By what criteria do you select which things to add to your category of immaterial-things-that-exist?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
By what criteria do you select which things to add to your category of immaterial-things-that-exist?
Given your past argument that the majority of people in the world believe in your god, I assumed you were Christian. If not, why did you use that argument since it is clear that very few people in the world believe in your god.
The majority of people in the world does believe in an immaterial god.
I would not use this argument to prove falsifiable things. The majority of humanity can believe that the earth is flat, but it is falsifiable.
I do think that if the majority of humanity believes in something which is unfalsifiable, it must be true.
slingblade,
Good post. JetLeg is correct on one point: his beliefs may in fact be true. But he's wrong about the most important point: that just because something may be true doesn't mean it is true.
Yes, I disagree about this one. But, if there is an internal inconsistency in my concept of god, that will be a problem for me, though I will try to hold to the last defense line.
Hi,
I have certain beliefs. I understand that most people here not only hold these beliefs, but simply think they are wrong. So, I do want my beliefs to be dissected by them. But, I will try and hold by them, until the last defense line falls. The idea of a consequent-being is a hard one to defend, since consequence implies evidence. I think that this line can fall pretty quickly. So, I am trying to hold the line of defense of immaterealism.
Let's cut to the chase, JetLeg. It sounds as though you don't really believe anything, but are simply changing your beliefs until you hit upon one that you think can be "defended." So let me help you out.
A inconsequential god cannot necessarily be disproved. A consequential god cannot necessarily be disproved. The belief that there are no gods cannot necessarily be disproved. So take your pick.
That said, just because something cannot be disproved doesn't mean that it can be proved either. And just because something might exist doesn't mean it does exist.
So believe what you want. Nobody here is going to tell you what you can or cannot believe. However, if you want to convince anyone else that your belief is fact, you'll have to present evidence. Otherwise, just know that your belief is not fact, but opinion.
-Bri
That said, just because something cannot be disproved doesn't mean that it can be proved either. And just because something might exist doesn't mean it does exist.
-Bri
Even if there is no way to prove my god, there is no way to disprove him.
We both agree upon this.
Why does this not make the two points of view equally valid?
JetLeg,
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you need to brush up on your logic skills.
Define "immaterial." You seem to be confusing "immaterial" and "inconsequential." An immaterial god who is consequential can still affect and communicate with the world, and therefore there may be evidence of such a god. So I'm not sure what being immaterial has to do with anything at all.
Of course, the fact that there may be evidence of a god doesn't necessarily mean that there is evidence. For example, the god might be all-powerful and choose not to leave any evidence.
The majority of the people in the world believe in a consequential god that is capable of being immaterial or of appearing materially at will. Therefore, if your god is inconsequential as you previously stated, or if it cannot appear materially as you previously stated, then the majority of people in the world believe in gods that are quite different from yours.
At one time, the belief that the earth is flat was unfalsifiable, because it was (at the time) impossible to prove false (that's what unfalsifiable means). Whether a god exists or not is also currently unfalsifiable, but might be falsifiable at some point in the future, or might even be verified as true or false.
Falsifiable or not, the number of people that believe a particular proposition has no bearing whatsoever on whether that proposition is true. This fallacy has been pointed out to you several times. Even if it was true, the argument wouldn't hold for the god you described since it is quite different from any god that a majority of people believe in.
If something is unfalsifiable, then by definition it may be true, but may not be true. The number of people who believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. In addition, things that are unfalsifiable today may be falsifiable tomorrow.
-Bri
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you need to brush up on your logic skills.
The majority of people in the world does believe in an immaterial god.
Define "immaterial." You seem to be confusing "immaterial" and "inconsequential." An immaterial god who is consequential can still affect and communicate with the world, and therefore there may be evidence of such a god. So I'm not sure what being immaterial has to do with anything at all.
Of course, the fact that there may be evidence of a god doesn't necessarily mean that there is evidence. For example, the god might be all-powerful and choose not to leave any evidence.
The majority of the people in the world believe in a consequential god that is capable of being immaterial or of appearing materially at will. Therefore, if your god is inconsequential as you previously stated, or if it cannot appear materially as you previously stated, then the majority of people in the world believe in gods that are quite different from yours.
I would not use this argument to prove falsifiable things. The majority of humanity can believe that the earth is flat, but it is falsifiable.
At one time, the belief that the earth is flat was unfalsifiable, because it was (at the time) impossible to prove false (that's what unfalsifiable means). Whether a god exists or not is also currently unfalsifiable, but might be falsifiable at some point in the future, or might even be verified as true or false.
Falsifiable or not, the number of people that believe a particular proposition has no bearing whatsoever on whether that proposition is true. This fallacy has been pointed out to you several times. Even if it was true, the argument wouldn't hold for the god you described since it is quite different from any god that a majority of people believe in.
I do think that if the majority of humanity believes in something which is unfalsifiable, it must be true.
If something is unfalsifiable, then by definition it may be true, but may not be true. The number of people who believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. In addition, things that are unfalsifiable today may be falsifiable tomorrow.
-Bri
Yes, I disagree about this one. But, if there is an internal inconsistency in my concept of god, that will be a problem for me, though I will try to hold to the last defense line.
There are many concepts of gods for which there is no internal inconsistency. You win! So what?
If you want to convince anyone else of the existence of your god, you'll need to provide evidence.
-Bri
Why does this not make the two points of view equally valid?
1. Which two points of view are you talking about?
2. Define "valid."
-Bri
1. Which two points of view are you talking about?
2. Define "valid."
-Bri
(1) The point of view that an im-inc being does not exist
(2) The point of view that it does
Eh...
Valid...
Equally strong from an intellectual point of view.
JetLeg,
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you need to brush up on your logic skills.
=====================================
okay
=====================================
Define "immaterial." You seem to be confusing "immaterial" and "inconsequential." An immaterial god who is consequential can still affect and communicate with the world, and therefore there may be evidence of such a god. So I'm not sure what being immaterial has to do with anything at all.
=====================================
I meant an immaterial inconsequential
=====================================
Of course, the fact that there may be evidence of a god doesn't necessarily mean that there is evidence. For example, the god might be all-powerful and choose not to leave any evidence.
The majority of the people in the world believe in a consequential god that is capable of being immaterial or of appearing materially at will. Therefore, if your god is inconsequential as you previously stated, or if it cannot appear materially as you previously stated, then the majority of people in the world believe in gods that are quite different from yours.
=====================================
Eh...
This is a bit fuzzy.
Person A believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT.
Person B believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT, NT, and the Quran
Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?
Person A believes in an immaterial inconsequential god.
Person B believes in an immaterial consequential god.
Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?
=====================================
Falsifiable or not, the number of people that believe a particular proposition has no bearing whatsoever on whether that proposition is true.
=====================================
How do you demonstrate the truth of the above statement? With regards to unfalsifiable claims, not falsifiable ones.
=====================================
If something is unfalsifiable, then by definition it may be true, but may not be true. The number of people who believe it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. In addition, things that are unfalsifiable today may be falsifiable tomorrow.
=====================================
some ideas can be inherently unfalsifiable. For example the idea that my dog created the world and implanted false memories to everyone. How can you falsify it in the future?
If there is an imm-inc-being, how can you falsify it in the future?
=====================================
-Bri
__
(1) The point of view that an im-inc being does not exist
(2) The point of view that it does
Eh...
Valid...
Equally strong from an intellectual point of view.
Then the two are equally valid in the same sense that the point of view that faeries exist and the point of view that they don't exist are equally valid.
For most things, you choose to not hold a belief one way or the other about things that are unfalsifiable, or even believe that they don't exist. Why would you expect others to believe any differently about your god?
-Bri
Then the two are equally valid in the same sense that the point of view that faeries exist and the point of view that they don't exist are equally valid.
For most things, you choose to not hold a belief one way or the other about things that are unfalsifiable, or even believe that they don't exist. Why would you expect others to believe any differently about your god?
-Bri
Eh...
I think that truth is relative, and not objective. It is defined by the personal views. So an argument is really the only way to settle what is true. And if you can't win someone in an argument , you can't know that you are right and he is wrong. And if you can't disprove someone's views, you can't win an argument. So unless I abandon the above ideas, you have the chance of forcing me into admiting that faeries exist because they can't be disproven.
Eh...
I think that truth is relative, and not objective. It is defined by the personal views. So an argument is really the only way to settle what is true. And if you can't win someone in an argument , you can't know that you are right and he is wrong. And if you can't disprove someone's views, you can't win an argument. So unless I abandon the above ideas, you have the chance of forcing me into admiting that faeries exist because they can't be disproven.
I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. Care to clarify?
BTW, you have created a false dichotomy. There is at least one additional point of view concerning the existence of your god: not having a belief one way or the other.
-Bri
Last edited:
I meant an immaterial inconsequential
The "immaterial" part seems to have nothing to do with your argument.
Eh...
This is a bit fuzzy.
Person A believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT.
Person B believes in an immaterial god that revealed the OT, NT, and the Quran
Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?
Person A believes in an immaterial inconsequential god.
Person B believes in an immaterial consequential god.
Do they believe in the same god or in two different ones?
Not so fuzzy. What a god has done is not the same as the god's attributes. In the first case, person A and B might believe in the same god, but believe that it has done different things. In the second case, the gods are clearly different: one of the gods is powerless to affect our world, which implies that the consequential god might be all-powerful, but the inconsequential god clearly isn't.
How do you demonstrate the truth of the above statement? With regards to unfalsifiable claims, not falsifiable ones.
Regardless of the nature of the claim, the number of people who believe it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. A proposition is either true or false, regardless of who believes or doesn't believe it.
-Bri
I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. Care to clarify?
BTW, you have created a false dichotomy. There is at least one additional point of view concerning the existence of your god: not having a belief one way or the other.
-Bri
What exactly is unclear?
Not so fuzzy. What a god has done is not the same as the god's attributes. In the first case, person A and B might believe in the same god, but believe that it has done different things. In the second case, the gods are clearly different: one of the gods is powerless to affect our world, which implies that the consequential god might be all-powerful, but the inconsequential god clearly isn't.
First, he might be able to affect our world, but not do so.
As to "the same god or not" - I know that atheists compare god sometimes to an imaginary friend. So, lets take the example -
Polly and Sally believe they have an imaginary friend named Bob.
Both believe he is tall, handsome, blue eyes, dark hair.
But Polly believes that his height is 1.87, and Sally that his height is 1.85
Do they believe in the same imaginary friend?
compare with
Franny and Zooey believe they have an imaginary friend named Bob.
Both believe he has blue eyes, dark hair.
But Franny believes that he has no legs, and no arms. And Zooey believes thats nonsense - Bob was born of course quite well, he has his arms and legs.
Do they believe in the same imaginary friend?
Regardless of the nature of the claim, the number of people who believe it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. A proposition is either true or false, regardless of who believes or doesn't believe it.
-Bri
Can you prove the above assertion. With regards to falsifiable claims, you roved it by posing a case where most of the people believe the earth is flat. Can you prove it in a similar for unfalsifiable claims? I think that an appeal to popularity is not a fallacy when it comes to undisprovable beliefs. If it is - show me how.
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
The "immaterial" part seems to have nothing to do with your argument.
-Bri
I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me that the immateriality of a "God" is, in fact, the real issue. How does the immaterial interact with the material world?
This is the old problem that dualists cannot answer. If "mind" is truly immaterial, how does it interact with the material brain and cause action? There is simply no mechanism that we can identify. If we could identify a mechanism we would call it material -- a physical mechanism. The only other possibility is 'magic'.
Yes, many people believe in an immaterial god that interacts with the material world. The issue is whether or not that idea is coherent. I don't think it is.
We use analogies to our minds and to energy to try and explain these phenomena. But "energy" is interchangeable with matter and what we call matter is just the effect of "particles" interacting with a Higgs field (if the standard model is correct). What we call "energy" is just other "particles" interacting differently. It is not the case that one is material and the other not, depending on how one defines "material". The same issues surround 'mental action', which depends critically on the function of brains. Stop a brain and mind does not exist.
I think a central issue is "how can the immaterial interact with the material?". Immaterial is defined only in relation to the material. It needn't have any existence whatsoever, but may simply be a product of our ability to create ideas in relation to other ideas. It looks to me like a projection.
Isn't the immaterial necessarily inconsequential?
Isn't the immaterial necessarily inconsequential?
I'm not so sure. You can claim that it is, but it can be disputed. Some dualists after all claim that immaterial interacts with material - you disagree, but they still have some arguments. Additionaly, justice is something immaterial, which has effect on the physical world in some weird way - the court of justice is a physical building which would not be built without the immaterial idea of justice... At least that can be claimed. I don't think you can dismiss the idea of god so easily, on that.
Actually, I was talking all the time about an immaterial inconsequential god, not the classical type.
My beginning qualm with regards to immaterial is that it is only a negative definiton. Immaterial = not material. It just says what it is not, it does not say what something is. I am not sure that you can define something, only by saying what it is not.
So if we say that god is immaterial, it only means that he is not composed from matter. We need to add other characeristics to say something meaningful about him.
I am currently with the idea of "Disembodied stream of consciousness". I can see two problems with it - (1) As someone pointed out, consciousness as we know it needs concepts. And concepts need to be formed from sensory input. A consciousness stream without sensory input could hardly function. (2) Consciousness is not something supernatural. (By consciousness I mean our emotions, dreams, memories - all of our subjective experience). Nevermind if caused by the brain or not - it is something we are familiar with. By saying that god is a stream of consiousness, we are taking all of his magnificent characteristics from him.
Ichneumonwasp
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,240
I'm not so sure. You can claim that it is, but it can be disputed. Some dualists after all claim that immaterial interacts with material - you disagree, but they still have some arguments. Additionaly, justice is something immaterial, which has effect on the physical world in some weird way - the court of justice is a physical building which would not be built without the immaterial idea of justice... At least that can be claimed. I don't think you can dismiss the idea of god so easily, on that.
I'm not dismissing the idea of god on those grounds, merely pointing out the problems inherent in a full exposure of the idea of the immaterial. Justice is not a "thing" that has independent being. It is instantiated in us when we think about justice. There are no justice particles that interact with the world. There is no form -- Justice -- that exists in some ethereal realm and that can "participate" in earthly justice. God may exist, but, if god is immaterial, it seems to follow that he is inconsequential.
Dualists founder in a terminal paradox. There is no way for the truly immaterial to interact with the material unless you can propose a mechanism. If you can propose some means for two entirely different things to interact then we may discuss it. I am unaware of anyone who has proposed such a means.
Actually, I was talking all the time about an immaterial inconsequential god, not the classical type.
Yes, I know. Your view of it is the only one that I think is coherent. The 'classical type' seems to lack coherence, at least to me.
My beginning qualm with regards to immaterial is that it is only a negative definiton. Immaterial = not material. It just says what it is not, it does not say what something is. I am not sure that you can define something, only by saying what it is not.
So if we say that god is immaterial, it only means that he is not composed from matter. We need to add other characeristics to say something meaningful about him.
Yes. Concept words all derive their meaning from other words. But, I think you are quite correct about immaterial meaning simply "not material". It has no other meaning as far as I can tell. We can think the idea, but it leads nowhere. It is simply a negation. It doesn't necessarily correspond to anything.
I am currently with the idea of "Disembodied stream of consciousness". I can see two problems with it - (1) As someone pointed out, consciousness as we know it needs concepts. And concepts need to be formed from sensory input. A consciousness stream without sensory input could hardly function. (2) Consciousness is not something supernatural. (By consciousness I mean our emotions, dreams, memories - all of our subjective experience). Nevermind if caused by the brain or not - it is something we are familiar with. By saying that god is a stream of consiousness, we are taking all of his magnificent characteristics from him.
I'm not entirely sure that the idea of 'disembodied consciousness' is coherent as we discussed earlier. Consciousness is a process, an action. As such, it requires a place, a locality, in which to 'flow' (for want of a better verb). A disembodied consciousness not only lacks sensory input, it lacks any boundaries. How do you define something without boundaries? I think this is another concept that lacks coherence.
What exactly is unclear?
This part:
Then the two are equally valid in the same sense that the point of view that faeries exist and the point of view that they don't exist are equally valid.
For most things, you choose to not hold a belief one way or the other about things that are unfalsifiable, or even believe that they don't exist. Why would you expect others to believe any differently about your god?
-Bri
Eh...
I think that truth is relative, and not objective. It is defined by the personal views. So an argument is really the only way to settle what is true. And if you can't win someone in an argument , you can't know that you are right and he is wrong. And if you can't disprove someone's views, you can't win an argument. So unless I abandon the above ideas, you have the chance of forcing me into admiting that faeries exist because they can't be disproven.