the question "prove God exists" is a logical fallicy

Eh, to be honest, I dont' blame Wellwisher for believing that... it is one of, if not perhaps the single most, common myths about the brain:

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/left-brain-right-brain.htm

It surprised me to find this... as the left vs right brain theory was something I learned in my high-school psychology classes... go figure!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I certainly blame him.
And with good reason.
In the last couple of weeks I have pointed out several times that it is a myth. (Not least post #28 just after he made the same claim).
And the "complaint" isn't just about continually posting that myth - it's the accompanying pseudo-scientific/ intellectual trash that comes along with it.
Plus the fact the spouts all of this bilge in each of his posts and not once does he provide any support whatsoever for his claims.
He has a habit of posting arm-waving bullshit, conflating incompatible concepts (as if the comparison was in any way valid) and extrapolating meaninglessly,
Oh, and nor does he acknowledge corrections (once - to my memory - thus far).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fair enough I suppose. As I said, i was rather surprised to learn of that being "debunked" myself - granted, I also learned of this particular case this week, of a woman with no cerebellum...

Our knowledge of the brain is rapidly improving... but the more we learn, the more we realize we really don't understand it at all

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If that's the case, then they are awfully Hebrew-centric. The first four commandments are:

1. I am the Lord they God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

This would seem to make any theistic religious tradition with the possible exception of Christianity and Islam (who claim to worship the same god) awfully problematic. What are we to do with those who worship Vishnu or Shiva?

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Taken literally, that would seem to prohibit any kind of representational art whatsoever. (And possibly photography as well.) Even if it is restricted to religious art that attempts to represent the divine in sensible form, it remains highly problematic. (Does Jesus get a special-pass because of his supposed incarnation?)

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Which once again simply assumes that the Hebrew god is and must necessarily be everyone's god.

4. Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.

It's interesting that the more developed Hebrew law found in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and elsewhere is in some large part concerned with the interpretation and enforcement of the 'decalogue' commandments. And significantly, violation of the commandments typically carries the penalty of death:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Testament

We find the worship of different gods punishable by death, the religious use of so-called 'idols' punishable by death, blasphemy punishable by death, the violation of the sabbath punishable by death, along with death penalties for things like children disrespecting their parents, adultery and so on.

 

Yeah, there is a lot of death in the old testament.

To be honest, I'm not really sure how that is supposed to be reconciled with the New Testament and the New Covenant in Christ... it's also one of the reasons why I don't take the bible "verbatim"... too much killing for my taste. It seems to me like the scribes of the day went too much into their personal thoughts on how God's will should be carried out... but that's just me.

 

I don't either.

It's something that's widely believed and repeated out there, even in university classrooms. It even has a grain of truth to it.

Nevertheless, I'm personally inclined to think that it's over-stated and to largely agree with the thing that Kittamaru posted.

The stronger interpretations of brain lateralization look to me like an attempt to provide a scientific physiological basis for the preexisting 'two-cultures' cultural dichotomy between the 'STEM' subjects (science, math and applied subjects like engineering) and the supposedly more intuitive 'humanities' subjects like art, poetry, literature, music and so on.

That's a very tempting idea, but I suspect that it might be a bit simplistic.

I have no objection to Wellwisher posting about it. I might not entirely agree with him, but I rarely agree entirely with anyone.

The bottom line is that Wellwisher enjoys posting his ideas and isn't that what Sciforums is all about? Those who disagree with Wellwisher are free to either ignore him or make posts expressing their disagreements.

 

hmm.. so belief would be the latter, and knowledge the former? this would explain a lot about why the 'God' debate is so unresolvable..
religionist vs scientist... left brain vs right brain..

YES! don't spend the next 20 pages arguing about who's right and who's wrong..

 

Surely the subject has nothing to do with one's perspective. We are try to come to a universal conclusion based on evidence. Feelings aren't evidence.

 

Digression: left brain / right brain differentiation was all the rage a few decades ago. wellwisher's notions are outdated.

There is some specialization, there is some merit to it, but modern brain scanning techniques have largely debunked the notion that they are so clearly defined as we once liked to think.

 

The question of , " prove god exists " can be done

Just look into prehistory , the Sumerians to start , the so called " mythology " of our ancient past , god is there

The thing is though , the Sumerians NEVER called them " gods " in the beginning

 

Nonsense.
Regardless of what the Sumerians were writing about [sup]1[/sup], written documents of largely unknown provenance that can't be confirmed independently aren't proof.
(Otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument at all: the Bible would be "proof").

1 And they certainly weren't what Sitchin and his band of loons claims they were.

 

certainty is not proof, one can be certain that the odds of a premise is true, but it does not become 'I know'(knowledge) until it is tested enough times to conclude 1+1 always = 2, if one test showed that 1+1 did not equal 2 then it would not be knowledge, with archeology it takes a long time to test the 'always' part, with religion certainty is indoctrinated into those who follow religion, but still, without proof, it is belief.

 

There is proof

Perhistory as I said shows this

But as I also said the Sumerians NEVER called them gods

 

No.

But you're wrong.

So what?
You also claimed that despite what they were called they are/ were gods.

 

what he said...

"written documents of largely unknown provenance that can't be confirmed independently aren't proof"

 

The written documents are very well known

 

I will let dwy argue this out.. he is better on that side of it..

 

So what?
When you say "very well known" I should point out, again, that what Sitchin et al claim about them is sheer crap.
I.e. they ARE well known but certain people have chosen to invent their own interpretations of them. (An interpretation that has no basis in reality whatsoever).

 

The written documents are very well known

 

Repeating the same inane assertion doesn't help your argument.