First of all, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is caused by the measurement. Just by observing one thing, you mess up the other. You can know one or the other of position or momentum, but not both. The act of observing is what makes the change. It is most likely that if left alone, the momentum and position would both work as would be predicted, but for now we can only predict a statistical likelihood of momentum for example, once we know its position.

As for what good thinking does us as non-believers, we still have the ability to pass on knowledge to the next generation. This memetic transfer is one way that we evolve as humans. We benefit from the knowledge of our predecessors, which makes us more likely to survive in the future. This would create a evolutionary desire for such a trait.

Far from being entropic, we have found a way to store our knowledge after we die. We store it in the next generation, and in documentation. Without the ability to communicate, you could be correct to a degree, but that communication is certainly not a futile undertaking.

As for dualism, there is nothing whatsoever to support dualism. All evidence points to the mind being inextricably intertwined with a physical medium, such as the brain. When the brain is damaged, the mind is damaged. I have personally had a stroke, and an immediate change I noticed was a stark change in personality. If my mind were separate from my brain, I should have had the same wants and desires subsequent to the stroke as I had prior, but that wasn’t the case.

Essentially what I’m saying is that the evidence against dualism is huge, where the evidence for it is non-existent. It is therefore disingenuous to claim dualism on equal footing when it comes to possibility.

Yes, it either exists or it doesn’t, just as if the mind ceased to exist without the brain either happens or doesn’t, but when there is so much evidence to support that the brain and mind are one, the equality ceases to exist.

Now, could the information stored in a particular brain be transferred to some other container? I don’t dismiss that possibility. Just like the hard drive in a computer. You can transfer the information, but the information relies on a physical medium in order to exist.

With dualism, as Christians would believe it, the mind would exist without a physical component. It would be immaterial, or spirit, but nobody can explain the ontology of spirit, and the word immaterial explains nothing other than it is not material.

Now for the reason I came to this page, faith.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen.

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for.” is something I think I can get behind as far as faith being hope on steroids. I would argue that there is no substance to faith though. As for “the evidence of things unseen.”, I would argue that it is not evidence of anything at all but faith itself. Faith cannot be evidence of anything else but belief, since if it were, it would not take faith. Faith is only necessary for those things that there is no other reason to believe, it is not evidence of anything.

It is most likely that if left alone, the momentum and position would both work as would be predicted, but for now we can only predict a statistical likelihood of momentum for example, once we know its position.

I agree, in principle, on your synopsis of the uncertainity principle. It sounds to me that, upon ceasing the impactful observation, you are taking the subsequently unseen and probabilistically predicted motion and momentum on faith.

This memetic transfer is one way that we evolve as humans. We benefit from the knowledge of our predecessors, which makes us more likely to survive in the future.

Again, you appear to be taking it on faith that evolution will continue uninhibited despite the evidence that most scientists predict the end of the universe in an entropic, cold death. So, what gives you such hope?

Without the ability to communicate, you could be correct to a degree, but that communication is certainly not a futile undertaking.

I refer to the same statement as in response to the last quote.

As for dualism, there is nothing whatsoever to support dualism. All evidence points to the mind being inextricably intertwined with a physical medium, such as the brain.

“In so doing, it is also important to keep in mind that models have limitations. It would be a mistake to reduce the meaning of human communication to what occurs at the nanometer scale of the synapse.”
-citing http://www.cbhd.org/content/grey-matters-biochemical-synapse-bioethical-syntax-0 –
William P. Cheshire, Jr., MD, MA, FAAN

You might also want to refer to “The End of Science” by John Horgan. It is an interesting read. You can ample it on Google Books at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=blo3UzzA7XcC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=conservation+of+energy+in+neural+transmissions&source=bl&ots=IR5oLld1Ac&sig=GcLgXzZWO347_-d5uxYyFT7giSQ&hl=en&ei=nYtgTNKzC8WqlAehyqmZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Instead of offering up a formal fallacy based on unsubsantiated assertions, I offer you the above evidence to ponder. I would be interested in how you quantify your assertion that the evidence against dualism is huge. Can you tell me if every ionic burst from a neurotransmitter is reaches its tagrget neuroreceptor? Since we both know that it does not, what happens to the wasted energy of the other migrant ions? If abosorbed, in what percentage? If leaking into what medium? If impactful, to what perturbational endpoint?

With dualism, as Christians would believe it, the mind would exist without a physical component. It would be immaterial, or spirit, but nobody can explain the ontology of spirit, and the word immaterial explains nothing other than it is not material.

Finally, here is where we can agree. So, we are back full circle to what led you here. Clearly, the ontology of spirit would demand some existential form of Spiritual Logic, which is addressed in my most recent blog at:
http://alogicalchristianity.org/god/religion/christianity/spirituality/spiritual-logic-hearing-the-word-of-god

And finally, you can see my previous response to your fallacy on the definition of faith in response to your comment at the same link above.

I agree, in principle, on your synopsis of the uncertainity principle. It sounds to me that, upon ceasing the impactful observation, you are taking the subsequently unseen and probabilistically predicted motion and momentum on faith.

I didn’t say that I know it is true, I said it is most likely. The idea that it is most likely isn’t the same as what faith supposedly gives people. It is said by believers that they “know” that God exists. It’s not just a belief, it is claimed to be knowledge.

Again, you appear to be taking it on faith that evolution will continue uninhibited despite the evidence that most scientists predict the end of the universe in an entropic, cold death. So, what gives you such hope?

I never said that evolution will continue uninhibited. The fact is, there is no guarantee that organisms will always progress. Evolution doesn’t care though. It doesn’t have a will, it just favors certain things over others.

What your argument is, is essentially that losing all the knowledge you gain is an uncomfortable though, therefore it must be true that our consciousness somehow is preserved intact. That makes no sense.

Instead of offering up a formal fallacy based on unsubsantiated assertions, I offer you the above evidence to ponder. I would be interested in how you quantify your assertion that the evidence against dualism is huge.

How about the fact that it goes against Occam’s razor? While not necessarily evidence, it is always considered a good starting point to reduce things to their simplest parts and not assume something extra is involved if one thing can explain it all.

Then there’s the fact that in order for substance dualism to exist, that would demand that there be something between the physical (neurons) and the spirit, who’s ontology is totally undetermined.

The fact I touched on previously that physical changes in the brain cause changes in memory, personality, cognitive ability, etc. shows that there is no central repository for things we learn, if there were, then when parts of a brain are completely annihilated, those memories and things should be able to remain, but they are gone. This goes along with the Occam’s razor bit too. Since we know that memories are stored in the physical brain, why also jump to the conclusion that they are stored elsewhere?

I have to admit that reading the things you write is difficult, since you tend to use too many words not in the common vocabulary. When it’s one or two, it’s okay, and people can be expected to look them up if they don’t understand. When it’s about half of what you say, it gets to be impossible to follow, and I have a rather large vocabulary.

The reason I brought this up is because I have read that page already that you’re sending me back to, and I didn’t see anywhere that you explained the ontology of spirit. If you are able to do such a thing, that would make you the first person in history with that ability. Anyway, I haven’t read it again to see if I can figure it out, and the idea of doing that seems rather daunting and totally not fun at the moment, so I’ll leave it for later when I’ve got more time.

As for talking about my fallacy on the definition of faith, I explained it on that page how you are incorrect on applying those fallacies. You are either misunderstanding the fallacies, or you are misunderstanding what I have said.

What your argument is, is essentially that losing all the knowledge you gain is an uncomfortable though, therefore it must be true that our consciousness somehow is preserved intact. That makes no sense.

I would prefer to make my own arguments. I would agree that any such argument would be absurd. I have presented no such argument. I merely asked a question. I do believe in an eternal consciousness but not for absurd reasons. I again refer to spiritual more than human logic as the basis for my belief. And I concede that it is more metaphysical than physical. I don’t think that my evidence is totally metaphyscal, though.

As for Occam’s razor. I would think the simplest answer (regarding the physical evidence for dualism) for both of us in this case is, “I don’t know.” I really cannot speak for you on this matter, though.

I do not mean to misunderstand you. I certainly do not wish to offend. In fact, I appreciate these debates you and I have undertaken. I do not know about you, but some of what we present makes me smile. If I have not given due diligence, you have my apology.

As for my vocabulary, it has been a lifelong issue with me. I love to study words, and I use them so that I can retain them. I believe they broaden my perspective. I do not intend to complicate. I just want to choose the best word for the job.

Luckily for you max, this unbeliever’s egocentric objectivity and desire for truth has led him to learn more about this definition of faith as evidence. It turns out, the word evidence itself has undergone many changes throughout history. In the time of the king James bible, evidence almost exclusively referred to witness testimony and written testimony. So put into other words without changing the contextual meaning we could write “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the written testimony of things unseen.” I daresay, in the context of its day, this makes a lot more sense than imagining a more modern definition of “evidence” that works with the archaic definition of “faith” that you are using. Surely, Christianity is all about believing in the written words of the bible as evidence, not the kind of evidence that supports logic, or science, but a simpler form of evidence back when truth had to be determined by weighing a man’s words. I am afraid that this of course, eradicates the notion of a “logical Christianity” since we have long known the failures of witness testimony, whether given orally or written, since they are subject to so many psychological distortions and obstacles. One can hardly call witness testimony “reliable” evidence any longer. I’m sure that you were not avoiding the historical usage of the word “evidence” on purpose. You probably just hadn’t considered it or overlooked it altogether. No need to thabk me. I get my satisfaction from knowing that the path of the
unbeliever, in all its glorious objectivity, has once again led me to the truth.

I wonder where your desire for Truth comes from.  Perhaps it is the one thing that makes your egocentricity self-tolerant.

I likewise wonder why you have made every argument by substituting words and meanings to redefine faith in a way that attempts to render the correlative, biblical definition as an impossible truth, when compared to your own interpretation.  Yet, you still have not clued into the concept that you have repeatedly suppressed the correlative, thus confirming my point about this particular fallacy that continues to emerge from practicing atheists.  Can you find a way to overlook that truth?  Perhaps you just don’t have enough evidence.  Or should I substitute and say that you lack the necessary faith,  Surely, you can agree with that.

You have failed to demonstrate that having a different opinion from someone else is a fallacy, it simply is not no matter how you try to word it. The definition of faith is not a matter of opinion however, if you choose a particular definition that is not the modern usage, but rather, a usage conceived in the 1600s, then it stands to reason that you must also use meanings of the words in that definition as they stood in the 1600s. Otherwise, it can be said you are simply attempting to manipulate the meanings of words without any regard to their proper usage, meaning, or context. I understand that this “definition” of faith that you happened upon is the very foundation for most of your writings on this page, so it must be hard to accept that you misunderstood that definition from the start. But aren’t you happier now for knowing the truth? You need not waste any more time or efforts following a flawed belief.

And I believe that you have failed to demonstrate any ability at all but to deny a truth that is well established, while it stares you in the face.  That is what I believe to be at the core of fallacy.  Your only case, which you deem factual (“The definition of faith is not a matter of opinion however, if you choose a particular definition that is not the modern usage…”), is to embrace the fallacy that a definition more new is necessarily more true. 

What well established truth are you referring to? I have not seen you support any of the claims You have made on this website with evidence. If I’m simply missing it, please don’t keep me in the dark. Tell me what “well established truth” it is that you refer to. Also, while I do go by the proper modern definition of “faith”, I have not insisted anywhere that you do the same. If you prefer to use the KJV definition of “faith” I do not have any problem with that, so long as you use it according to its proper context. To say that faith is evidence, according to the king James interpretation, then claim that “evidence in this context is the very same evidence as we use the term today is not just misleading, its blatantly false. I feel I have adequately demonstrated why, but if you prefer, I would gladly provide sources and a deeper explanation of how the good king James would have understood “evidence”.

Well established Truth:

 “Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen.”

Lol wonderful. We’re finally getting somewhere. I’ll need some clarification though. In your “well established truth”-”faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen” what is The definition of “evidence”?

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Again, wonderful, this is The definition of evidence, but in king James’s day this really only referred to evidence as he knew it. He was considered the ultimate authority on all legal matters in his realm. When two men had a legal dispute, he might have been the person required to settle the dispute. How did he do it? Fingerprints, blood samples, dna testing, polygraphs, and really any sort of forensic testing was still unheard of. His idea of evidence came solely from witness testimony, or written documents, or written testimony. So, with this knowledge, we can only assume that when he wrote of “evidence” he meant “the words of men” whether spoken or written is inconsequential. This knowledge divorces his usage of the word “evidence” from how we use it today. Therefore, it also eliminates that particular definition of faith from any basis for a “logical understanding of Christianity”. Now that the definitions are clear, I would ask, what do you think makes this definition a “well established truth”? What establishes it as true? Let alone whether it is established well or not.

3 Things:

First and foremost:

It is True because it is the Word of God.  But I am well aware that as an avowed atheist, you cannot see Truth in His terms.

Second:

Evidence is not restricted to facts.  As the definition states, evidence can also be “…information indicating…”  Therefore, since I have information indicating it by virtue of my most recent reply to you on the Top Three Fallacies of Atheism post, I can say with a reasonable certainity that the biblical definition is true.

Third:

Every opposition that you have been able to offer to establish this definition as untrue is fallacious.  That is primarily because you have repeatedly insisted that evidence must come in the form of facts.  Clearly the definition that you have agreed with does not require that.  So, you have redefined faith by redefining evidence not to include “information indicating.”  As such you have attempted to render the biblical definition as untrue by fallacious means in suppressing the correlative.  

Last: 

In your immediately preceding reply, you have demostrated another aspect of fallacy by attempting to introduce alternatives, where there are none.  By attributing the biblical definition to your opinionated assignment of it to the King James mode of understanding evidence as something other than it is, you are committing the fallacy of denying the correlative.

For me … that’s well established Truth.  Yet, I can still see where it simply cannot be for you.  You are simply being guided by a fallacious spirit that will not permit you to see the Truth.

First-how do you know that the bible is The word of god? What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Second-evidence is restricted to facts, this is simply because opinions don’t prove anything. I almost feel silly having to explain this. Yes, evidence can be “information indicating” but it still must be factual, not opinion. Third-here’s what happened, you proposed a definition of “faith” which we will call “x”. I said that x was mistaken, gave the reasons why, and proposed my own interpretation of THe same definition which we can call “y”. Unless someone else comes along with their own interpretation, you and I are limited to discussing which is correct, x or y. I see no fallacy in this. As I said, I have supported y with logic and reason, I have explained sufficiently why x is incorrect. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to support your interpretation of x. Instead, you choose to accuse me of some fallacy which never occurred. If there is a reason which my proposal “y” is wrong, simply state your evidence. If there was some logical fallacy behind my creation of “y” again, state the evidence. Until that happens, I can only continue that y is The correct interpretation and that x fails.