Why Science is So Hard For People

Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:24 am

Hey Born, I like to argue in this way: I call it:

The Argument Against the Trinity From Multiple Minds.

1.) A Mind is associated with one being
2.) The Trinity is told to be one being consisting of Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit.
3.) At least, Jesus and God have their own minds.
4.) The Trinity cannot be one being.

Smile

Help find holes in this please. Thanks.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

infidelguy wrote:

Hey Born, I like to argue in this way: I call it:
The Argument Against the Trinity From Multiple Minds.
1.) A Mind is associated with one being
2.) The Trinity is told to be one being consisting of Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit.
3.) At least, Jesus and God have their own minds.
4.) The Trinity cannot be one being.
Smile

Help find holes in this please. Thanks.

Hello Reggie!

As far as I can see your argument holds up ok, but you'll need to careful of the definitions you use. (See below).

Another thing I would be careful about is using this argument in debates with christians. This is because they could (legitimately, I reckon) claim that you are using limited human definitions and words. According to them god cannot be categorized, pigeonholed or limited in any way using language. To them he is transcendant, limitless and beyond human comprehension.

If you look you'll see that I came to a very similar impasse with Missionary in the, "Free Will" thread. I'm still waiting on him to get back to me there.

In a strange way people of a religious frame of mind make themselves invulnerable to logic, rational thought and reasoned argument by demoting these tools to the level of "limited human understanding". They say that concepts like the trinity, resurrection and miracles are bound to seem illogical, irrational and unreasoned because the human mind falls short of the task.

Also bear in mind the article that PJS linked to this forum.
Put simply, there are those who will always prefer to trust the word of pastors, priests and politicians over scientists.
Combine this preference with their rejection of rationality and you have an almost perfect recipe for mass hysteria, a.k.a. fundamentalist religion.

Anyways, enough ranting...

Going back to your Multiple Minds argument.

1. Please provide a definition of what you mean by the words, "Mind" , "Associated" and "Being". I ask this because christians love to destroy the meaning of an argument by attacking the language used to frame it.
2. Correct. The bible does say this.
3. Correct, but incomplete - from a christian p.o.v. They would claim that the holy spirit has a mind too. A descriptive term for it/him/her? used in the new testament is the advocate . This is meant in the legal sense. It's hard to see how a legal advocate could carry out it's job without a mind to direct it's efforts.
4. Not verifiable until we get proper definitions of Mind, Associated and Being.

I hope this helps. In the meantime I'll do some more thinking along these lines and perhaps I can come up with more. No doubt other members will chip in too.

Thanks,

BornAgainAthiest.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

infidelguy wrote:

Hey Born, I like to argue in this way: I call it:
The Argument Against the Trinity From Multiple Minds.
1.) A Mind is associated with one being
2.) The Trinity is told to be one being consisting of Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit.
3.) At least, Jesus and God have their own minds.
4.) The Trinity cannot be one being. Smile

Help find holes in this please. Thanks.

As far as I can see your argument holds up ok, but you'll need to careful of the definitions you use. (See below).

1. Please provide a definition of what you mean by the words, "Mind" , "Associated" and "Being". I ask this because christians love to destroy the meaning of an argument by attacking the language used to frame it.
2. Correct. The bible does say this.
3. Correct, but incomplete - from a christian p.o.v. They would claim that the holy spirit has a mind too. A descriptive term for it/him/her? used in the new testament is the advocate . This is meant in the legal sense. It's hard to see how a legal advocate could carry out it's job without a mind to direct it's efforts.
4. Not verifiable until we get proper definitions of Mind, Associated and Being.

Ok, I'm back again with further thoughts on the Multiple Minds Argument.
Sorry, but it's not good news! Sad

Re: Point #1. Not proven.
This is a statement of fact only within an Earthly frame of reference. We currently have no knowledge of any single lifeform that has more than one mind. Our (rational & testable) knowledge does not extend to other kinds of reality, the afterlife, the spiritual realms, etc. Therefore Point 1 ceases to be a statement and becomes an assumption when taken in the context of Points 2, 3 and 4.
Even if further definition of the meaning of the words, "Mind", "Associated" and "Being" were provided this would still be true.

Re: Point #2. Confirmed as correct.
Read John 16:13 & 14. Here the (Holy) spirit of truth is described as a "he", indicating that the christian trinity consists of three separate persons, each having their own mind, seamlessly incorporated into one triune god or godhead.

Re: Point #3. Confirmed as correct.
Therefore all three components of the trinity (father, son and holy spirit) have their own minds.

Re: Point #4. Not proven. Because the accuracy of Point 1 cannot be safely extended beyond our Earthly frames of reference, nor to the context of Points 2 and 3, the final Point, that "The trinity cannot be one being" fails.

Now don't take it too hard friend! Smile

The failure of the Multiple Minds Argument stems from a common misconception about the limits of rational argument. Rationality can only deal with what is rational, testable and subject to the principles of cause-and-effect. That is why it is such an excellent tool for discovering the nature of our reality. Notice that I have emboldened the word, "our". A statement of fact about our reality cannot be taken as a statement of fact about another reality. That is why it fails as a proof and becomes an (untestable) assumption.

Sorry again, but there it is.

Please let me know what you think about this. I have some more ideas but I await your reply.

Many thanks for engaging my brain in such an interesting task.

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:49 am

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

We currently have no knowledge of any single lifeform that has more than one mind.

Actually, if I may disagree - I think that humans do have multiple minds. We may have only one brain, but I think that our consciousness is only a tiny part of the whole system. It's just that its the only thing we notice.
My evidence would be the inner conflicts we experience so often; anger, sadness, fear and so on. These are the "commands" our subconscious mind tells our consciousness, which we often don't have control of.

Therefore I tend to think that a "trinity" from a naturalistic, hypothetical perspective isn't too implausible.

If I was a christian, I would probably argue that everything that exists is a part of god anyway, since he is the creator. He can read every mind, everything "belongs" to him. The trinity therefore is really just god plus his "special" creation Jesus (or rather his soul) and the holy ghost which perhaps is like a part of gods body.
If you stretch it, you can say that everythin is god, which some christians do.
Also the trinity as "one being" can be meant metaphorically.

Nevertheless, it's still a claim which is asserted without evidence and even without a clear definition, as far as I know.

So, like almost every other biblical claim, it can be dismissed just as easily Very Happy

.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 525

Quote:

I'm still waiting on him to get back to me there.

And he never will.

Quote:

Actually, if I may disagree - I think that humans do have multiple minds. We may have only one brain, but I think that our consciousness is only a tiny part of the whole system. It's just that its the only thing we notice.

Define the word "mind", please.

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:52 pm

Cygnus wrote:

Define the word "mind", please.

A "part" of the central nervous system which processes information and gives tasks to the body to act accordingly.

I believe that the subconsciousness - which regulates all bodily activities and primarly tries to let the body survive and reproduce - and the consciousness - which gives us self-awareness and creativity among other things - can be considered seperate "parts" in an abstract sense (since they don't seem to be necessarily seperate organs, yet can (make the body) act differently).

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:32 am

Well, we usually don't think of individuals having more than one mind, unless there's some disorder or something. Even then, some would argue that it's still one mind, just different personalities using the mind at any one time.

I think the argument I was attempting to fashion really has more to do with the claim that the trinity is one being.

I simply cannot see how the Trinity is one being if each being has a separate mind. Perhaps someone can help me see this.. then I'll withdraw or revise the argument.

and Born, of course number one is an assumption. What else did you expect it to be? However, I thought it was self-evident. I suppose I'll need some evidence of there being multiple minds in one being. Otherwise, I think the first line is pretty true statement. I suppose it could be revised to state:

1.) The Trinity is a being said to be a single being consisting of 3 parts, (Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit).
2.) A being is anything that exists.
3.) A being with intent, possesses a mind.
4.) A mind is recognized by a beings ability to possess thoughts, to plan, to desire, to reason, among many other things.
5.) At the very 'least', Jesus and God are beings that have their own minds.
6.) In having their own minds, they are separate beings.
7.) The Trinity cannot be one being.

All, I read your post and I can't help think that if they try to use the God is all things arguments argument and therefore all minds are his, what-have-you, then the trinity still doesn't exist as it's more than just a trinity, it would be billions of minds. Smile

Billionity?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 525

Quote:

I believe that the subconsciousness - which regulates all bodily activities and primarly tries to let the body survive and reproduce - and the consciousness - which gives us self-awareness and creativity among other things - can be considered seperate "parts" in an abstract sense (since they don't seem to be necessarily seperate organs, yet can (make the body) act differently).

But all of those are part of the same mind, right?

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:49 am

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

I believe that the subconsciousness - which regulates all bodily activities and primarly tries to let the body survive and reproduce - and the consciousness - which gives us self-awareness and creativity among other things - can be considered seperate "parts" in an abstract sense (since they don't seem to be necessarily seperate organs, yet can (make the body) act differently).

But all of those are part of the same mind, right?

They're all parts of one organ, the brain, but they work on different levels, independent from each other.
Nevertheless, of course it's debatable; if you define brain=mind then it of course won't be true, for example.
But my point is to show that a mind, consisting of intelligence and the ability to operate the body isn't necessarily limited to one body or even one brain. I don't think it's implausible that evolution could have created creatures with multiple minds if it was necessary. Perhaps in a billion years, if man is still alive, humans will have another, a third consciousness, which will make us appear like pinheaded monkeys in comparison...

I think I wouldn't claim that people with multi-personality disorder have multiple minds, though, since personalities in my opinion are just "programs" of the subconsciousness, like multiple installations of windows on one pc.

But that aside, the problem of the trinity in my opinion is the fact that christians want to have everything and don't care a whole lot about logic. "We worship only one god! Jesus and the holy ghost are divine as god himself! But it's okay because they form one being!"

Of course calling it one entity is an effort to conceal their mistake and preserve their monotheism XD ...

How about this:
1.) The Trinity is said to be a single being consisting of 3 parts, (Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit).
2.) A being is anything that has an existing material body.
3.) A being with intent, reasoning ability, desires, etc. has to possess (at least) a mind.
4.) A body can have a mind, but a mind must have a material body.
5.) All parts of the trinity are immaterial.
6.) The trinity doesn't physically exist.
Very Happy

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

I'm still waiting on him to get back to me there.

And he never will.

Quote:

Actually, if I may disagree - I think that humans do have multiple minds. We may have only one brain, but I think that our consciousness is only a tiny part of the whole system. It's just that its the only thing we notice.

Define the word "mind", please.

Ok Cygnus, how about this?

I can only work accurately within the only frame of reference that I know - the human mind. Anything else (for me at least) is speculation and conjecture and so (as far as I'm concerned) shouldn't be used in a proof or an argument, where scrupulous accuracy is vital.

I contend that the human mind is a living system of matter, energy and information. It is generated by the dynamic interplay of chemical, electrical and informational processes within the human brain. Remove any of these three things and you do not have a mind.
The mind has a wide range of functions and abilities including identity and self-awareness, the capacity to change and grow, forethought and planning, self-regulation and management, the recognition of an external reality and the reality of other minds, etc. , etc. ....the list can go on and on.

Anyway, how's that for a start?

BornAgainAthiest.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

[quote="infidelguy"]
and Born, of course number one is an assumption. What else did you expect it to be? However, I thought it was self-evident. I suppose I'll need some evidence of there being multiple minds in one being. Otherwise, I think the first line is pretty true statement. I suppose it could be revised to state:

1.) The Trinity is a being said to be a single being consisting of 3 parts, (Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit).
2.) A being is anything that exists.
3.) A being with intent, possesses a mind.
4.) A mind is recognized by a beings ability to possess thoughts, to plan, to desire, to reason, among many other things.
5.) At the very 'least', Jesus and God are beings that have their own minds.
6.) In having their own minds, they are separate beings.
7.) The Trinity cannot be one being.
quote]

Hello again!

Hmmm. I can see why you might be reluctant to let go of what seems like a good argument but do you remember what I said earlier in this thread about being careful of the language you phrase things in? You have to watch how you say things. I caught myself out by not defining my terms and Cygnus, quite rightly, asked me to do so. Hopefully I've started the ball rolling on that one.

Agreed, Point #1 is an assumption. But therein lies the problem, for me at least.

As far as I'm concerned you can't start an argument with an assumption (1.) and end it with a statement (7.)

Starting an argument with a factual statement, "The sky is blue." is ok because that's something that is A . Testable and B . Generally agreed upon. But the problem with the Multiple Minds Argument (either version) is the language the first point is phrased in.

"The Trinity is a being said to be a single being consisting of 3 parts, (Jesus, Yahweh and the Holy Spirit).

What we have here is an untestable claim and therefore an untestable assumption.
The Trinity is said to be... Here the source of this claim is the bible, which is (supposedly) a historical record of events that cannot be tested any more than doctors today can test if Alexander the Great was a diabetic. Unless there exists a perfectly preserved sample of Alexander's blood (and it can be proved to be his) nobody can say for sure wether he was a diabetic or not. We can read historical accounts of his appearance and behaviour and assume that he was or he wasn't, but our assumptions are not proven facts. Because they are not tested, proven facts they cannot be used as statements within an argument.

Let's also look at the quality of the source that is making the claim.
I've already said that the bible is "supposedly" a historical document. If I'm expressing my own doubts about it's validity then I can't really use it's claims as a tested and proven starting point in an argument about the trinity, can I?

Also, going back to Alexander for a moment, there are independently verified accounts of his conquests from several different sources. These can be compared against each other to test their accuracy and validity. The same cannot be said of the bible.
It is the only record of events like...
* Moses' conversation with god on Mount Sinai.
* Jesus turning wine into water.
* The apostle John experiencing his Revealation on the island of Patmos.
These things are not and cannot be confirmed or disproven because no other neutral, independently verifiable record of these events exists.
Their truth or falsity has to be a matter of faith - which is a strictly personal thing. Faith is not testable. It is a matter of assuming that something claiming to be true is true.

Which brings us back to the opening sentence of the Multiple Minds Argument.

As long as this argument starts with an unprovable, faith-based assumption and not a testable statement it will always fail, no matter how good the following points of the argument are. I'm sorry, but I can't say this any other way.

So to sum up I reckon that there are three basic points to be addressed here.
1. Earlier in this thread I mentioned the problem of arguing from our Earth-based frame of reference to a non-Earthly one. That just doesn't work.
2. Proper definition of the terms to be used has to be agreed upon.
3. A valid argument cannot begin from an assumption. That doesn't work either.

I suspect that ANY attempt to use rational, logical argument to disprove anything in the realm of faith will not work. The two disciplines simply conflict. Perhaps a better route would be to look at the lives of the faithful, which (supposedly) should be outward expression of their inner faith. Where their lives can be shown to be in conflict with what they profess to believe might be the way to go.

Once again, thanks for initiating this line of thought. I appreciate being asked to think long and hard about these matters.

No hard feelings I hope,

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:57 pm

I'm not reluctant to let go of anything. Why would you think that? I remove bad arguments quite often.

Most of your post doesn't need to be addressed as it's based off a major mistake that I see many folks make when trying to address arguments such as these. "The argument isn't for you!"

The argument is for those that believe 1 is true. Since you don't.. you are already arguing from the wrong perspective. I'm not trying to design an argument for you to accept.

Think about that next time before you post a criticism. It's a common mistake though so I understand.

Confident Learner Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 78

infidelguy wrote:

I'm not reluctant to let go of anything. Why would you think that? I remove bad arguments quite often.

Most of your post doesn't need to be addressed as it's based off a major mistake that I see many folks make when trying to address arguments such as these. "The argument isn't for you!"

The argument is for those that believe 1 is true. Since you don't.. you are already arguing from the wrong perspective. I'm not trying to design an argument for you to accept.

Think about that next time before you post a criticism. It's a common mistake though so I understand.

Sorry if I got it wrong but you did say, "Help find the holes in this please."

If I took that to mean, "Help find the holes in this [from my own viewpoint] please", then I apologize. As you say, it's a common enough error and an easy misunderstanding to make.

So, in the interests of clear lines of communication here, would I be right in assuming that your thinking runs like this... ?

BornAgainAthiest used to share the same beliefs as born-again fundamentalist christians so he should be able to look at the Multiple Minds Argument from their p.o.v. Therefore I'll ask him to help find the holes in this argument. Am I far off-beam here?

Assuming that this is more-or-less what you had in mind then, Yes, of course I'd be happy to do so.

Now, may I be bold enough to make one observation (from my own pov) and ask one question?

Firstly Reggie, since I've concluded that the christian belief system is internally inconsistent, illogical and irrational whatever tests we're going to apply to the Multiple Minds Argument will also be just as inconsistent, etc.
Fine, I can go with that. I'll spend some quality time thinking this over from my old pov and get back to you in this thread. Ok?

Now for the question.

Would you be interested in hearing about (what I consider to be) a very effective way of challenging any religiously-minded person about their beliefs? It doesn't actually involve looking for flaws within their faith. Ironically enough I learnt this mode of attack in a book by a respected christian leader, when I was zealous christian. So using it against them is kinda satisfying. Wink

Please lmk if you're interested. If so I can start a fresh thread explaining it so that everyone here can see and say what they want about it.

Thanks,

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:10 am

I understand. Again, just keep the various audiences in mind. That is all. I have given this argument to many and they have changed their minds. So it works pretty well.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:46 am

infidelguy wrote:

Hey Born, I like to argue in this way: I call it:

The Argument Against the Trinity From Multiple Minds.

1.) A Mind is associated with one being
2.) The Trinity is told to be one being consisting of Jesus, Yahweh and The Holy Spirit.
3.) At least, Jesus and God have their own minds.
4.) The Trinity cannot be one being.

Smile

Help find holes in this please. Thanks.

Maybe Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are like the Borg and have a group mind, yet remain separate beings Wink

Edit: I was just thinking of something else, Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit have in common with the Borg; their origins stem from the same imaginative force… humans.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore