when I beleved

I used to beleve in god, jesus, holy spirit, it all made perfect sense to me, back then. when I got to youtube as "infinite hope" I made videos trying to convince nonbelevers they were missing out on something, I made other videos as well, rants, debate time, talk time - three catagories I'd make things about. Those pesky atheists, always with the questions, I couldn't figure out why I couldn't reach them.

I felt like, I'm trying to get them to have the thrill of skydiving, but they do not even beleve there is a plane, let alone a parachute.

Yet, they just didn't get it.
I tried to explain but they wanted this darn evidence stuff.
So I went to look for that, and did not find anything, rather I found all sorts of things that contradicted the god that I had thought was true, the stories about it just did not align with reality.

I thought that maybe apologetics would be the saving grace, but I learned informal logic, and well - that was that, all the arguments I read were bad ones. Every single one.

Now I'm on the flip side, the one asking the theist to provide evidence, and it can get tiresome, it can be frustrating.

What is "god" anyway? Who gets to decide such a thing? Like, the attrubutes that we apply to the word "god" - why those? A thing is god if it makes a universe? Or is a thing god if it knows everything? Who says? Why those things and not something else? Well - because for most, the "god" has been layed out from the holy book they beleve to be true.

So the idea of god comes from humans, and has changed over time. Its quite the remarkable meme.

You are happy in your faith of it. I understand that. I just wish you would use better reason, better logic. Keep belving just dont do the whole anti-science stuff I see here, the typical creationist type of thing ya know?

As far as agruments go - the only way to hope to make a good one would be to learn informal logic. So - maybe you could do that?
~~~~

Anyway... I was tired and grumpy and hungry yesterday morning and just felt like meh, giving up on everything - I hate that feeling. Took it out on you because you came in - shouldn't have agreed to talk, heck I shouldn't have gone live. Blargh.

Sorry.

~~~~

Be my guest. How do you explain our existence without a creator ?

"How do you explain our existence without a creator?"

That's not my burden, I'm not claiming there isn't one, just that I do not beleve in this one type of god (yahweh/jesus/holy spirt). Of course, since I was a christan, the teaching was that that was the only god, so once I found there was nothing to support the ideas, I had no god left to beleve in.

"Our existence"

-you mean humans? Evoultion.
-you mean the planets? Gravity.
-you mean the cosmos? Cosmic expantion of the singularity.

There ya go.

But what you need to do is be able to accept that we sometimes do not know the answers. And, that doesn't mean we have to then assert an answer, and we should not when we do not know. The mystery is fun. Humanity might figure it out, maybe not. Who knows.

"The complete FUN TO IMAGINE with Richard Feynman" is worth a watch for a lot of ideas about all sorts of things.

The theist has there mind made up, the skeptic is open to whatever the answer might be, but the skeptic requires evidence/tests - whereas the theist only needs faith.

If you have facts, you don't need faith.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1873-burden-of-proof-are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-it



Limited causal alternatives do not justify to claim of " not knowing "
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1810-its-not-justified-to-claim-ignorance-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins-do-not-justify-to-claim-of-not-knowing#2991

As I said, you assume a ton of things that are simply not the case. I do not need to posit anything for how/why universe is. I have no idea, I accept whatever science says on the matter, as that is evidence based, testable, etc.

We do not know some things , but we do know many things. The unknown is a mystery, I'm okay with that.

Now, let me put it back into your ballpark - how does god "work" - that is, what is god made out of? does god have a brain? if not, how does it think without a brain? where is god located? where does gods powers come from? how does that work? why is there a god rather then no god? How do you explain god? what is a god and who decides? what about all other god claims?

DeconvertedMan wrote:
 I accept whatever science says on the matter, as that is evidence based, testable, etc.

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1759-scientism-verificationism-and-the-quest-of-a-sound-epistemological-approach-to-find-truth-in-regards-of-origins

So, about my questions...

"God is spirit."

What is "spirit" how does it function, what is it made out of, what laws does it follow, where does its engery come from etc?

"A non-physical entity."

So it does not exist?

"It is an animating principle or essence of a being, consciousness, or personality."

Does it have a brain? The only consciousness or personality we know of needs a brain to be a thing - so does it have a brain?

"It exists beyond the physical realm."

So it does not exist?

"While we cannot detect a spirit itself, we can infer its existence based on what physically exists."

How?!

Idealism, dualism, or materialism? The Mind is Not The Brain

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1662-dualism-the-mind-is-not-the-brain



Argument from consciousness 
1. Consciousness englobes the mind, "qualia", intellectual activity, calculating, thinking, forming abstract ideas, imagination, introspection, cognition, memories, awareness, experiencing, intentions, free volition, free creation, invention, generation of  information. It classifies, recognizes and judges behavior, good and evil. It is aware of beauty, and feels sensations and emotions.
2.  Hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves into abstract ideas.  To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties. The mind is to the brain what a pianist is to a piano. The former (the pianist) is not reducible to the latter (the piano).
3. Those are all fundamental discrete indivisible non-quantifiable qualities of substance, which has a different identity from hard physical objects, matter and space. It is immaterial   Perception, understanding, and evaluation of things adds a quality beyond and absent from natural physical matter and states, and can, therefore, not be reduced to known physical principles.The mind cannot be an emergent property of the brain. Existing fundamentals—space, time, mass, charge can’t explain consciousness, which itself is something fundamental, and essentially different than physical things.Therefore, dualism is true, and since the universe had a beginning, the mind precedes and exists beyond the universe. That mind is God.

Argument from consciousness
1. Consciousness englobes the mind, "qualia", intellectual activity, calculating, thinking, forming abstract ideas, imagination, introspection, cognition, memories, awareness, experiencing, intentions, free volition, free creation, invention, generation of information. It classifies, recognizes and judges behavior, good and evil. It is aware of beauty, and feels sensations and emotions.

The mind / consiciousness is from the brain. We have no example of it being anything other then tied to the brain, no brain = no mind as far as I know. Provide example of it being seperate.

2. Hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves into abstract ideas.

?????????
Ideas are in the brain. That's all they are, just patters of chemicals/electric currents in the brain. Bunch of zeros and 1's basicaly.

To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.

Citation for any of that?

The mind is to the brain what a pianist is to a piano. The former (the pianist) is not reducible to the latter (the piano).

Apples to oranges fallacy.

3. Those are all fundamental discrete indivisible non-quantifiable qualities of substance, which has a different identity from hard physical objects, matter and space. It is immaterial

No, its patterns in the brain. That is fully materal. If not, then computers also make immaterial things by storing data. Do computers have minds?

Perception, understanding, and evaluation of things adds a quality beyond and absent from natural physical matter and states, and can, therefore, not be reduced to known physical principles.

Yes, it can. Because it is. That's all it is. Just a chemicals/electric stuff that is patterns in the brain. Your simply asserting things at this point. I see no reason to buy into this.

The mind cannot be an emergent property of the brain.

That is what it is. Unless you can show otherwise via science or something, give me a mind without a brain. Prove it, show it.

Existing fundamentals—space, time, mass, charge can’t explain consciousness,

Personal incredulity fallacy.
Appeal to ignorance is suggested - can't explain (X) must therefor be (Z).

which itself is something fundamental, and essentially different than physical things.

Nope.

Therefore, dualism is true

Sigh. Nope. I know you think its true, but I have no example of it being true, the bad arguments here are not working. I want an example of a mind without a brain, you can't give it. Brain makes mind - that is what a mind is. Without no brain, no mind. If God is brainless, god is mindless.

and since the universe had a beginning

Citation required.

, the mind precedes and exists beyond the universe.

pure speculation on your part.

That mind is God.

Bald assertion.

~~~~

Okay, so as I said I want to talk to you - not past you - these are questions that I do not think you are really adressing - your not interacting with them as I would expect someone to try.

If I did accept that mind was something that could exist without a brain, that would still leave lots of my questions unanswered.

HOW does god work?
Now, earlyer you said that saying "I dont know" was not acceptable for things - perhaps you did not mean for everything - but surely there is questions that you simply can not answer, like where god gets its power FROM.

How does god function?
What the bleep is a soul?
What is a spirit?

Its unanswerable largely because bible didnt bother to explain it, but also because they are just - well as far as I can tell, made up in full, by humans who, I suppose didn't put much thought into how they work. Its magic. You dont have to explain "HOW" Thor's hammer knows who is or isnt worthy.

Do you fear not beleving in god?

DeconvertedMan wrote:

The mind / consiciousness is from the brain. We have no example of it being anything other then tied to the brain, no brain = no mind as far as I know. Provide example of it being seperate.

Near Death experience , evidence of dualism

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1284-dualism-near-death-experience

NDE's have not ever been shown to be anything other then mind playing tricks as one faids out.

Some hospitals have put up items on a shelf in opperating rooms where death can happen - you can only see the items if you were floating high enough to do so, or on a latter, you can't see them from the floor, no doctor or nurse (etc) knwos what is up there (sometimes they are in a box) (other hospitals have placed a paper on the ceiling with writing facing up, you could read it if you were on the other side of the ceiling, looking down/though at it) - regardless this simple test is that if someone is in fact, out of the body, then they could go see what is on the shelf, in the box, on the paper - then report it. The reporting would be recorded with video/audio (permision would have to be given) then somoene would check the box/shelf/paper to see if indeed the person was right.

So far, no person has reported anything correctly and/or no data has been put forward that shows that a person is indeed "out of body" - what does happen is second (or third) person accounts days or weeks AFTER the event in question where the patent says something happened, sometimes the doctors/nurses are asked to recall the event - the reporting and data collection is highly suspect.

Whats more, not everyone who almost dies has an NDE.
When people do report them, the NDE ALWAYS mathes a pre-known religion the person is aware of - muslims get muslim visions, christans have christan visions - etc. Rairly someone from some other religion will have visions of some other relgion, and sometimes of course people will SAY they were an atheist until they had such an experance.

Verifiying these events happened is hard due to medical records being impossible to access without lots of paperwork done by everyone involved.

Lastly, there is that people who have experanced high G's in airplanes have sometimes reported odd visions that are simular to these events.

So, if it was real we would expect that:

1: Everyone would have it.
2: It would be one relgion and no other religion (everyone has the same or simular experance)
3: It only happens near death.
4: Its recorded at the time of the event NOT after, the reporting is done as soon as possilbe and data collection is done promptly, premission is given etc.
5: People would verify what is on the shelf/in the box/or on the paper.

Since none of this is happening, we must conclude that whatever NDE is - its simply a byproduct of the brain doing things near death, and that this only happens sometimes.

Also, of course none of this is brain death as far as I know, and so its futher questionable because of that.

So, no this does not prove dualisem. It does prove that you have not done proper research on NDE's but that does not surprise me.

Got anything else?

Also still waiting on my other questions about god and souls and spirts to be answered, its a big red flag to me that you do not answer my questions dirrectly and only answer some of the questions. I've tried to answer all your questions even if my answer is "I dont know".

Why cant you treat me the way I'm treating you?

Go back and note all the questions I've asked thus far and see what ones you really answered and what ones you missed. Answer those.