Therenis NO God

[-Sigurd-]

I don't see any reason for going with the idea that the objective world is an elaborate hoax on God's part. For all we know, we could all be locked in 'Matrix' style pods and fed a mere illusion of reality - it is logically possible - but is there any special reason for thinking that this is actually the case? It is the same with Berkeley and his idea of the material world as an 'elaborate hoax' - it is logically possible - but unless we have compelling additional arguments for thinking that this is the case, it is far more sensible to go with the simpler explanation - that there really is an objective world out there...not a giant conspiracy held together by the mind of God. As for sodium, it seems unlikely that it would have been discovered and understood as it is without a thorough going materialistic view of the world. Chemistry is not a concept that springs naturally from an idealistic philosophy.

Leibniz was undoubtedly a genius. However in those times there was an eagerness to come up with a 'theory of everything' in spite of the fact that we did not have the observations we needed to really embark on such a project, and many great minds of the time spent their lives creating grand metaphysical schemes - all 'castles in the air' with no discernable connection to measurable events or structures. Which is not to say that these people did not have insight. Liebniz is a treasure trove of useful metaphors and interesting ideas - however, how useful really is the 'monadology' compared to Newton's laws of motion, or modern particle physics?

On ethics - it doesn't matter what you are made of...it is what you know, feel, understand and do that is relevant. Whether I am made of atoms, monads or pure perceptions makes no difference to the right or wrongs of my behaviour.

[Ulrikke]

Monadology – _ – _ and the debate that doesn't evolve.

Naturalism is in no manner irrational. The fact that our thoughts are results of a physical/chemical process in no manner implies that they are automatically false. Chemical/biological reactions in a world governed by the laws of cause and effect follow those laws: the result – depending on the possibilities – is either true or false.

Evolution is a well supported theory that gave us tools to study and understand the natural world; how species have adapted to survive the environment: evolved. Where is the logic that we as a species have evolved but our brains did not?

Your statement that your beliefs need no proof has its implications – Since your brand of subjectivism expunges any objective claims you have the proof you need for your beliefs: that is to say, that your beliefs need no proof since no claim is objective by your standards. It does not work that way and you know it.

[-Sigurd-]

"The monadology may not be 'useful' socially or politically or scientifically, but none of that matters if the monadology happens to be true."

So we are agreed that it is basically useless. And, as a theory of the ultimate nature of things that is the product not of observation and experiment on nature but of the imaginings and internal reflections ("human invention"?) of one man in the 17th century then I have to say the chances of it's being true are pretty slim, to say the very least.

And when you consider hauntings, and the work of T.C. Lethbridge (who believed that electricity records thoughts) it becomes apparent that the monadology is truer than students think.

If I were you I wouldn't use hauntings and other paranormal stuff in an attempt to add credibility to an already unfounded theory or assertion. It has the opposite effect to the one you intend.

"Professor Haldane said it a long time ago: if there is no God, then our minds were not designed for thinking, in which case thoughts are physical or chemical accidents, including our own thoughts on atheism and materialism. In that case, what reason have we for trusting them? Blind processes are likely to produce falsehood as well as truth. As Lewis put it: It is like spilling a jug of milk and hoping the spill will give you a map of London."

This amounts to saying that all products of natural processes must be inherently useless! If a brain with a powerful reasoning faculty cannot evolve then a bird wing capable of powered flight cannot evolve either. Also, this argument has been refuted by experiments involving neural nets which are capable of learning and giving the 'right answer' consistently without being specifically 'designed' by anyone let alone God. Countless studies of natural systems have shown that complex natural processes do NOT inevitably lead to systems with 'random', meaningless or 50-50 outputs.
As I showed in an earlier post, that kind of behaviour would actually more likely be produced by an 'undetermined, uncaused soul'.

You need to read up on topics like complexity and organisation to see where you are going wrong. It seems to me Tom, that most of your knowledge of science and scientific controversies comes from religionists and 'christian science' apologists. Unless you correct that, you aren't giving yourself much of a chance here.

I think morality is fake if it takes it's 'validity' merely from being added 'by hand' of God. In such a case we would follow it because it is Gods order - what Nietsche called "the slave morality". I fail to see what is missing from a morality that 'evolves' and that can justify itself solely through empathy and human experience. Suppose for the sake of argument that you learned that God definitely never existed - would you stop behaving morally as a result?

[-Sigurd-]

You have said I am lacking credibility. But then, this is a forum, only. I do not take forums very seriously. I am not here to unload hard philosophy. I come here to briefly talk about things 'under the sun.' I am not interested in going into detail: I haven't the time.

I didn't say that - this is what I said: "If I were you I wouldn't use hauntings and other paranormal stuff in an attempt to add credibility to an already unfounded theory or assertion."

Leibnitz said that monads contain "the entirety of the universe." Hauntings show that nature, somehow, records experiences. There is a link, then, between the philosophy of Leibnitz, and the parapsychology of Lethbridge.

Hauntings are a highly dubious phenomena, themselves best explained in terms of the vagiaries of the human mind. Aren't there any non-dubious phenomena that can be used to support monads? It is fine for you to believe in ghosts and to use them in support of your own belief in monads, as long as you are aware that the argument isn't going to be very convincing to people who don't already have such beliefs.

You still have not said how unrationality can become rationality.

The same way non living matter becomes living matter or non flying matter becomes flying matter - natural chemical processes and biological evolution.

You still have not said WHY we should trust our thoughts to be true when they are only physical accidents. You assume a validity to human thinking which does not exist within the boundaries of materialism. You are treating thinking in the same way as a Christian would, but how can that be if, for you, thinking is an accident, and for us thinking is a deliberate and planned occurence? If thinking is an accident, then how can thinking be your searchlight for truth? Your actual thoughts may end up being 'correct' and maybe even very often, but you still have no good reasons to trust them, even if they turn out to be true, because as I said your brain, by your reasoning, was not designed for thinking.

I dont assume that thoughts are automatically true - where did you get that idea?. I only trust my reason as far as it can be shown to be correct, or effective. Often we make mistakes. It is certainly not divinely bestowed 'perfect reason' in the Christian sense. But there is no need whatsoever to regard reason itself as necessarily flawed simply because it evolved. You might as well say that birds can't fly properly if they evolved. Human reason may not have been designed by God but our capacity for it was certainly 'designed' by natural selection. There is no great mystery here...if we understand how more effective processes and structures are selected for over less effective ones - and we do - then we have all the basis we require for understanding how rationality (or any other faculty) evolved.

Following the morals as shown us by God is not at all a slave morality. On the contrary, it appears we have, ourselves, internally a sense of right and wrong, and that God and religion are simply reminders to our own functioning.

You seem to be admitting now that human morality is after all, valid on its own terms, whether God exists or not, which is a far cry from what you posted above:"As for ethics, I believe they can only have validity if they are more than human invention and more than biology."

It is certainly not only atheists who behave immorally, whether hidden from view or not! As for Nietzche - I only quoted one phrase of his, not his entire philosophy including subsequent distortions by the Nazis.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by -Sigurd-
Following the morals as shown us by God is not at all a slave morality. On the contrary, it appears we have, ourselves, internally a sense of right and wrong, and that God and religion are simply reminders to our own functioning.

You seem to be admitting now that human morality is after all, valid on its own terms, whether God exists or not, which is a far cry from what you posted above:"As for ethics, I believe they can only have validity if they are more than human invention and more than biology."

It is certainly not only atheists who behave immorally, whether hidden from view or not! As for Nietzche - I only quoted one phrase of his, not his entire philosophy including subsequent distortions by the Nazis.

Tom's two statements are not mutually contradictory. He is refering to an intrinsic moral order in the universe which exists apart from God: that is, that some things are right because they are right and others are wrong because they are wrong. This is the view taken by most theists. It elevates morality beyond being a mere human invention, or the product of biology. Morality exists apart from God, and God, as a perfectly righteous being, is bound by it. However, if God did not exist, we would have no reason to believe that this intrinsic moral order existed.

[-Sigurd-]

Fear - so in this view morality is part of the fundamental order of things and so not a product of biology etc. I take a completely different view of course but I'll accept that his statements on that point weren't contradictory.

[DevilDancer]

So gordon,,,,does ure theory behind no god lie in the big bang,,,,mines does.