John Liebner 
Member since Jun 9, 2016

Custom Lists

  • Zip.



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky spreads the good word about brains and religion

I think that an argument can be made to refute the notion that God or gods are merely projections of needs. Here it goes-- I'd posit: Yet as humans we have the power to discern that we perceive reality AND attempt to conceive reality (i.e. explain it). These two functions of consciousness operate according to two different starting points. Perception begins with innate knowledge that matter does not "create" itself. When parts of the human cell are observed to demonstrate programming--perception enables the thought and or question about "What caused this information to exist?" The answer to that question is a function of the second mode of knowing. The second mode of knowing, conception, follows perception and attempts to interpret the meaning of what is observed. Clearly science begins at the second starting point and thus must follow observations to provide operational definitions and descriptions. This gives us technology or technical knowledge but tells us nothing about what's beyond the material universe. To claim that religion simply serves a biological imperative or social need depends upon circular reasoning. There is no God--our needs determine our faith--why--because there is no God "out there." Knowledge of God requires that perception be evaluated. This is the realm of philosophy, apologetics, and forensic investigation and reasoning. The appearance of matter only happened once. According to Hume we'd have to deny this obvious perception based upon the fact that it's a one-time occurrence. And if knowledge only comes by experience as Lock posited, and the sudden appearance of matter happens once not to mention without primary witness, therefore we'd have to deny that it happened. Obviously this is absurd--by perception but not by conception. Conception follows deductive reasoning and if a premise appears to have merit then the conclusions that follow seem to bear truth--real or actual knowledge. Thus someone like Hume can posit the idea of the impossibility of miracles by dismissal for lack of replicability and within the realm of that premise the conclusion seems to prove the folly of faith. However when tested by perceived knowledge the conception becomes obviously flawed. Thus an axiom that perceived laws or reality govern conceived laws or reality. Denying the reality of perceived truth cannot stand because it requires perception to make its argument--that perceived reality cannot exist. But then this refutes itself--which by definition is unreasonable.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by John Liebner on 06/09/2016 at 9:29 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2018, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation