The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[phildwyer]

It'll run until there's a critical mass of readers with phildwyer on ignore, or he goes away. The existence of God is not something that can be proved. There is no rational need for that hypothesis.

Some people have an emotional need to believe in a Deity, and they cannot be proved wrong, that's all.

I can't help feeling that you might want to give some thought to the question of whether this thread is really the best available fit for you at the present time? There are many other perfectly respectable threads where, as it seems to me, your talents might be more profitably employed. But let me assure you that, if you should ever wish to return to this thread, your request will given the utmost consideration. May I take this opportunity to wish you the very best success on all the other threads to which you contribute? Thank you very much indeed for your interest.

 

[Crispy]

I can't help feeling that you might want to give some thought to the question of whether this thread is really the best available fit for you at the present time? There are many other perfectly respectable threads where, as it seems to me, your talents might be more profitably employed. But let me assure you that, if you should ever wish to return to this thread, your request will given the utmost consideration. May I take this opportunity to wish you the very best success on all the other threads to which you contribute? Thank you very much indeed for your interest.

He's right you know Jonti. If you're not prepared to get nostril-deep in self-perpetuating tautologies, then this isn't the thread for you. It's not the thread for me either, but I hang around because it's funny

 

[gurrier]

Now, where does this idea come from? Does it not come from the cup-maker’s training, his experience of other cups, the historical evolution of tableware, the market demand for blue or red cups… in short from life and history: of which ideas are undeniably experiential elements? So we see that ideas do indeed cause other ideas. Ideas are not, in other words, caused by physical events. They exist autonomously, in the “realm of ideas.”

You are mistaking a difference in levels of abstraction with fundamental physical differences. Just because the realm of neurons, neuro-transmitters, etc is not a useful level of abstraction with which to discuss concepts within a society, does not mean that there does not exist a mapping from one to the other and, as I have pointed out, all the evidence suggests that there is such a mapping in all known examples.

It's like saying "the fundamental laws of the universe did not cause the ball to go into the back of the net. It was the skill of the player involved that caused it and all of the infinitely complex sequences of events that conspired to create that skill, and the situation whereby the match came to be played on that day. Therefore we have proved that the ball is autonomous of the basic rules of the universe."

 

[Crispy]

May I take this opportunity to wish you the very best success on all the other threads to which you contribute? Thank you very much indeed for your interest.

Oh, and get off your high horse. Sir.

 

[Crispy]

You are mistaking a difference in levels of abstraction with fundamental physical differences. Just because the realm of neurons, neuro-transmitters, etc is not a useful level of abstraction with which to discuss concepts within a society, does not mean that there does not exist a mapping from one to the other and, as I have pointed out, all the evidence suggests that there is such a mapping in all known examples.

Exactly. It seems completely sensible to me that if all human brains were instantaneously wiped out, then the idea of "Goal" would cease to exist. Therefore the idea "Goal" is dependant on the human brain and its workings, not the other way round.

Anyway, on to the angels!

 

[Fruitloop]

The idea may *cause* a neuro-biological event, but it cannot be identified with it. What you refer to as “experiential and societal influences”--I would prefer to say “history and life”--are not exclusively material, they are also made up of ideas. People certainly *experience* ideas, do they not? So I think you must concede that ideas are caused in some degree by other ideas.

The first idea is completely unsubstantiated, and the last sentence doesn't logically follow from the preceding one. If ideas cause things in the material realm (which is far from proven) then they are either made of essentially the same substance, or you have to explain how they interact with the material world.

IMO the symbolic order is not unlike the internet, in that whilst information is shared to such an extent that it might seem like non-local, 'pure' information, in fact it is all physically instantiated somewhere. Neither is it absolute, in that what is received is filtered through the hermeneutic apparatus that is needed in order to reach and make use of it.

 

[gurrier]

you have to explain how they interact with the material world.

Angels carry messages from the realm of ideas and put them into the neurons?

We want angels!

 

[phildwyer]

You are mistaking a difference in levels of abstraction with fundamental physical differences. Just because the realm of neurons, neuro-transmitters, etc is not a useful level of abstraction with which to discuss concepts within a society, does not mean that there does not exist a mapping from one to the other and, as I have pointed out, all the evidence suggests that there is such a mapping in all known examples.

I agree that there is always such "mapping," as you call it. But what makes my thought dialectical and yours reductionist is that I see the chain of causality as moving in *both* directions. Obviously injecting someone with heroin will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely material means. But equally obviously, having a brilliant or exciting idea will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely ideal means. In one case, a physical event causes an idea; in the other an idea causes a physical event. My point is that while ideas and physical events are certainly not *separable* for human beings, they are nonetheless irreducibly *distinct.* Can we now accept this point?

 

[Crispy]

I agree that there is always such "mapping," as you call it. But what makes my thought dialectical and yours reductionist is that I see the chain of causality as moving in *both* directions. Obviously injecting someone with heroin will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely material means. But equally obviously, having a brilliant or exciting idea will release endorphins and produce euphoria by purely ideal means.

Well, no. That idea itself is a manifestation of a particular chemical and electrical state of the brain. It may well be possible to transmit this brain state throught the medium of language, but all the mechanisms involved are material.

In one case, a physical event causes an idea; in the other an idea causes a physical event. My point is that while ideas and physical events are certainly not *separable* for human beings, they are nonetheless irreducibly *distinct.* Can we now accept this point?

For the purposes of this discussion, yes why not

 

[Fruitloop]

Another thought experiment:

If you were to attempt to answer the hard problem by building a robot whose electronic nervous system modelled a human one as closely as our understanding permits - using Churchlands similarity spaces or whatever - in order to see whether it experienced qualia, is it likely that the robot would have access to the genuinely causative 'nuts and bolts' of the computation of its discrete states?

I think it's highly unlikely. Much more likely is that the robot would have an epiphenomenal view of events that are not primarily causative, like the way a computer knows its CPU temperature and available free memory. However, I can see very good design reasons for making this epiphenomenal view so coherent as to appear to be the prime mover in the whole system, otherwise the illusion would never be truly convincing.

 

[phildwyer]

He's right you know Jonti. If you're not prepared to get nostril-deep in self-perpetuating tautologies, then this isn't the thread for you. It's not the thread for me either, but I hang around because it's funny

Crispy, I'd like to thank you sincerely for your contributions to this thread. Everyone has enjoyed them immensely, and you've made a really positive impact here. In fact, I can't help feeling guilty that the many other exciting threads on these boards are being unfairly deprived of your talents at present. Have you ever thought about bestowing the benefits of your abilities elsewhere for a while? I think its probably a good idea if you had a little look around, just to see what other opportunites are out there. Of course, if you ever change your mind, you're more than welcome to re-apply here. I'm afraid that I am unable to provide any references at present, as it is now breakfast time. Once again, thank you very much for your input, and we wish you all the very best in your future endeavours.

 

[Crispy]

Crispy, I'd like to thank you sincerely for your contributions to this thread.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity. It's been a privilege.

Everyone has enjoyed them immensely, and you've made a really positive impact here. In fact, I can't help feeling guilty that the many other exciting threads on these boards are being unfairly deprived of your talents at present.

I have plenty of spare time. And hey it's a bank holiday!

Have you ever thought about bestowing the benefits of your abilities elsewhere for a while? I think its probably a good idea if you had a little look around, just to see what other opportunites are out there.

Well, to be perfectly frank with you, it's the current lack of other interesting, active threads that's keeping me here. Just as soon as this one stops being interesting, I'll go elsewhere.

Of course, if you ever change your mind, you're more than welcome to re-apply here. I'm afraid that I am unable to provide any references at present, as it is now breakfast time. Once again, thank you very much for your input, and we wish you all the very best in your future endeavours.

You're too kind.
Anyway, I'm more than happy to accept that ideas and material things are seperate for the purposes of this debate. After all, if we're going to have a metaphysical debate, we'd better use the socially accepted language and terms. Just as it would be *foolish* to talk of cosmological distances in terms of "about 50,000,000 times the distance to the shops and back" - the ideas/material world split you talk of has useful conversational applications. Pray continue.

 

[phildwyer]

Pray continue.

Oh alright then. But it might be a while, I am off for a sausage-egg-and-cheese roll now. Only $2, or about 120p. If I survive, I will be back later.

 

[ZWord]

The idea is a different thing.

Incidentally, we have now got a growing body of evidence which suggests that abstractions of common objects such as cups are encoded in single neurons. The more excited that neuron, the greater amount of 'cupiness' there is in the consciousness and vice versa.

!

That really is nonsense. Honestly. Honestly, honestly. I think you must have misunderstood something you read. If abstractions of common objects such as cups were encoded in single neurons, then people would suddenly forget basic concepts at random when the particular neuron associated with the concept died.

 

[Fruitloop]

The 'breakthrough' experience with Salvia Divinorum provides some interesting clues as to whether the 'I' that can experience mental objects is a substance to itself or a construct of the neurochemical substrate.

 

[ZWord]

What is the breakthrough experience with salvia divinorum. ?

 

[Jonti]

There is as much rational for that thesis then there is for the thesis proposing that God does not exist.

Nope.

Not if there is no need for the hypothesis, no.

If there is no need for a hypothesis (of a teapot orbiting Mars; or of Santa Claus, or, come to that, of Saddam Hussein's WMD) then it is irrational to embrace the hypothesis. That's all.

The hitherto elusive proof of God's existence would have to show that there is in fact a need for the God hypothesis. That this is impossible is widely accepted, even in religious circles. That's why people talk about their Faith, you understand.

 

[ZWord]

Whether or not there's any need for the hypothesis is pretty much a matter of opinion, I reckon.

Also just because science has a methodological bias for preferring simpler or naturalist explanations, that doesn't prove that such explanations will always be correct.

 

[Aldebaran]

There is no need for any hypothesis that God does not exist. Why do you claim there would be any need for it?

salaam.

 

[gurrier]

That really is nonsense. Honestly. Honestly, honestly. I think you must have misunderstood something you read.

Kreiman, G, Fried, I, and Koch, C. "Single-neuron correlates of subjective vision in the human medial temporal lobe", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:8378-8383 (2002)

Kreiman, G, Fried, I, and Koch, C. "Category-specific visual responses of single neurons in the human medial temporal lobe" Nature Neuroscience 3:946-953

Perhaps you can point out which bits I misunderstood?

If abstractions of common objects such as cups were encoded in single neurons, then people would suddenly forget basic concepts at random when the particular neuron associated with the concept died.

Neurons don't die at random, but when they do die, all the evidence indicates that basic concepts are indeed lost. The plasticity of the brain allows it to re-encode concepts in many cases where the brain damage is not too severe.

 

[ZWord]

Honestly, you are talking rubbish, not nonsense, as I said earlier, as what you said does of course make sense. It's just totally untrue.

I actually studied this in a fair amount of detail. There is some evidence of single neurons in the visual cortex, being "feature-detectors" i.e. responding specifically to lines of particular orientation.

The idea that a single neuron is responsible for knowledge of a single concept is one that no experimental psychologist would support.

Part of the reason why a network of neurons is the most powerful kind of information processor possible, is that neural networks don't break down immediately when you damage them, unlike computer programs, they suffer progressive degradation,(whereas a computer program either works or it doesn't.) because the knowledge of a neural network is contained in the weight of the strengths of inhibition and excitation between the connections between the neurons. And you can only say that a particular network is responsible for a particular concept by virtue of the fact that it connects to other networks, responsible for say the phonetic coding of the word associated with the concept and the motor networks for pronouncing it.

The most you could prove experimentally is that in association with a particular concept, a certain neuron always fires, - and that would still fail to prove that that single neuron alone was responsible for the concept.

Your post is indicative of your usual mindset, failing to understand the meaning of scientific findings because you haven't been able to place them in a proper philosophical context.

 

[Fruitloop]

What is the breakthrough experience with salvia divinorum. ?

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=41047

This experience reminds me of Zizek's description of the 'real' real.

 

[ZWord]

Interesting, - and what was the point you were making about it?

 

[kyser_soze]

I refer the thread to the Great Prophet Douglas Adams:

'I refuse to prove that I exist', says God, 'For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Anyway...good to see Alderbaran wading in here with more religious cockamamerie about how belief in a deity is rational - on what basis is it rational? On what basis is it more rational to believe that the universe is the product of a single being's actions, rather than the accumulated effects of 13 billion or so years of cause, effect and probability playing themselves out?

To look around at the world and say 'It's rational to believe that this was all designed - look how complex it is, it couldn't have happened by chance' is the kind of reductive thinking that phil accuses others of.

As for the idea of neuro-biology being in hoc with capitalism...it's back to phil ignoring actual science in favour of the 'science' practised by his fellow religionists.

And finally:

Religion of the God Deniers

And what would that be then, you little PR boy for the Koran/Qu'ran/whatever?

 

[gurrier]

Honestly, you are talking rubbish, not nonsense, as I said earlier, as what you said does of course make sense. It's just totally untrue.

I actually studied this in a fair amount of detail. There is some evidence of single neurons in the visual cortex, being "feature-detectors" i.e. responding specifically to lines of particular orientation.

I supplied you with two references to studies in highly reputable peer-reviewed journals. You should acquaint yourself with the information contained therein before you pronounce upon it.

The idea that a single neuron is responsible for knowledge of a single concept is one that no experimental psychologist would support.

And it's not a claim that I made.

Part of the reason why a network of neurons is the most powerful kind of information processor possible, is that neural networks don't break down immediately when you damage them, unlike computer programs, they suffer progressive degradation,(whereas a computer program either works or it doesn't.) because the knowledge of a neural network is contained in the weight of the strengths of inhibition and excitation between the connections between the neurons. And you can only say that a particular network is responsible for a particular concept by virtue of the fact that it connects to other networks, responsible for say the phonetic coding of the word associated with the concept and the motor networks for pronouncing it.

Mostly rubbish. You can synthesise neural networks as computer programmes and you can, if you want, build in as much redundancy as you require. Nobody has ever claimed that a network of neurons is the "most powerful kind of information processor possible" - nonsense. There are lots of ways in which one can associate parts of the brain with functionality - the examination of behaviour in individuals who have damaged that part of the brain being one, opening the skull and measuring electrical activity with microdes being another.

The most you could prove experimentally is that in association with a particular concept, a certain neuron always fires, - and that would still fail to prove that that single neuron alone was responsible for the concept.

I didn't say that. I said 'encodes', or to put it another way, there is a one to one correlation between the concept and the neuronal excitation.

Your post is indicative of your usual mindset, failing to understand the meaning of scientific findings because you haven't been able to place them in a proper philosophical context.

Hmmm.

 

[Jonti]

There is no need for any hypothesis that God does not exist. Why do you claim there would be any need for it?

salaam.

So you say. But which phenomena or events take place that cannot be explained without postulating a Deity?

Unless you can come up with an answer to this question, then there is no need for the hypothesis that a Deity exists.

 

[Masseuse]

So you say. But which phenomena or events take place that cannot be explained without postulating a Deity?

Unless you can come up with an answer to this question, then there is no need for the hypothesis that a Deity exists.

If you read that out loud you end up frothing at the mouth.

 

[Aldebaran]

So you say. But which phenomena or events take place that cannot be explained without postulating a Deity?

Do you really want to come across as someone convinced that everything can be explained using whatever non-specified methods you seem to use? That sounds completely irrational to me.

Unless you can come up with an answer to this question, then there is no need for the hypothesis that a Deity exists.

I never said there is a need for it (do not project your ideas and what you declare onto others, it ends in confusing yourself as you show it is already the case).

(So far I didn't see anything even remotely contradicting what I said in post #2366.)


salaam.

 

[Jonti]

I never said there is a need for (the hypothesis that there is a Deity).

Good.

It hinders understanding to make unnecessary assumptions, you see. The reason for this is that one can invent as many unnecessary hypotheses as one pleases ...

Now, if there is no need for the hypothesis that there is a Deity, then it cannot be proven that there is a Deity.



PS: I'm aware that you are not using your first language for this discussion. I'd like to acknowledge that there is no way I could begin to hold my own in this debate were I in your position. Thank you for hanging in there and trying so hard to make sense of what I've been saying.

 

[8ball]

Just checking in.

Have we proved God's existence yet?

Have we passed the semantic navel-gazing stage?

I'm on the edge of my seat here and the Matrix is on in a bit. . .