.
Yet you have not explained **how **you are able and willing to act against your beliefs. You are in the extraordinary position of having one law for beliefs and another for actions. It sounds as if we have all have a split mind… Apparently our actions have a life of their own while our unfortunate beliefs are slaves to events beyond our control. That implies all our beliefs have an irrational origin whether they are reasonable or not. Is that the case?

Are you infallible or not?

Is the Magisterium composed of fanatics and lunatics? Stop evading.It seems my questions are evasions whereas yours are not!
But then of course you omit mine when they endanger your hypothesis:

Are all your beliefs are determined by events beyond your control like what you have had for breakfast and whether you feel happy or depressed? In other words you seem to believe you are a mental slave dominated by physical facts about your body?

Only Fundamentalists interpret Genesis literally. I’m sure you’re not one of them

!

Another derail attempt. Catholics are allowed to interpret it either literally or allegorically.
Your habit of using “derailing” as an excuse for rejecting an explanation is obvious even to a casual reader. The fact remains that if you were confronted with the Creator of the universe you would be paralysed with terror.

Your anthropomorphic view of the Monster in the Sky prevents you from appreciating the reality of divine love.

Another derail attempt.Repetition merely weakens your objection. It doesn’t alter the fact that you are incapable of appreciating all the richness and beauty of life. In Lear’s words it is a case of “filial ingratitude”.

As soon as God manifests himself to us, we can see if that manifestation will leave us trembling with terror, and take away our freedom. You simple present an unsupported hypothesis. You should answer those questions I presented before you attempt to posit other ones. Elementary courtesy, my dear Watson… not to mention the forum rules.

It is elementary courtesy not to be selective and omit the other person’s statements and questions:

Your anthropomorphic view of the Monster in the Sky prevents you from appreciating the reality of divine love. You live inside a box of your own making which not only excludes the distinction between good and evil but also the reality of freedom, justice and love. The naked ape hypothesis is incompatible with a civilised view of humanity. Which is it to be? To reduce it to its basic elements, life dominated by electricity?

%between%

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is significant that you have omitted my question:

You just don’t adhere to the rules. To use a simple analogy, a “conversation” is like a game of tennis. One party “serves” the ball, the other one plays it back. Question and answer. The one who must return the ball has no RIGHT to demand that he should be serving… Only after the game is finished and the new game starts will be his turn to serve - to ask the next question.

You never do that. Every time a question is asked you do NOT answer, rather try to ask a question instead. That is not the way a conversation is played. By the way, this is not MY rule. It is the stipulated rule of the board, and very sensible, too.

 

[tonyrey]

You just don’t adhere to the rules. To use a simple analogy, a “conversation” is like a game of tennis. One party “serves” the ball, the other one plays it back. Question and answer. The one who must return the ball has no RIGHT to demand that he should be serving… Only after the game is finished and the new game starts will be his turn to serve - to ask the next question.

You never do that. Every time a question is asked you do NOT answer, rather try to ask a question instead. That is not the way a conversation is played. By the way, this is not MY rule. It is the stipulated rule of the board, and very sensible, too.

A sample of the questions you have ignored:

1. Why are our conclusions exempt and excluded?
2. Do you believe your reasoning is automatic and mechanical? You have no choice whatsoever? Don’t you ever withhold judgement because you haven’t made up your mind?
3. Are all your conclusions determined by cerebral voltages and amperages?
4. And if not what else determines your conclusions?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

A sample of the questions you have ignored:

They were ignored because they were uttered as derail attempts in lieu of actual answers. As such they WILL be ignored in this thread. The solution is simple; open a new thread of your own, and present your questions there.

 

[tonyrey]

They were ignored because they were uttered as derail attempts in lieu of actual answers. As such they WILL be ignored in this thread. The solution is simple; open a new thread of your own, and present your questions there.

You implied that we are mental slaves dominated by physical facts about our bodies:

Pain and pleasure are demonstrated to be the result of the electro-chemical stimulation of certain parts of the brain. Exciting other parts of the brain will invoke thoughts and feelings, like love and hate.

To which I replied:

You have not explained **how **you are able and willing to act against your beliefs. You are in the extraordinary position of having one law for beliefs and another for actions. It sounds as if we have all have a split mind… Apparently our actions have a life of their own while our unfortunate beliefs are slaves to events beyond our control. That implies all our beliefs have an irrational origin whether they are reasonable or not. Is that the case?

**The acceptance or rejection of a new hypothesis all happens in the sub-conscious. **When the evidence becomes convincing then and only then is the “control” returned to the conscious, and then you experience the “Eureka” moment, and experience the enlightment.

To which I replied:

The mental slave hypothesis is self-contradictory because the “self” becomes an illusion if the mind consists of no more than electrical impulses. There is no “you” or “I”, just a lump of tissue inside the skull.

To which you have given no response. You don’t seem to have the courage of your convictions. I leave others to decide who is evading the issue…

 

[tonyrey]

It is beautifully ironic that the OP rejects coercive miracles yet believes all our beliefs are thrust on us whether we like it or not. That surely is a coercive miracle of the highest order because reasonable people believe our beliefs are really **ours **and not thrust on us by events beyond **our **control but obviously what we believe has no significance whatsoever because there is nothing to distinguish beliefs from one another when they all have a mindless origin. Not only “we” don’t count but “we” don’t even exist! As Hume observed, “we” are only “bundles of perceptions” or in more modern terms “electro-chemical stimulation of certain parts of the brain”.

No wonder miracles never cease! “We” have been deceived all “our” lives with all this talk of “you” and “me” and “they”. In future only mathematical equations should be used to describe events (impersonal of course). This brain sends positive signals to other brains at 2.22 GMT…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is beautifully ironic that the OP rejects coercive miracles yet believes all our beliefs are thrust on us whether we like it or not.

No, the author of the OP does NOT believe that or anything even remotely like it. What you say is the result of your misunderstanding.

Try to think about the amount of data processed by the brain. It is nothing short of staggering. The brain controls everything in your body, the beating of your heart, the movements of your muscles to enable breathing, the secretion of the enzymes to process food, the growing of your hair and fingernails, regulating the kidneys and millions of other functions whether you are awake or not. Al that happens in the sub-conscious. If the brain would need to be AWARE of all it would not be able to keep up with the workload. Our conscious brain cannot process more than a few dozens of bits of information per second.

When you spoke about “split mind” you only displayed your ignorance. It is NOT “split mind”, it is “multitasking” and “parallel processing”. The brain is a massively parallel multitasking biological computer with awesome capabilities. There are parts which are responsible for processing visual information, other parts process auditory information, yet other parts compare these informations with the perceived reality. Maybe they send signals to the conscious part and tell you that stepping out into the traffic would be fatal, since there is a truck approaching the intersection… Or it blinks your eye-lids to prevent a small insect to get into your eye.

When it comes to processing of new information, it happens in the sub-conscious. The sub-conscious performs the necessary analysis, compares the new data with the “knowledge-base” already stored, and comes up with a verdict: “can the new data be integrated into the existing database”? If it can, it will be “believed”, if it cannot, it will be “rejected”. It may be that the analysis comes back with the verdict as “inconclusive” and then the new data awaits further evidence. In that case the honest person simply shrugs and says: “I don’t know”.

None of the above is speculation. It comes from observation and hard analysis.

The rest of your post comes from even more lack of comprehension, but I am not interested in analyzing all your errors.

 

[tonyrey]

No, the author of the OP does NOT believe that or anything even remotely like it. What you say is the result of your misunderstanding.

Try to think about the amount of data processed by the brain. It is nothing short of staggering. The brain controls everything in your body, the beating of your heart, the movements of your muscles to enable breathing, the secretion of the enzymes to process food, the growing of your hair and fingernails, regulating the kidneys and millions of other functions whether you are awake or not. Al that happens in the sub-conscious. If the brain would need to be AWARE of all it would not be able to keep up with the workload. Our conscious brain cannot process more than a few dozens of bits of information per second.

When you spoke about “split mind” you only displayed your ignorance. It is NOT “split mind”, it is “multitasking” and “parallel processing”. The brain is a massively parallel multitasking biological computer with awesome capabilities. There are parts which are responsible for processing visual information, other parts process auditory information, yet other parts compare these informations with the perceived reality. Maybe they send signals to the conscious part and tell you that stepping out into the traffic would be fatal, since there is a truck approaching the intersection… Or it blinks your eye-lids to prevent a small insect to get into your eye.

When it comes to processing of new information, it happens in the sub-conscious. The sub-conscious performs the necessary analysis, compares the new data with the “knowledge-base” already stored, and comes up with a verdict: “can the new data be integrated into the existing database”? If it can, it will be “believed”, if it cannot, it will be “rejected”. It may be that the analysis comes back with the verdict as “inconclusive” and then the new data awaits further evidence. In that case the honest person simply shrugs and says: “I don’t know”.

None of the above is speculation. It comes from observation and hard analysis.

The rest of your post comes from even more lack of comprehension, but I am not interested in analyzing all your errors.

Thank you for your explanation. Do you believe all our thoughts, feelings, choices and decisions are produced by neural impulses? Is the mind simply the activity of the brain?

 

[tonyrey]

… Mind you, even if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt whatsoever, it would NOT coerce us into any specific behavior. We would still be free to accept or deny God’s requirements of “preferred, moral behavior”. But at least it would be a choice made with open eyes, it would be a real choice. Please discuss.

“even if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt whatsoever " implies that we would be compelled to believe God exists if there were sufficient evidence.” Is there any reason why there cannot be sufficient evidence?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thank you for your explanation. Do you believe all our thoughts, feelings, choices and decisions are produced by neural impulses? Is the mind simply the activity of the brain?

Just one second. Before we can go on, let’s clarify if you found my explanation satisfactory or not. It would be very nice if you elaborated and said one of two things:

1. Thank you for your explanation. I understand and agree with it. Or:
2. Thank you for your explanation, but I disagree with it (or certain parts of it) for the following reasons. (list of reasons and arguments)

Once we finish up this “game”, then we can continue with you having the ball and “serve” it. Could we have this nice tennis game?

“even if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt whatsoever " implies that we would be compelled to believe God exists if there were sufficient evidence.” Is there any reason why there cannot be sufficient evidence?

I don’t accept the word “compelled” or “coerced”. Let’s use the neutral phrase: “if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt, then there would be no reason to doubt it, and instead of saying ‘I believe that God exists’ we could use the much stronger ‘I know that God exists’.” Once we agree on this, we can examine the ramifications of it.

There is absolutely no reason why there cannot be sufficient evidence. I gave a few examples of such evidence previously.

You see. You present a question, and I am happy to answer. Good tennis game.

 

[tonyrey]

Just one second. Before we can go on, let’s clarify if you found my explanation satisfactory or not. It would be very nice if you elaborated and said one of two things:

1. Thank you for your explanation. I understand and agree with it. Or:
2. Thank you for your explanation, but I disagree with it (or certain parts of it) for the following reasons. (list of reasons and arguments)

1. Thank you for your explanation. I agree with your explanation as far as it goes but it doesn’t go far enough. You describe what the brain does but not where the mind comes in. Is the mind just the brain in action or is there an aspect you haven’t mentioned? I don’t believe the brain knows it’s a brain or understands what it’s doing! That’s where the mind is indispensable …

I don’t accept the word “compelled” or “coerced”. Let’s use the neutral phrase: “if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt, then there would be no reason to doubt it, and instead of saying ‘I believe that God exists’ we could use the much stronger ‘I know that God exists’.” Once we agree on this, we can examine the ramifications of it.

There is absolutely no reason why there cannot be sufficient evidence. I gave a few examples of such evidence previously.

I think “know” is far too feeble if we were in the presence of God. We would be overcome with such awe and wonder we would be incapable of forgetting the experience - like St Paul who was transformed from a ruthless persecutor of the Christians to a dedicated Apostle who sacrificed his life for his Saviour. It would be the outstanding event of our life on earth which would make us incapable of deliberately doing anything we believe is wrong. But as you don’t believe in God it is just a theoretical exercise you cannot understand because it doesn’t fit in with your scheme of things. It is like trying to describe beautiful music to a person born deaf or an artistic masterpiece to a person born blind. It is beyond your range of possibilities even though your basic argument is that everything is possible…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

1. Thank you for your explanation. I agree with your explanation as far as it goes but it doesn’t go far enough. You describe what the brain does but not where the mind comes in. Is the mind just the brain in action or is there an aspect you haven’t mentioned? I don’t believe the brain knows it’s a brain or understands what it’s doing! That’s where the mind is indispensable …

Very well. It is the next logical step. Let me quote your previous way of putting it.

Do you believe all our thoughts, feelings, choices and decisions are produced by neural impulses? Is the mind simply the activity of the brain?

Now this is the meat of the problem. And, yes it is a question worthy of pursuing.

First, I will contend that the question is incorrectly formed. Our thoughts (etc.) are NOT produced by the neural impulses. They are the two sides of the same coin. Let me try an analogy. You see a canvas with some colored blobs on it. It is called a “picture”. It is incorrect to ask if the picture is “produced” by the colored blobs of paint. The picture IS the colored blobs of paint. Without the colored blobs there would be no “picture”. If the blobs would be different, the picture would not be the same. The blobs are the equivalent of the physical states of the neurons. The picture is the equivalent of the “thought”. Neither one “produces” the other.

Let’s look from another angle. Our skin has a lot of receptors, some of which react to “heat”, others react to “cold”, some react to “pressure”, etc… When the receptors receive a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from the environment, we experience “pain”. The same pain can be experienced by directly exciting the proper part of the brain. In other words, “pain” is NOT produced by the electrical impulses in the neurons - pain IS the electrical state of the neurons. And the same applies to pleasure.

Now these are relatively simple - they all belong to the sub-conscious part of the brain. Choices and decisions are the next part to examine. These occur - at least partially - in the conscious. Let take a soccer player who is about to perform a penalty kick (the Bundesliga or the Premier League are about to start ). The player evaluates the situation. His sub-conscious mind recalls all the details he knows bout the goalie, what his possible preferences might be, and a myriad other details. The player is not aware of this very complex process, it just happens “below the surface”. Then the result “emerges” from the sub-conscious and the player makes a conscious decision, how to kick the ball, where should the ball be directed, how strong the kick should be… and a lot of other details. The funny thing is that most of these decisions do NOT happen in the conscious area.

I don’t have any precise information, but I suspect that at the most… a fraction of the data processing happens in the conscious part, the overwhelming majority happens in the sub-conscious.

So what is the “I”? What we call “I” is the total data-processing happening in the brain. I need to emphasize it again. The “I” is NOT produced by the electrical impulses. The “I” IS the electrical impulses AND what they represent. It is a very scary thought that a minor intrusion of a scalpel - to sever the connection of the frontal lobe - will get rid of the “I”, the personality. The person will change into a vegetative state - because part of the data-processing is removed or inhibited. And that Alzheimer disease will not just “erase” the memory of the patient, it will also erase the sub-conscious… the patient’s mind will literally forget how to regulate the heart, the lungs, how to control the abdominal muscles.

I think “know” is far too feeble if we were in the presence of God. We would be overcome with such awe and wonder we would be incapable of forgetting the experience - like St Paul who was transformed from a ruthless persecutor of the Christians to a dedicated Apostle who sacrificed his life for his Saviour. It would be the outstanding event of our life on earth which would make us incapable of deliberately doing anything we believe is wrong. But as you don’t believe in God it is just a theoretical exercise you cannot understand because it doesn’t fit in with your scheme of things. It is like trying to describe beautiful music to a person born deaf or an artistic masterpiece to a person born blind. It is beyond your range of possibilities even though your basic argument is that everything is possible…

In this case we are like two blind people who argue about color. Neither of us can speak with any authority about “what would happen”. I will stick to the description of the Bible, which can be taken either literally or allegorically. In it God freely mingles with humans and yet those people retain their freedom to act according to their preferences, even if they “know” what God would request them to do. They perform acts that God forbids them to do… So I have at least some foundation for the argument - and that foundation comes from YOUR side of the fence. Do you have something that is not sheer speculation?

 

[Elizium23]

I’ve said it innumerable times. I’ve no problem admitting it. It doesn’t stop me being an atheist. Because I don’t* believe* He exists as opposed to knowing that He doesn’t.

You’re describing agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.