My proofs for Islam

[Mystic]

I need to see what common perceptions I have with you.  Who cares about shifting burden of proof right now. Just explain to me, what you think an idea is.

LOL. Who cares?  Do you care about being intellectually honest and using sound and valid arguments during a debate?  Try. again.

Ok. To be honest, this caught me by surprise. This is the first time I'm seeing a human say idea and perception don't necessarily have to go together.  From what I understand, ideas and perception go together and can't be separated, in that ideas can't exist without perception neither can perception exist without (an) idea(s).

[LadyForCamus]

LOL. Who cares?  Do you care about being intellectually honest and using sound and valid arguments during a debate?  Try. again.

Ok. To be honest, this caught me by surprise. This is the first time I'm seeing a human say idea and perception don't  necessarily have to go together.  From what I understand, ideas and perception go together and can't be separated, in that ideas can't exist without perception neither can perception exist without (an) idea(s).

That’s not what I said, and you know it.  Please see my edited last post where I address this. You’re a mess of a moving target. Just to clarify for anyone following along, what I ACTUALLY said:

You made a claim: the mind HAS to be more than just our physical bodies. It’s on you to support that.  Saying, ‘well, I can’t imagine how our minds could be only products of physical brains and nothing more. How do YOU guys explain it?’ is both shifting the burden of proof, AND committing a fallacy.  Try. Again.

Did I say anything about “perception” there?

[Mystic]

Ok. To be honest, this caught me by surprise. This is the first time I'm seeing a human say idea and perception don't  necessarily have to go together.  From what I understand, ideas and perception go together and can't be separated, in that ideas can't exist without perception neither can perception exist without (an) idea(s).

That’s not what I said, and you know it.  Please see my edited last post where I address this.

Oh, ok, phrase how you understand my argument in your own words. I wasn't dismissing brain and relationship to perception. What I was saying, it's either us/our brains that generates the concept of self (who we are, all psychological traits, etc) or something else. Then I also argued why I think it's impossible for anything but God to perceive an accurate reality of who we are.

Then I argue why we aren't an illusion as well by saying we would not even be able to estimate who we are, as opposed to what we do now, which is estimate who we are even while veiled to the accurate reality of who we are, and no human can do without loving others and hence estimating themselves and others. This proves (2) or at least that we all believe in 2.

You said why can't it be that nothing judges us who we are including us/our brains.  This is impossible because psychological traits go with perceptions, they are ideas, and we are formed of these psychological traits. Your body as good looking as it is, doesn't define you. A perception does define you if there is a real you there. Is it possible to be other then God? I argue it can't be because only he can define us perfectly as far psychological assessment goes to who we are.

[LadyForCamus]

That’s not what I said, and you know it.  Please see my edited last post where I address this.

Oh, ok, phrase how you understand my argument in your own words. I wasn't dismissing brain and relationship to perception. What I was saying, it's either us/our brains that generates the concept of self (who we are, all psychological traits, etc) or something else. Then I also argued why I think it's impossible for anything but God to perceive an accurate reality of who we are.

You can’t go anywhere in your argument until you:

1. Demonstrate that “the self” is something more than the product of a functioning brain.

2. Successfully rule out the possibility that these selves could exist absent a god.  

You need to accomplish the above before you can even open up this “perception” can ‘o’ worms.

[Mystic]

The conclusion that God exists and sees us as we are, follows the two premises. And the two premises have been argued for. Neither arguments for those two premises assumed anything of naturalism or soul or supernatural. It did with no assumptions, and proved God with it.

[LadyForCamus]

The conclusion that God exists and sees us as we are, follows the two premises. And the two premises have been argued for.  Neither arguments for those two premises assumed anything of naturalism or soul or supernatural. It did with no assumptions, and proved God with it.

LOL, okay buddy.  You’re the one who has to live with the fact that your argument invalid AND unsound.  I’m not going to lose any sleep over your tenuous grasp on logic. You don’t want to defend your premises? That’s your business. *shrugs*

---

And just for anyone following along. You said this:

your traits, your psychological traits and mental states in actions, they are not physical. They may have backing physically like in the brain, it might generate, but the program generated even purely naturalism wise is different then the material world.

The fact that you are now trying to back peddle on a claim about immaterial selves (read: souls), that is necessary to your argument, is simply dishonest on its face. I suppose you’re free free to lie for any god you want.

[Mystic]

The conclusion that God exists and sees us as we are, follows the two premises. And the two premises have been argued for.  Neither arguments for those two premises assumed anything of naturalism or soul or supernatural. It did with no assumptions, and proved God with it.

LOL, okay buddy.  You’re the one who has to live with the fact that your argument is unsound.  I’m not going to lose any sleep over your tenuous grasp on logic.

Relax. You perhaps haven't understood the argument till today. I will go through it again.


Whether it's the brain or a soul that generates the concept of self, it's an imperfect judge to who we are as in psychological formation of traits/virtues/flaws.  It is not an accurate judge to our actions in the past, neither of ourselves nor others. At most we can estimate.

Something I argued in other threads, but not brought here, is we even tend to get severely misguided with respect to who we truly are. Either in underestimating or overestimating.  

But if there is no accurate real us and we truly believed that, we would cease to guess who we are.

And the only real accurate us, say, disembodied bodies were the case, even then, those souls cannot define who they because they are not absolute.  Any imperfection in judgment, and there is possibly infinite levels of judgement and wisdom out of sheer possibility, cannot define us. It has to be perfect and absolute in judgment to do so.

This is sufficient to remind of God. All the other premises, and argument is to ease that reminder. That is to make it easy to see we require perception, I argue we are more of a living idea that is generated. 

This would be true if brain or soul is what generates the perception, the perception can't define us accurately.

Only an absolute perfect judge can, the absolute one is what defines us in his vision, no one truly knows anyone but Him in reality. The witnessing guides and what we testify against ourselves on the day of judgment, will be closer and in alignment to his judgment, but it's still not the absolute perception of who we are.

In fact, all those premises, are not even needed. All that is required is for you to remember the one who truly sees you, because in that, you know you exist, and you know the accurate you is with His perception and awareness and no where else.

Anyways, we can move on to other reminders for God in Quran or discuss this more. Up to you.

---

your traits, your psychological traits and mental states in actions, they are not physical. They may have backing physically like in the brain, it might generate, but the program generated even purely naturalism wise is different then the material world.

The fact that you are now trying to back peddle on a claim about disembodied minds (read: souls) that is necessary to your argument is simply dishonest on its face.  I suppose you’re free free to lie for any god you want.

This was to say, even say souls and supernatural doesn't exist, the program (perception and idea, and psychological states and traits) is different then the brain, even if it's purely generated through physical means.

[LadyForCamus]

LOL, okay buddy.  You’re the one who has to live with the fact that your argument is unsound.  I’m not going to lose any sleep over your tenuous grasp on logic.

Relax. You perhaps haven't understood the argument till today. I will go through it again.


Whether it's the brain or a soul that generates the concept of self, it's an imperfect judge to who we are as in psychological formation of traits/virtues/flaws.

*sigh* So what?

It is not an accurate judge to our actions in the past, neither of ourselves nor others. At most we can estimate.

Sure. And?

Something I argued in other threads, but not brought here, is we even tend to get severely misguided with respect to who we truly are. Either in underestimating or overestimating.

I more or less agree.  So.....?

But if there is no accurate real us and we truly believed that, we would cease to guess who we are.

Demonstrably false. Got anything else, or...?

[Mystic]

Demonstrably false. Got anything else, or...?

It's not false. If there is no real you, you don't have any direction to estimate or guestimate or move towards. No poling guidance to estimate who you. It's a fabrication, an illusion in your mind.

The accurate you is something that has to be assessed perfectly to exist.   Love is recognition of value, it's not valuing based on whims and conjectures value to be what it wants to be, rather,  it seeks to unveil and truly know value for what it is, and this knowledge is all perception but not from an accurate closeness, it's like seeing the sun from a far place, in others, in ourselves, and in all that we see the source who is it's endless treasurer of that blessed water and light.

Sure, if you are going to sake we can just make up who we are and it doesn't matter, that's fine, but I know deep inside you don't believe that at all.

We have to build on what we know, and you always knew there is a real accurate construct of who you are. The perfect perceiver and judge is the only candidate to hold who you are accountable, and to that being is the return.

[LadyForCamus]

MK, your argument is a basket of unsupported assertions, with a conclusion that doesn’t follow even if your premises were true. You need to go back to the drawing board.