Great post.  

Responding sequentially:

1)  Okay, thank you for specifically highlighting the problem.

2)  I agree, and I acknowledge that "reality of the mind is not the same for everyone."  I'm actually a mental health professional and I've worked with hundreds of people who have varied histories of psychosis.

The data on psychosis is inconclusive to the extent that it is unknown whether "internal stimuli" such as hallucinations have a real component.  In Western cultures, the overwhelming opinion is that it is hallucinations are purely a fabrication; many Eastern and tribal cultures believe there is some concrete basis.  A theoretical explanation for this alternative conclusion is that the sense of a psychotic individual may be "tuned differently," so-to-speak, such that they are able to perceive what others cannot, kind of like tuning a radio dial.  What's particularly interesting is there does seem to be evidence of this. For example, Stanford anthropologist Jeremy Narby discusses the depth and accuracy of botanical knowledge of various tribal cultures who claim that their knowledge was obtained through direct communication of "spirits" dwelling in some other realm which (they also claim) is only perceivable to tribal shamans or those who partake in the ritualistic consumption of hallucinogenic substances (e.g. ayahuasca, tobacco, etc.).  Specifically, Narby notes that, as a result of the vast number of possible combinations and permutations of Amazonian plant species, the assumption that these cultures obtained such botanical knowledge through chance combinations is untenable.  Personally, I am undecided on the issue.

With regards to the Geiger Counter, I would say it is irrelevant as both the Geiger counter and the data it collects are both perceived via the mind.  To this end, technology is an extension of mind, and accordingly technology can act as 2nd-order means of perception (by invoking a technological -- but still abstract -- metric by which to measure real phenomena).  These findings align with findings of the famous Double Slit Experiment which indicate that the wave-function collapses in both the presence of a human observer, and in the presence of a technological observer even when no human observer is present.

3)   You bring up several issues in your last paragraph here, so I feel compelled to deconstruct it a bit:


You're asserting several components, here: 1) Reality/Universe has a true nature of function, 2) Our "imagined reality" containing flawed perceptions and interpretations thereof, and 3) "correct" perceptions and interpretations thereof (and you're asking where #3 is).

Would it be fair to assume from these statements that you are a Positivist, and that accordingly the scientific method is the ideal in knowledge acquisition?  Please correct me if I am wrong in that assumption.  If my assumption is true, first you need to reconcile the concept of a Positivistic Universe with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic stating that any two relational entities 'x' and 'y' must reduce to a common medium, specifically because this fundamental principle a priori disproves the assumption of a Positivistic Universe.

But maybe you don't assume logical principles must necessarily extend to reality.   If that's the case, then instead you must reconcile that belief with the stability of our perception of reality which self-apparently indicates a logical relationship between the perceiver and the perceived.  If you make the assumption that the truth is there is a Positivistic reality, then you must concede that reality is inherently logical (because logic is a predicate for truth).  Because logic refers to the rules of valid cognition, you must then explain how reality is inherently logical in the absence of a mind/intelligent designer.  If, on the other hand, you make the assumption that there is no such thing as a Positivistic reality at the highest level of truth, then you would be conceding the argument to me.

And, I would say the "provable mental construct of the actual Reality of the Universe" is the construct which is self-evident at all times to any perceiver.  My personal belief is that reality is a theory of itself, and so through continual perceptual and interpretive refinement, reality continually refines itself towards self-actualization.  I basically think reality is trying to know itself.  Consider, again, the self-evident process in which reality confirms itself.  Specifically, some parts of reality (e.g. us) perceive and acknowledge the existence of other parts of reality (e.g. anything not us).  I would go so far as to make a $1 million dollar bet for someone to provide a real-time example of the confirmation of any real phenomena in the total absence of any mind or perceiver (human or otherwise), and I will would give him the rest of his natural born life to do so.  Sure, I'd never win the $1 million under those terms, but I'm confident I wouldn't lose it, either.  In exactly 100% of all cases in which reality is confirmed to exist, mind is present.  There has never been a case where the existence of reality has been confirmed in the absence of mind.  You invoke an unnecessary assumption and thereby violate Occam's razor when you suggest that reality continues to exist in the absence of mind.  It's simply better to conclude that there is no applicable statement that can be made to reality in the absence of mind as it still accounts for all data but wields exactly zero assumptions.


Here, I beg to differ.  I find Christopher Langan's CTMU theory found at www.ctmu.org to be infallible (so far).  I'm well aware of the critiques his theory has received, most notably that he uses "naive set theory" as opposed to formal set theory (a critique that is reconciled in his theory).

You don't need to know all of reality (especially because the only reality which is relevant to you is that which you are perceiving right now).  But, you do need to know all of logic's limitations and boundaries.  Again, logic is a predicate for truth, and so by understanding the boundaries of logic and relating those boundaries back to real phenomena, what we are actually doing is creating a sound framework for modeling reality in terms of mind.  If you believe your mind is real, then this is critically important because any comprehensive theory of reality needs to explain all real phenomena, including your mind.

Understanding this framework is more important than understanding any real phenomena simply because any and all real phenomena can be included within the framework.  Thus, the framework serves as a fundamental, general model of how reality is continually refined and defined.

Stemming from this last point, there has been a gradual shift in the scientific community away from testable hypotheses towards model development.  The reasoning is pretty simple.  Aside from the strong case of philosophers who note that scientific falsification is imperfect, a model only needs to meet several definite criteria:  It needs to comprehensively explain all that it models, must be internally consistent, and must be externally reliable.  Any model that meets these criteria is a sound model.

A model of reality in terms of mind does just that.  It explains all real phenomena including mind, their interplay and relationships, and even itself (by modeling the process by which the model itself is constructed).  Furthermore, any attempt to deny the model actually reinforces the model, specifically because your denial of the model was created by the exact process described in the model.


On the contrary, our perception, interpretation, and subsequent definition of reality is self-evidently intelligent designed, and it's similar to the process of intelligent design in the sense of the theistic God, but at an infinitely smaller scale.  I believed I've described my reasoning for this belief several times elsewhere on this forum, so I'd rather not repeat myself unless you specifically request that I do.

What I will briefly say, however, is that I again would suggest looking at that which is self-evident.  When you perceive something, you invoke a fundamental metric which catalyzes the process of defining reality.  When you perceive real phenomena, you must make a decision -- does it exist or does it not?  If you can't choose either option, then you don't know whether it's there or not, or what it might be if it is.  Think of it this way: through perception, you process and render otherwise unintelligible information intelligible.  If information is unintelligible, there's simply nothing relevant to say about it whatsoever.  If I hand you a CD and ask you to define its informational content, you wouldn't know where to begin unless you first stuck it in a CD player and hit play.  The CD player renders the information into definable sounds...music.  There would be absolutely no possible or logical way to assert the existence of that music prior to its rendering and subsequent definition.  

Finally, I am frustrated (not at you, just in general) that I must again repeat that at no point do I begin with any presumption that God exists, nor do I ascribe any arbitrary characteristics or assumptions about what God may be prior to concluding that an intelligent designer exists.  The process *must* begin by proving that a logical limit(s) of theorization exists and what that limit(s) might be.  It *must* begin this way because logic is axiomatically a predicate for truth.

Responding sequentially:

1)  Ah, I see what happened.  Yes, your three dots are fine, however you removed the single quotes I inserted, leaving me to think that you were entirely leaving out the fact that I equated 'reality as a mental construct' with 'intelligent design.'  At this point, I would refer you to the word "practically."  There is no flaw in my thinking here.  If, reality is mental construct (and it provably is; i.e. made from/by mind), then reality is intelligently designed (axiomatic) and therefore we can practically call it God.  However, if you want me to leave the word "God" out of that, I have no problem with that.  I'm perfectly happy just calling reality intelligently designed.

So, I concede the quote you extracted from my post isn't as bad as I initially thought, it is your useless attack of it that I have issue with, and I'm guessing that you're taking issue with it specifically because it seems you thought everything else encapsulated by your use of an ellipsis is meaningless or worthless of consideration.  It's not, because it contains every bit of justification needed to offset your rebuttal to it.

2)  It's not, "...therefore God."   Instead it's, "intelligent design...therefore (practically) God."

3)  Read #1 and #2

4)  If an FSM chooses to take a form other than an FSM, it is no longer an FSM.  The defining criteria that constitute the FSM are that it flies, is made of spaghetti, and is a monster.  If a monotheistic god were to assume the form of an FSM, then we have theoretical means by which to empirically verify the FSM, but not a monotheistic God.  And if an FSM is just an FSM and not a monotheistic God, we still retain the theoretical means by which to empirically verify the FSM, but not a monotheistic God.

Therefore, the defining characteristic that distinguishes a monotheistic god from the FSM is a lack of constraint. Because a lack of constraint is the defining characteristic, and because physical constraint is required for empirical observation, we conclude a monotheistic god is beyond the scope of empiricism.  The FSM, however, is not.  A monotheistic god that turns into an FSM is both a monotheistic God and an FSM.  An FSM that turns form into something else (like a Crawling Potato Monster, the CPM) is no longer an FSM.

If you are considering the FSM to be a monotheistic God in a specific form, then you undermine the entire purpose of the FSM rebuttal to begin with.  The only reason the FSM exists as a rebuttal to the existence of God is because it attempts (but fails) to make a case for the idea that it is absurd to believe in something due a total absence of empirical evidence.

The instant that you try to reconcile the FSM analogy by calling it a monotheistic God in disguise, the analogy retains its validity at the expense of losing its ability to serve as a counterargument to the existence of God.

The problem is you clearly *don't* understand the FSM argument and its implications, and neither does anyone else who believes it is valid, and the fact that you try to justify it by essentially calling the FSM a monotheistic god illustrates this point .  Again, you can huff and puff all you want.   There's no room for interpretation.   An FSM is defined in terms of contraint while monotheistic gods are defined in terms of a total absence of constraint.  It's black-and-white.

Likewise It's refreshing to debate with someone who remains focused on the ideas presented by both sides.

Continuing from my previous post, maybe this other approach will help to clarify my point further:  

Let's assume that both an FSM and a monotheistic god taking the form of an FSM exist.  Since both the monotheistic god and the FSM assume the form of an FSM, there is no way to distinguish between the two based solely upon the knowledge that both fly, are made of speghetti, and are monsters.  The defining characteristic that separates the monotheistic god from the FSM so as to be distinguishable from it is its lack of constraint (and physical constraint is required for empirical observation), whereas the traits "flying," "spaghetti," and "monster" define the FSM.

Yes, and I completely understand where you're coming from, but if that's the case, then it simply shouldn't be called an FSM, and so I do not agree with your previous point that the FSM is merely described -- but not defined -- as such.  Accordingly, I maintain that a FSM that is able to alter its constraints to become a CPM results in two notable conclusions: 1) It is omnipotent, and, more importantly, 2) it is no longer an FSM.  An FSM can only be an FSM if it is a flying monster made of spaghetti.

What you're describing is a monotheistic god who places constraints upon himself which allows for any number of possible descriptions based upon the constraints.

Again, I get where you're coming from, but the problem is that the FSM and similar arguments like the Space Teapot orbiting Venus are used specifically by atheists to demonstrate a specific point, which is that it is absurd to believe in something just because we can imagine it to exist.  For example, we can imagine that a teapot is orbiting Venus and therefore we would have a way to verify its existence through empirical observation.  Just because we can imagine that the space teapot exists doesn't mean that we should spend billions or trillions of dollars on telescopes and otherwise to try to find it.  What we can't do is imagine something with a total lack of constraint and, therefore, definition.

So, atheists are left with two options. Either they can take a position like you have done, claiming that an omnipotent god could take the form of the FSM or a teapot, and therefore the analogy maintains its validity, but it loses its ability to serve as a counterargument to a monotheistic god because it would remove all theoretical possibility of empirical falsification.  You could have full access to all data that ever has, is, and will be available, and you still wouldn't be able to distinguish between the FSM and a monotheistic god.  The other choice is to maintain that it is a counterargument to a monotheistic god, but relinquish its validity.

Imagine it this way:  If a flying monster made of spaghetti came into your room, you would be able to verify that the FSM exists, regardless of whether the FSM is just an FSM, or if it's a monotheistic god stratifying itself into an FSM.  But if a monotheistic god took the form of an FSM and came into your room, you would still be able to verify the existence of the FSM, but you would not be able to verify the existence of a monotheistic god.

In summation, it seems as though you assume a more tenable position than other atheists because you understand how the omnipotence paradox is self-resolving.  But unfortunately, the rest of your cohort does not make this distinction, and the FSM or space teapot or any other similar argument is invoked with the specific intent of showing that it is silly to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence of any kind.  But monotheistic gods by definition are beyond the scope of empiricism.  That's why the FSM ultimately fails as a proper analogy.

Maybe rephrasing will emphasize my point a bit:

If a monotheistic god is defined in terms of a lack of constraint, then it could omnipotently turn into an FSM and still be a monotheistic god.

If an FSM is defined in terms of constraint as I'm suggesting, then if the FSM turned into a Crawling Potato Monster (the CPM...duh!) it would no longer be an FSM (because a CPM does not fly and is not made of spaghetti).

Here's a synopsis of our interactions:

1) You make a claim, and I respond with a point-by-point counterclaim.

2) You provably misrepresent my argument by fraudulently misquoting me.

3) I make you aware that you're misrepresenting my argument after which you make no further attempt to understand it.  At this point, you have essentially made a decision to argue against yourself.

4) You conclude that I must be high, insane, or dumb because you concluded that the argument that you invented is a bad argument.  The funny thing is that I actually agree with you because the argument you invented for me is, well...bad.

Next time, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from hurling insults because you're upset that I'm not willing to let you tell me what my own argument is.

Would you do that for me?  Thanks.

Lol, the photo is great.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The reason is that the the FSM, unlike a monotheistic god, is defined specifically according to its constraints.  Monotheistic gods are not defined according to constraint, but rather in terms of a lack thereof, and as you point out they would have the ability to omnipotently reconcile a paradoxical state (e.g. if the monotheistic god imposed constraints upon itself to take the form of the FSM).  However, because the FSM is defined specifically in terms of constraints, the analogy falls apart because it is thus theoretically possible, even if not practically so,  to imagine a way to falsify the existence of the FSM via empiricism.  The same does not hold true for a monotheistic god.  

It's a subtle, but significant, difference.

Uh...no.  None of these thoughts necessarily lead to any other.  These are all just random statements that in no way can be inferred from the others.  You just randomly drew some dots and started connecting them willy-nilly.   It's about as random as saying, "He didn't say hello to me, so he obviously wants to kill me."

No, it's not.  The Easter Bunny is essentially equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an analogy, and is therefore invalid with respect to this topic.  It would, however, be valid with respect to a debate about the existence of polytheistic gods (just not monotheistic ones).

Were you going to get around to making a response that's actually relevant to what I said?  But hey, if you think that misunderstanding an argument and then defeating your own misunderstanding makes you the winner, then by all means keep it up.

You see this sentence that you quoted as if I wrote it?:


Yeah... I didn't say that. Actually, I didn't even say anything close to it.  So why the hell are you quoting me as such?

What I actually said was:


Notice the extraordinary difference?  You just wasted your entire post attacking a point of view you invented.  Yeah, you sure showed me...

By the way, the FSM is a totally invalid analogy.  If you would stop thinking that you know something you clearly don't, you would learn why.  I'm busy, and I don't have the time to hold your hand and walk you through the basics.  I used to make it a habit to respond with proper consideration to anyone's argument no matter how poor it may be, but I'm really starting to grow tired of that.  There are plenty of people who understand things such as sound inference and the limitations of various exploratory methods, and they're much more likely to get something out of the conversation.

Who are you talking to?  It shouldn't be me, because if it is then I'd advise you to go back, reread, and understand the argument before countering it.  Fortunately, I made it easy for you in that I provided you with complete, grammatically correct sentences that flow in a logical order.  I can't even read half your post without guessing what the hell you might be trying to say.

You can yell and scream and shout that you're right, but unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.  The stupid person thinks he's smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.

As stated, he is correct by virtue of the word "only."  You need to go back and read what I posted in response to you. I specifically mentioned that pure mathematics is plagued by (for example) the problem of undecidability.  The scope of philosophy is more general than the scope of pure mathematics and thereby carries a greater capacity for comprehensive explanation.  However, it is true that any and all theories and conclusions are mathematical constructs.   But, an overarching philosophy is required to apply mathematics to, and relate it with, the rest of reality.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.  Sorry for the ad hominem, but seriously...are you reading what you're typing?

Edit: Here, I'll help point out your flaw.  It would be true if you said that, due to your lack of individual knowledge on the subject, the chances of you guessing correctly whether God exists is 50/50.  But, the truth is that God either exists or doesn't, and chance is completely removed from consideration.  You're confusing your ability to wager on God's existence with whether He in fact does or does not exist.

As an analogy, let's say I take two cups and place a penny under one of them; you don't see me do this.  Then, I invite you into the room and ask you to guess what cup is hiding the penny.  What is certain is that I placed the penny under cup A rather than cup B, but only I know this and you don't.  The chances of you correctly guessing which cup is hiding the penny is 50/50, but it is 100% certain that the penny is actually under cup A. 

Responding sequentially:

1)    So then, what's the probability that you exist?  Still 50/50?  You either exist or you don't.  Arbitrarily ascribing probabilities as you did increases the absurdity of your argument by 67%.

Seriously, though, I have absolutely no idea why you think you can just randomly ascribe some probability to something you haven't even confirmed to exist in the first place.  That's just all kinds of weird.

Think of it this way: consider a probability function as a law governing so-called 'chance' events.  Because we can observe these events but not the probability function itself,  things can appear random or probabilistic.  But really, the probability function itself is the causal mechanism for these events.

2)  The point here is that whether you agree or disagree with the morality of any given religious text says absolutely nothing about whether God exists.  Liking or disliking something does not cause things to exist or not exist.

I'd hold off on the trite comments if I were you.  Your ramblings are almost as incoherent as they are contradictory, and I'd like to remind you of the irony in using the contents of the Bible to support your argument when your argument calls the contents of the Bible into question.  That's what tends to happen when people are ignorant yet take pride in their belief they are not.  I would hold off on your assumptions about me and redirect your focus back onto your horrid line of reasoning if I were you.  That's the issue you need to address, not me.

3)  When you say "absolute truth is wrong," are you saying that absolutely or relatively?  On one hand, if you claim to be making an absolute statement, then you contradict your own argument.  On the other hand, if you claim to be making a relative argument, then you skip completely past contradiction and straight to irrelevancy (because you wouldn't be making a claim one way or the other about absolute truth).  Again, I would listen if I were you.

The existence of absolute truth is simply demonstrated, for any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence.  Saying "there is no absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Similarly, saying "truth is only relative" is equivalent to saying "the absolute truth is that truth is only relative."  Furthermore, saying "there is more than one absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth."

This is what you need to understand:  Absolute truth is absolute, relative to conditional phenomena, and conditional phenomena is relative to both other conditional phenomena and to absolute truth.

Responding sequentially:

1)  Yes, math is infallible, but it's not without limitations (e.g. the problem of undecidability, etc.).  The scope of a purely mathematical approach is insufficient for commenting upon the matter as it leaves us without a means of synthesizing mathematics with the rest of reality.

2)  The chance that God exists is not 50/50.  Either a Creator exists or it doesn't.  Accordingly, the rest of what you say in this paragraph is irrelevant.  Oh, and "chance" is simply another word for "unknown causation" since the probability function(s) guiding so-called 'chance' events is concrete.

3)  This paragraph is also completely irrelevant because it follows your line of reasoning about 'chance.'

4)  You have no idea what you're talking about.  Why are you bringing morality into this when it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether God exists?

Now, I'll ask you something:  If it were demonstrated that reality is a mental construct (i,e, made of/from mind), would you be inclined to believe in intelligent design?  Because, well...I can.

You're using your messiah complex to reach the conclusion that they need prayer to be saved.  You don't think using derogatory language and then condemning someone to hell if they don't pray is slamming? 

It's not even really new information.  People don't win Nobel Prizes for things a lot of people already know.

If you have even a rather superficial understanding of the Theory of Relativity, you know that the apparent age of the Universe depends on where you are.  Since the apparent age of the Universe is dependent upon locality (Edit: i.e spacetime, not just space), you can't even call the Big Bang a single event.  

Imagine this scenario:

Let's assume that there is a wormhole through which we can transmit and receive communication with another planet ~1 billion lightyears away from us.

Using our 'wormhole telephone,' we communicate to the other planet the apparent age of the Universe from our locality.  Then, some beings on the other planet reciprocate.

Well, now we have a problem.  While we communicated an apparent age of ~14 billion years, let's say the other planet communicated an apparent age of ~15 billion years.  Which is it?  Are they right or are we right?  Edit:  More likely, the reported apparent ages would be the same, still leaving the problem of reconciling the issue of locality.

Think about this for second...seriously.  If we consider both conclusions as valid, then that means that some 'stuff' in the Universe can be older or younger than other 'stuff.'

And then...which directlon  do you look?  If we point the Hubble one way and see some galaxies that are several billion years old, we can also point the Hubble the opposite way and see the same thing.  But now we have another problem!  

Imagine according to the Big Bang Theory that the Universe is expanding in all directions from a single point.  If we can see galaxies in both directions that appear the same age, that means that we must *always* appear to be at the center of the Universe, no matter where we are!  If  we weren't (i.e. if we were off-center), then galaxies viewed by looking in one direction would appear either older or younger than galaxies viewed in the other direction!  Accordingly, there must be a better explanation.

Tricks of perspective are fun.

If I think I'm holding an apple in my hand only to find out it's not an apple, it doesn't mean that I'm holding a banana.  It *could* be a banana, but simply knowing that I'm not holding an apple doesn't say anything about bananas whatsoever.

This article is a pretty good example of what I've been talking about, although I don't care much at all for any specific content in it.

There is no need for an advanced degree or any special training to reach the logical conclusion that there is no beginning of time.  Sure, on a topological level there is a ton of evidence that suggests that around ~14 billion years ago the Universe popped into existence at the instant of the Big Bang.  However,  that conclusion is based upon our relative location in spacetime.  If we were someplace else, e.g. near the event horizon of a black hole, the calculated age of the Universe would be vastly different.  

Scientists have been unable to synthesize classical and quantum physics.  The classical model results in the conclusion of the Big Bang.  The quantum model does not.  The *best* model would synthesize these opposing models.

Edit:  Also, shut up about what you think of homosexuals.  What kind of idiot reads a (poorly written) science article and uses it as justification to slam gay people?  Your line of reasoning is complete BS and you should be ashamed of yourself.