• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Exposing Atheistic Myths

 
 
 
Half-Life said:
steve_bank said:
Half-Life said:
There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!
Click to expand...

Dos the world exist with your eyes closed?

Does the refrigerator light really go out when the door is closed?

If you turn around fast enough can YOU see the back of your head? If not explain why not without using your mind.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Those who speak do not know, those who know do not speak.

How does one pass through the gate of no gate?
Click to expand...

In regards to the bold, that is what one philosopher unironically concluded is the only rational answer to refute this problem in an atheistic universe. The world blinks into and out of existence when we open and close our eyes.
Click to expand...

There is value in philosophy. However pre modern science philosophy often created absurd problems and then look for answers. Not unlike theology. The question you posed is squirrely, a term I grew up with. It is about a hyper chattering squirrel running up and down trees with no articular purpose.
 
To finish talking about laws, scintific laws are not like a speed limit law. Newtons laws of motion and gravity work within boundaries and do not work for small partcles or very fast objects. The term law is misleading. There is no ruling body that says when something is a law.

There is no consistency, some things are called laws and some things are called theories.I prefer to say model which covers everything.
 
Half-Life said:
There's also the fact that nobody has even proven man exists in an atheistic world yet. Philosophers have tried for centuries, but to no avail. Even the classic, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed because it's assuming the conclusion through the premise.

So if nobody has even proven man exists yet, how can atheists expect proof of God?
Click to expand...

That is because language and philosophy is always in the end self referential, there is no absolute philosophical reference point. Science in contrast is based on the unambiguous definitions of the meter, kilogram, and second.

Proving man exists is like a dog chasing its tail. From what I read Descartes' saying I think therefore I am was more of a poke at those debating ridiculous philosophy. He was a pragmatists.

Why would you need to prove you exist? Do you doubt reality? Are you afraid you do not exists?
 
steve_bank said:
Half-Life said:
There's also the fact that nobody has even proven man exists in an atheistic world yet. Philosophers have tried for centuries, but to no avail. Even the classic, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed because it's assuming the conclusion through the premise.

So if nobody has even proven man exists yet, how can atheists expect proof of God?
Click to expand...

That is because language and philosophy is always in the end self referential, there is no absolute philosophical reference point. Science in contrast is based on the unambiguous definitions of the meter, kilogram, and second.

Proving man exists is like a dog chasing its tail. From what I read Descartes' saying I think therefore I am was more of a poke at those debating ridiculous philosophy. He was a pragmatists.

Why would you need to prove you exist? Do you doubt reality? Are you afraid you do not exists?
Click to expand...

Halfies pseudo-philosophical solipsism brings to mind an observation from an ancient Roman statesman and philosopher...

There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

~ Marcus Cicero
Click to expand...
 
Half-Life said:
Atheists claim that things can exist independently of minds.
Click to expand...
Some do, some don't. I knew an atheist in college who called himself a Radical Idealist -- he said nothing exists except mind. So let's suppose for the sake of argument that nothing exists except mind. How do you get from that premise to the conclusion that any of those minds is a god?

Like this, maybe?

Half-Life said:
It exists externally because there is an eternal mind around to perceive it. This is the proof of God.
Click to expand...
That's not a proof. That's a "Just So Story". Have you ever read the Just So Stories? If you haven't, you should. They're by Rudyard Kipling, and they're adorable, and they're also instructive about the human predilection for fallacious thinking.

Why do elephants have trunks? "In the High and Far-Off Times the Elephant, O Best Beloved, had no trunk." But nowadays elephants have trunks, because once upon a time a baby elephant got too close to a river and a crocodile bit him on the nose, and as he struggled to get away his nose got stretched way out. This is the proof of nose-stretching crocodiles.

Or maybe, instead, you get from the premise of Radical Idealism to the conclusion that any of those minds is a god, like this:

Half-Life said:
Everything exists in the mind of God. Imagine the universe as drawing a circle on on paper. Now draw an even bigger circle around that circle. That is the mind of God.
Click to expand...
But the part of the paper outside the even bigger circle exists too, and it's not in the mind of God, since that's just the even bigger circle that you say is the mind of God.

And then let's consider what's beyond the paper. So the mind of God is only a part of what exists. It's a circle, and circles are bounded. The circle is even smaller than the paper, even though the paper has boundaries too -- just bigger boundaries than the boundaries that bound the mind of God. So let's imagine everything -- not just the mind of God, and the bounded paper around it, but also the boundless reality beyond the paper. Contemplating that? That is the universe.
 
steve_bank said:
Half-Life said:
There's also the fact that nobody has even proven man exists in an atheistic world yet. Philosophers have tried for centuries, but to no avail. Even the classic, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed because it's assuming the conclusion through the premise.

So if nobody has even proven man exists yet, how can atheists expect proof of God?
Click to expand...

That is because language and philosophy is always in the end self referential, there is no absolute philosophical reference point. Science in contrast is based on the unambiguous definitions of the meter, kilogram, and second.

Proving man exists is like a dog chasing its tail. From what I read Descartes' saying I think therefore I am was more of a poke at those debating ridiculous philosophy. He was a pragmatists.

Why would you need to prove you exist? Do you doubt reality? Are you afraid you do not exists?
Click to expand...

Nobody is doubting reality. Berkeley said sensations ARE reality. Any other extrapolation such as, "Reality exists independently of minds" is an assumption with no proof behind it.

Look at how nobody has even tried to prove anything exists independently of minds so far.
 
Half-Life said:
steve_bank said:
Half-Life said:
There's also the fact that nobody has even proven man exists in an atheistic world yet. Philosophers have tried for centuries, but to no avail. Even the classic, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed because it's assuming the conclusion through the premise.

So if nobody has even proven man exists yet, how can atheists expect proof of God?
Click to expand...

That is because language and philosophy is always in the end self referential, there is no absolute philosophical reference point. Science in contrast is based on the unambiguous definitions of the meter, kilogram, and second.

Proving man exists is like a dog chasing its tail. From what I read Descartes' saying I think therefore I am was more of a poke at those debating ridiculous philosophy. He was a pragmatists.

Why would you need to prove you exist? Do you doubt reality? Are you afraid you do not exists?
Click to expand...

Nobody is doubting reality. Berkeley said sensations ARE reality. Any other extrapolation such as, "Reality exists independently of minds" is an assumption with no proof behind it.

Look at how nobody has even tried to prove anything exists independently of minds so far.
Click to expand...
Look at it from a different angle. How could a mind exist independently of anything? That's a question you should ask too. Is any mind a thing in and of itself? How is it not be dependent on "things" around and in it?

Something causes our percepts (or "ideas") in our minds.

But you haven't explained why the objects of perception are ideas in the mind of God.

From everything I've ever seen, God as an explanation to anything fails. Many people, both theist and atheist, wonder big questions - like "why does anything exist?" and others. Theists choose an age-old ready-made answer, God. But however well the concept "God" has been tailored by theists to serve as a ready-made answer such ultimate questions, it's an answer that only opens up more questions.

I happened across this video this morning, and it relates to what you're arguing. It shows people do wonder about the relation of mind and the world outside it. It shows it's a very complex question that doesn't have an easy answer like you're trying for.
 
abaddon said:
Half-Life said:
Nobody is doubting reality. Berkeley said sensations ARE reality. Any other extrapolation such as, "Reality exists independently of minds" is an assumption with no proof behind it.

Look at how nobody has even tried to prove anything exists independently of minds so far.
Click to expand...

How could a mind possibly be independent of everything? would be a question you should ask yourself. Is any mind (human or otherwise) a thing in and of itself or a relation between things? So how is it not be dependent on "things" around and in it?

Something causes our percepts (or "ideas") in our minds.

But you haven't explained why the objects of perception are ideas in the mind of God.

God as an explanation to anything fails. Many people, both theist and atheist, wonder big questions. Like "why does existence exist?" Theists choose an age-old ready-made answer, God. But however well the concept "God" has been tailored by theists to serve as a ready-made answer such ultimate questions, it's an answer that only opens up more questions.

I happened across this video this morning, and it relates closely with what you're arguing. People do wonder about the relation of mind and the world outside it.

In any case, you'd need to show why God is a good answer to the problem. Isn't God really just the easy answer to an extremely complex matter?
Click to expand...

Because when atheists say, "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old," they can't actually show what this means. They think there was no mind around all those years ago. If there was no mind around, how do they know what "The Earth" even is? We've never been "outside of our own minds" to notice things existing independently of our minds.

When you "imagine" the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, you are still using your mind to imagine it. This is not the same as proving it exists independently of minds.
 
How does God solve the problem you keep asserting?

Do not give "everything exists in the mind of God" as the solution without telling HOW there's a mind of God just floating around.
 
abaddon said:
How does God solve the problem you keep asserting?

Do not give "everything exists in the mind of God" as the solution without telling HOW there's a mind of God just floating around.
Click to expand...

Because if things existing independently of minds can't be proven, then it's only logical that there is an eternal mind which solves this problem.
 
Half-Life said:
abaddon said:
How does God solve the problem you keep asserting?

Do not give "everything exists in the mind of God" as the solution without telling HOW there's a mind of God just floating around.
Click to expand...

Because if things existing independently of minds can't be proven, then it's only logical that there is an eternal mind which solves this problem.
Click to expand...
Why is "an eternal mind" God?
 
abaddon said:
Half-Life said:
abaddon said:
How does God solve the problem you keep asserting?

Do not give "everything exists in the mind of God" as the solution without telling HOW there's a mind of God just floating around.
Click to expand...

Because if things existing independently of minds can't be proven, then it's only logical that there is an eternal mind which solves this problem.
Click to expand...
Why is "an eternal mind" God?
Click to expand...

What is an eternal mind to you?
 
Half-Life said:
Keith&Co. said:
Yeah, except....
View attachment 24790
Click to expand...

You're understanding, Keith!

"Reality exists independently of minds" does not have one shred of evidence to back it up.

So you dismiss this and are no longer an atheist?:)
Click to expand...

No, because your opposing theory no evidence, either, AND it violates Occam's razor. So it'has less goingbfor it than materialism. It's into negative evidence.
 
Keith&Co. said:
No, because your opposing theory no evidence, either, AND it violates Occam's razor. So it'has less goingbfor it than materialism. It's into negative evidence.
Click to expand...

Keith, if "reality exists independently of minds" is a statement with no evidence whatsoever, then we know reality can not exist independently of minds. It then logically follows that an eternal mind that is always perceiving must always exist.

You don't believe there were ANY MINDS around billions of years ago. And reality can not exist independently of minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom