The universe doesn't need a god to exist

[Miserabilia]

The universe doesn't need a god to exist.
Don't beleive me?
Do you beleive Stephen Hawking?
You better.
I'll just quote him, from the book "The Grand Design"

"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero,
and it costs energy to create a body,
how can a whole universe be created from nothing?

That is why there must be a law like gravity.
Because gravity is attractive,
gravitational energy is negative.
One has to work to seperate a gravitationally bound system,
such as the earth and the moon.

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110423172315/half-life/en/images/6/61/Moon_2.jpg

This negative energy can balance the positive
energy needed to create matter, but it's not quite
that simple.
The negative ravitational energy of the earth,
for example,
is less than a billionth of the positive energy
of the matter particles the earth is made of.

A body such as a star will have more negative
gravitational energy, and the smaller it is
(the closer the different parts of it are to each other),
the greater this negative gravitational energy will be.

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/012/cache/stars_1230_600x450.jpg

But before it can become greater than
the positive energy of the matter,
the star will collapse to a black hole,
and black holes are positive energy.
That's why empty space is stable.
Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear,
out of nothing.

But a whole universe can.
Because gravity shapes space and time,
it allows space-time to be locally stable,
but globally unstable. On the scale of the
entire universe,
the positive energy of the matter can be balanced
by the negative gravitational energy.

http://www.googleadvies.nl/userfiles/balance.jpg

Because ther is a law like gravity,
the universe can and will create itself from nothing...
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something,
rather then nothing, why the universe exists,
why we exist.

It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/The_grand_design_book_cover.jpg

http://www.sun.org/uploads/images/Black_hole.jpg
the star will collapse to a black hole,
and black holes are positive energy.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2011/06/bigbang.jpeg
the universe can and will create itself from nothing...
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something




----
Well, I hope that was convincing enough for you. :yes:

[baseballjock]

to make it simple u beleve in evelution

[Miserabilia]

to make it simple u beleve in evelution

What?
How does evolution have anything to do with it? lol!

[baseballjock]

look at the title ... the univerce dosent need a god to exsist

[conniption]

look at the title ... the univerce dosent need a god to exsist

Evolution usually pertains to living organisms changing over time. This thread has to do with how God isn't necessary for a universe to be created. Evolution is completely unrelated.

[Stronk Serb]

Yes. The universe was spontaneusly created. We then spontaneusly evolved.

[abc983055235235231a]

Just to be clear:
(1) the fact that Stephen Hawking says something does not mean that that something is correct
(1a) the fact that Stephen Hawking says that the universe could spontaneously come into existence does not mean that the universe could actually spontaneously come into existence

(2) the fact that the universe could spontaneously come into existence does not have any bearing on whether or not the universe did spontaneously come into existence

The point being that this really has no bearing on whether or not a god of some sort exists.

[AgentHomo]

Evolution usually pertains to living organisms changing over time. This thread has to do with how God isn't necessary for a universe to be created. Evolution is completely unrelated.

Just to be clear:
(1) the fact that Stephen Hawking says something does not mean that that something is correct
(1a) the fact that Stephen Hawking says that the universe could spontaneously come into existence does not mean that the universe could actually spontaneously come into existence

(2) the fact that the universe could spontaneously come into existence does not have any bearing on whether or not the universe did spontaneously come into existence

The point being that this really has no bearing on whether or not a god of some sort exists.

To the OP, I totally agree with you. I have always admired Hawking's work as a brilliant scientist and as an atheist activist. But I do have to agree with both Mirman and Flexography. Evolution doesn't have to do with spontaneous creation or whether god exists or not and just because someone says that god doesn't exist and gives a list of supposed reasons doesn't mean they are completely right. Again, I totally agree with your views as a militant atheist but I would just like some more weight on the reasons and facts other than the fact that it takes energy to create matter when the laws of physics state that matter can't be created from nothing, which, in my opinion, disproves the theory of Genesis.

Matter can't be created nor destroyed.

[Miserabilia]

Just to be clear:
(1) the fact that Stephen Hawking says something does not mean that that something is correct
(1a) the fact that Stephen Hawking says that the universe could spontaneously come into existence does not mean that the universe could actually spontaneously come into existence

(2) the fact that the universe could spontaneously come into existence does not have any bearing on whether or not the universe did spontaneously come into existence

The point being that this really has no bearing on whether or not a god of some sort exists.

The fact that Hawking said it doesn't make it true,
but what he said is a briliant and perfect way to describe it.
It all fits and makes sense with all the natural laws we know,
and everything he says is true/observable up to the part of the universe coming into existence.
What we do know is that theoreticaly a universe can come into existence spontaniously.
So a god isn't needed; like hawking said at the end.

[abc983055235235231a]

The fact that Hawking said it doesn't make it true,
but what he said is a briliant and perfect way to describe it.
It all fits and makes sense with all the natural laws we know,
and everything he says is true/observable up to the part of the universe coming into existence.
What we do know is that theoreticaly a universe can come into existence spontaniously.
So a god isn't needed; like hawking said at the end.

My point is that people think that Hawking's book is a lot more important than it is. No educated person ever denied the possibility of the universe coming into existence spontaneously. They may not have known the details of how such a thing could occur (and, in fact, even after reading that book, almost no one would have even a basic understanding of how such a thing could occur), but they still accepted that it could happen. The only people who disagreed with this weren't worth taking seriously in the first place.
That said, it is equally within the realm of possibility that the universe came into existence as a result of a divine creator. Both of these theories have existed for a long time, and Hawking's book does nothing to resolve the conflict between the two views.

[Lovelife090994]

To many people the idea of a God is impossible, to others it is possible an true. No one can just march and say that God does not exist. Militant or not, I would never march in a churh saying God is a lie or go to a science lab and say God is the only way. Stephen Hawking is brilliant but all said by him does not equal guaranteed fact. We all have our different beliefs.

[Miserabilia]

My point is that people think that Hawking's book is a lot more important than it is. No educated person ever denied the possibility of the universe coming into existence spontaneously. They may not have known the details of how such a thing could occur (and, in fact, even after reading that book, almost no one would have even a basic understanding of how such a thing could occur), but they still accepted that it could happen. The only people who disagreed with this weren't worth taking seriously in the first place.
That said, it is equally within the realm of possibility that the universe came into existence as a result of a divine creator. Both of these theories have existed for a long time, and Hawking's book does nothing to resolve the conflict between the two views.

I completely aggree.
My point was that a god isn't needed for it, though;
many christians use arguments to try and form that the universe cannot exist without it being created by a god because it would break the first law of thermodynamics; but hawking actually proofs this is not the case, the proof being gravity and dark holes.


To many people the idea of a God is impossible, to others it is possible an true. No one can just march and say that God does not exist. Militant or not, I would never march in a churh saying God is a lie or go to a science lab and say God is the only way. Stephen Hawking is brilliant but all said by him does not equal guaranteed fact. We all have our different beliefs.

I'm not marching in, just sayin' the a god isn't needed for out universe to exist, because that's an argument many apologists use

[Lovelife090994]

I completely aggree.
My point was that a god isn't needed for it, though;
many christians use arguments to try and form that the universe cannot exist without it being created by a god because it would break the first law of thermodynamics; but hawking actually proofs this is not the case, the proof being gravity and dark holes.




I'm not marching in, just sayin' the a god isn't needed for out universe to exist, because that's an argument many apologists use

Apologist? Are you sure you are not doing the same? In another thread you blamed a whole catastrophe on a religion that has been a scapegoat for milennia.

[abc983055235235231a]

I completely aggree.
My point was that a god isn't needed for it, though;
many christians use arguments to try and form that the universe cannot exist without it being created by a god because it would break the first law of thermodynamics; but hawking actually proofs this is not the case, the proof being gravity and dark holes.




I'm not marching in, just sayin' the a god isn't needed for out universe to exist, because that's an argument many apologists use

That's true. But to be honest, none of those people were physicists anyway, so they were never really in a position to say "well this violates this principle". So I totally see where you are coming from, and you're right, but it's sort of sad that this is even necessary, because no weight should have been given to their opinions in the first place.


Apologist? Are you sure you are not doing the same? In another thread you blamed a whole catastrophe on a religion that has been a scapegoat for milennia.
....why are these things mutually exclusive?

[JamesSuperBoy]

If people have any belief - I respect that - as long as they respect my rights to belief or not.

Maybe some need a belief or faith or religion.

[Miserabilia]

Apologist? Are you sure you are not doing the same? In another thread you blamed a whole catastrophe on a religion that has been a scapegoat for milennia.

That's not what being an apologist means.

[Lovelife090994]

That's not what being an apologist means.

You missed my questions.

[Miserabilia]

You missed my questions.

Okay, here you go:

Are you sure you are not doing the same? In another thread you blamed a whole catastrophe on a religion that has been a scapegoat for milennia.

No, I am not doing the same, because that is not what being an apolgist means.

[darthearth]

Just a quick check to point out that this says nothing about the cause of the quantum field before the big bang. There still ultimately needs to be a transcendent cause. :-)

[Its Pretty]

Either way, it is impossible to 100% disprove the existence of a deity. Is it possible... to disprove the Christian deity? Yes, 100%.

[ImagineRepublicCity]

Putting basically everything in a bubble, everything is possible really. A higher power could've created the universe, you can believe in the big bang, etc, etc. However, at the current moment, there is nothing we can do to prove any of this. The fact that The Big Bang is at the moment the most logical reasoning behind the making of the universe, scientists believe it.

[AlexOnToast]

What I hate is when people use the argument "Something can't come from nothing, the universe HAD to have been created by God!!!"

Then please explain to me who made God? It's a non-argument....

[Miserabilia]

Putting basically everything in a bubble, everything is possible really. A higher power could've created the universe, you can believe in the big bang, etc, etc. However, at the current moment, there is nothing we can do to prove any of this. The fact that The Big Bang is at the moment the most logical reasoning behind the making of the universe, scientists believe it.

Well the whole point of this thread is basicly that the total mass and energy of the unvirse is theoreticaly proven to be zero, so there is no need for a "making" of the universe.

Just a quick check to point out that this says nothing about the cause of the quantum field before the big bang. There still ultimately needs to be a transcendent cause. :-)

Explain?

[darthearth]

What I hate is when people use the argument "Something can't come from nothing, the universe HAD to have been created by God!!!"

Then please explain to me who made God? It's a non-argument....



Well the whole point of this thread is basicly that the total mass and energy of the unvirse is theoreticaly proven to be zero, so there is no need for a "making" of the universe.



Explain?

Just reminding you both of my Transcendent Cause to the Universe thread (I had it locked to keep as a reference): http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197693

And Cheesee, we have been around and around on this on your other threads. This saying of Hawking's does nothing to quell the question of what is ultimately responsible for our existence. I believe 100% that this responsible party is a creator God, and throw in all my mentions of evolutionary creation, and why it is reasonable to hold to it in the Science vs. Creation thread: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=199529

But technically, the point has been made again and again, we don't know enough to definitively say that the universe does not need a God to exist. That is overstating scientific knowledge by far. P-consciousness, transcendent cause and the lack of proof of atheistic evolution throw reasonable doubt on any such claim. If I went on with this it would largely be cut and paste from the other threads.

And Alex, the question of where God came from is unanswerable because this God must be transcendent to us, this question is addressed extensively on my thread.

[Miserabilia]

Just reminding you both of my Transcendent Cause to the Universe thread (I had it locked to keep as a reference): http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197693

And Cheesee, we have been around and around on this on your other threads. This saying of Hawking's does nothing to quell the question of what is ultimately responsible for our existence. I believe 100% that this responsible party is a creator God, and throw in all my mentions of evolutionary creation, and why it is reasonable to hold to it in the Science vs. Creation thread: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=199529

But technically, the point has been made again and again, we don't know enough to definitively say that the universe does not need a God to exist. That is overstating scientific knowledge by far. P-consciousness, transcendent cause and the lack of proof of atheistic evolution throw reasonable doubt on any such claim. If I went on with this it would largely be cut and paste from the other threads.

And Alex, the question of where God came from is unanswerable because this God must be transcendent to us, this question is addressed extensively on my thread.

I'll continue this in the science vs creation thread then

[The Trendy Wolf]

To many people the idea of a God is impossible, to others it is possible an true. No one can just march and say that God does not exist. Militant or not, I would never march in a churh saying God is a lie or go to a science lab and say God is the only way. Stephen Hawking is brilliant but all said by him does not equal guaranteed fact. We all have our different beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that we just can't prove what the real truth is, no matter how much we know. It could also be true that we are complexly programmed AI within a deep universe inside a computer. However, at some point we must distinguish a logical agreement that everyone may live with, and I believe that, existentially speaking, we cannot prove how our universe was created, but nobody may deny the fact that God, as a supernatural being, defies all scientific laws, and therefore is not a conclusively rational belief.

Christianity and its teachings are in no way bad, in fact, I see them as being a very beneficial way to live life. But we mustn't be afraid to admit the likely truth and what cannot be realistically possible within our universe.

[darthearth]

The fact of the matter is that we just can't prove what the real truth is, no matter how much we know. It could also be true that we are complexly programmed AI within a deep universe inside a computer. However, at some point we must distinguish a logical agreement that everyone may live with, and I believe that, existentially speaking, we cannot prove how our universe was created, but nobody may deny the fact that God, as a supernatural being, defies all scientific laws, and therefore is not a conclusively rational belief.

Christianity and its teachings are in no way bad, in fact, I see them as being a very beneficial way to live life. But we mustn't be afraid to admit the likely truth and what cannot be realistically possible within our universe.

God is very much a rational belief, there are plenty of questions and circumstances here that a God would logically fit in with (transcendent cause of the universe, p-consciousness, biological complexity, spiritual encounters and NDEs [the chemicals can merely allow the experience, not be the source of it]). But further, what is the basis for saying that God defies all scientific laws when He would have established those laws (given the premise an omnipotent creator God exists)? It is better to say God "transcends" the laws not really "defies" them, don't you think? God does not necessarily have to defy laws He has established, He may accomplish whatever by simply adding to them (exceptions to the rule and so forth), but this is just terminology. They are whatever God would say they are, there is nothing irrational about that. It is not "empirical" though, atheists confuse the terms "rational" and "empirical" all the time, they also confuse "premises" with the rational, logical conclusions that result from those premises. So, I am one that denies your "fact" that God is not a conclusively rational belief. Further still, what basis have you to judge what is realistically possible? You don't know enough for that. You just know what would be unexpected given the laws we have so far observed. (One should say "realistically expected" not "realistically possible" shouldn't they?)

[Vlerchan]

I don't like getting involved in religious-based discussion if I can help it but:

spiritual encounters and NDEs [the chemicals can merely allow the experience, not be the source of it])
This again?

I've already proven how it is impossible - or at least incompatible with all current knowledge of how the human brain works - for these experiences (NDEs) to occur after all brain activity has ceased and one has technically died - (I can grab the quotes if you want). I'll grant you transcendence and p-consciousness and all that other stuff I don't care to attempt to understand but NDEs are just straight-up woo.

[The Trendy Wolf]

God is very much a rational belief, there are plenty of questions and circumstances here that a God would logically fit in with (transcendent cause of the universe, p-consciousness, biological complexity, spiritual encounters and NDEs [the chemicals can merely allow the experience, not be the source of it]). But further, what is the basis for saying that God defies all scientific laws when He would have established those laws (given the premise an omnipotent creator God exists)? It is better to say God "transcends" the laws not really "defies" them, don't you think? God does not necessarily have to defy laws He has established, He may accomplish whatever by simply adding to them (exceptions to the rule and so forth), but this is just terminology. They are whatever God would say they are, there is nothing irrational about that. It is not "empirical" though, atheists confuse the terms "rational" and "empirical" all the time, they also confuse "premises" with the rational, logical conclusions that result from those premises. So, I am one that denies your "fact" that God is not a conclusively rational belief. Further still, what basis have you to judge what is realistically possible? You don't know enough for that. You just know what would be unexpected given the laws we have so far observed. (One should say "realistically expected" not "realistically possible" shouldn't they?)
Above all, I do not judge anyone based on their beliefs. However, just because there is a "possibility" that God exists, that doesn't justify how "He" is capable of infinite power. Personally, I believe that the only thing that possesses the potential of infinite power (and I understand that 'infinite' is an impossible value to reach, but despite it being unreachable, we will always grow nearer) would be life itself, and none other. Having consciousness is the ultimate power, as far as we know, within our universe (and this pertains, theoretically, to every organism, including single-celled).

The belief that God created the universe to "show his power", and in return "we" must pray and follow "His" word, seems a bit strange and lack-luster of an almighty being, 'humble' as they claim. If God is as powerful as He claims to be, why must we pray in return, and why does He need to be re-payed? Now, to be fair, I am not an expert on Christianity, despite being raised Protestant myself.

The belief that "God is Love" is also slightly difficult when compared to ancient Chinese philosophy, much like the Yin-Yang, symbolizing that balance is key. Love, in essence, is quite one-sided, if it is considered as the "good" on the (as I refer to it) good-bad scale. Like human instincts, which are rage, fear, and love, there must be a balance between those forces rather than our lives being strictly based on love. This fundamental belief in balance corresponds to nearly every existence of good and evil: Logic and emotion, good and bad, up and down, light and dark, black and white, happy and sad, hot and cold, life and death, love and rage.

Each force would never exist without the other, and, therefore, I must respectfully disagree with the belief that "God is Love", in that he symbolizes our creator, and Satan being "rage", having been formed, apparently, after love. In this case, rage would have been derived from love, but there must have been two forces existing from the very beginning. If not, then there would be a universal imbalance between forces.

I apologize for this argument having come so far. Please, let's refrain from continuing as it does not relate to the thread's initial question, rather I seem to have branched off into challenging Christianity in its entirety.

[darthearth]

I don't like getting involved in religious-based discussion if I can help it but:


This again?

I've already proven how it is impossible - or at least incompatible with all current knowledge of how the human brain works - for these experiences (NDEs) to occur after all brain activity has ceased and one has technically died - (I can grab the quotes if you want). I'll grant you transcendence and p-consciousness and all that other stuff I don't care to attempt to understand but NDEs are just straight-up woo.

Yes, again, because it is an important point (sorry it challenges atheism so well, but that's not my problem, now is it?)

First, scientists don't even know the fundamental nature of what we call matter/energy itself. Matter/energy are nothing but concepts we have MADE UP to describe mathematically the world that we are given to perceive, so how can one depend on any scientific knowledge of how the brain works to reach any definitive materialistic explanation about NDEs (or p-consciousness for that matter):

"I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language."

- Werner Heisenberg

Second, (ignoring the first point), there is absolutely no basis to say it is impossible to have an NDE when the brain is completely non-functional since p-consciousness is non-material (using the definitions of matter/energy we currently have). There are two possibilities: either the physical matter/energy (as we have currently defined them) of the brain is itself the ground of being of the NDE, or a non-physical component of our being is the ground of being of the NDE. This is not a false dichotomy, it is one or the other. Since a non-physical entity is a possibility, it completely refutes any claim of necessary impossibility of the NDE while the brain is completely inactive, since even with a completely dead brain a non-physical p-consciousness could still experience life experience. Also, to say it is not compatible with current knowledge of how the brain works is moot if the experience is fundamentally non-physical in nature.

Like I said before, when the brain comes back online after being dead, and if the possibility of a non-physical ground of being of the NDE was in fact the actual case, the recollection of the experience would have to be either 1) implanted in the physical brain supernaturally (given the premise of a supernatural God) or 2) the recollection doesn't come from the brain at all, but through the non-physical aspect of the experience and p-consciousness. Both of these possibilities are perfectly rational and reasonable given the additional premise of a non-physical ground of being for the NDE. But considering that I see no mechanism for the physical brain to have EVOLVED NDEs through NATURAL SELECTION, I reasonably and rationally believe the non-physical possibility is the most likely one. The correlation between DMT and elevated carbon dioxide with NDEs must thus be a reflection of those chemical circumstances merely allowing the non-physical p-consciousness to experience non-physical but true realities rather than those chemical circumstances being the unique source of those realities.

The point was these possibilities alone throw into reasonable doubt that it can be definitively and logically concluded the universe needs no God to exist.



........

I apologize for this argument having come so far. Please, let's refrain from continuing as it does not relate to the thread's initial question, rather I seem to have branched off into challenging Christianity in its entirety.


You are correct, it is getting off topic. But just note that in Christianity evil can be considered a lack of God, not necessarily an existent power in and of itself separate from God. Satan can be considered a completely Godless (loveless) soul, the godlessness being manifested as apparent evil. But that is another discussion. Look up Christian panentheism, there may be resources online, I haven't searched recently though to tell you.

[DeadEyes]

Basically, no one can know for sure, we can only rely on deductions and suppositions.

[Amsey]

[I]"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero" :-Stephen Hawking

all I could reading that is "that must be the same amount of energy he uses in a day..." :whoops: sorry

well to sum up I believe in God, you don't... so... wanna play some halo?? :lol:

[Lovelife090994]

The fact of the matter is that we just can't prove what the real truth is, no matter how much we know. It could also be true that we are complexly programmed AI within a deep universe inside a computer. However, at some point we must distinguish a logical agreement that everyone may live with, and I believe that, existentially speaking, we cannot prove how our universe was created, but nobody may deny the fact that God, as a supernatural being, defies all scientific laws, and therefore is not a conclusively rational belief.

Christianity and its teachings are in no way bad, in fact, I see them as being a very beneficial way to live life. But we mustn't be afraid to admit the likely truth and what cannot be realistically possible within our universe.

Thank you so much for not biting my head off and leaving my body to rot. I appreciate those who can keep things civil. Oh and please excuse my most descriptive phrases. I agree with you here. But one problem remains? How do you find the truth when everyone defines it differently and some on more than one thing?

[Vlerchan]

[Appeal To Ignorance]

I have to ask: do you have any verifiable proof to back any of what you just posted in response to me? Because otherwise it's simply baseless speculation[1] - well thought-out and nice-sounding baseless speculation, but baseless speculation all the same.

I'm going to continue to reject the idea of NDEs, my objections stemming from two premises: a) your argument is built (it seems - feel free to provide supporting evidence) on a daisy-chain of appeals to ignorances, and more importantly, more damningly (IMO) b) the idea NDEs themselves are built on some rather shaky anecdotal evidence - funnily enough: only a minority of individuals actually report these experiences, care to explain? The argument has already been made that reported NDEs are simply others brains (subconsciously or unconsciously?) fabricating events in order to make-up for the time it 'missed' - it's a lot more in tune with what we currently know about the brain and its mechanisms which is why I'm somewhat stronger in objecting to your speculative theories than I usually am.

[1]: For the record: I reject the idea that concioussness is non-material/physical. I believe our concioussness is simply reflections of the physical world as taken in through our sense organs. The idea of forming and logging these elaborate images otherwise seems like it would be awfully wasteful of our precious brainpower. I've no proof of this (of course) which is why I'm not particularily interested in debating it - feel free to entirely reject mine own theory.

Note: I'm sorta in a rush. Sorry if this reads that way.

[darthearth]

I have to ask: do you have any verifiable proof to back any of what you just posted in response to me? Because otherwise it's simply baseless speculation[1] - well thought-out and nice-sounding baseless speculation, but baseless speculation all the same.

I'm going to continue to reject the idea of NDEs, my objections stemming from two premises: a) your argument is built (it seems - feel free to provide supporting evidence) on a daisy-chain of appeals to ignorances, and more importantly, more damningly (IMO) b) the idea NDEs themselves are built on some rather shaky anecdotal evidence - funnily enough: only a minority of individuals actually report these experiences, care to explain? The argument has already been made that reported NDEs are simply others brains (subconsciously or unconsciously?) fabricating events in order to make-up for the time it 'missed' - it's a lot more in tune with what we currently know about the brain and its mechanisms which is why I'm somewhat stronger in objecting to your speculative theories than I usually am.

[1]: For the record: I reject the idea that concioussness is non-material/physical. I believe our concioussness is simply reflections of the physical world as taken in through our sense organs. The idea of forming and logging these elaborate images otherwise seems like it would be awfully wasteful of our precious brainpower. I've no proof of this (of course) which is why I'm not particularily interested in debating it - feel free to entirely reject mine own theory.

Note: I'm sorta in a rush. Sorry if this reads that way.

There was absolutely no appeal to ignorance in anything I said. It was nothing more than logical, open minded rational thinking (but I've become increasingly aware of how atheism seems to obscure comprehension of this type of thinking). I presented possibilities and reasonably chose among those possibilities given circumstances. I did not say anything like "since this isn't disproven, it must be true", which is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. I also don't believe the frequency of recollection of NDEs is pertinent to this discussion.

The boy who met his miscarried sister in heaven in one certain NDE shows that particular experience at least cannot be a made-up time filler, as he did not previously know about her. But why in the world would there be a made-up time filler anyway? How would the brain know there was any time to make up in that viewpoint? That doesn't even make sense. It sounds like a desperate excuse to retain the materialist belief system and nothing more. And yes, this is anecdotal, but fair evidence. There is no rational reason to discard it out of hand, just because something is not empirical doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered in developing a world view. Consider my statement about the ground of being of NDEs being physical or non-physical, this is not a false dichotomy, it must be one or the other, this is unquestionable and contains no appeal to ignorance. Then one simply chooses between the two, choosing the non-physical possibility as more likely given no plausible way for the physical to have evolved through natural selection, again, no appeal to ignorance here, only open minded, logical and rational thinking.

Neither mass/energy nor force have anything to do with consciousness. Mass is defined by inertia, inertia means a force is needed to accelerate, a force is that which tends to accelerate, energy is simply an expression of relative motion and ability to do work, where in these definitions is consciousness found? Nowhere. And mass/energy and force make up the entirety of the material (charge is simply defined as producing force according to our definitions), so how does anyone have a basis to claim the material itself is conscious? None, consciousness lies outside of the very definitions of what is material. There is every reason to believe that p-consciousness is non-physical, there is no reason to believe the contrary. (Except if you are a materialist atheist, in which case there is every reason to attempt to claim a material consciousness.)

[Miserabilia]

There was absolutely no appeal to ignorance in anything I said. It was nothing more than logical, open minded rational thinking (but I've become increasingly aware of how atheism seems to obscure comprehension of this type of thinking). I presented possibilities and reasonably chose among those possibilities given circumstances. I did not say anything like "since this isn't disproven, it must be true", which is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. I also don't believe the frequency of recollection of NDEs is pertinent to this discussion.

The boy who met his miscarried sister in heaven in one certain NDE shows that particular experience at least cannot be a made-up time filler, as he did not previously know about her. But why in the world would there be a made-up time filler anyway? How would the brain know there was any time to make up in that viewpoint? That doesn't even make sense. It sounds like a desperate excuse to retain the materialist belief system and nothing more. And yes, this is anecdotal, but fair evidence. There is no rational reason to discard it out of hand, just because something is not empirical doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered in developing a world view. Consider my statement about the ground of being of NDEs being physical or non-physical, this is not a false dichotomy, it must be one or the other, this is unquestionable and contains no appeal to ignorance. Then one simply chooses between the two, choosing the non-physical possibility as more likely given no plausible way for the physical to have evolved through natural selection, again, no appeal to ignorance here, only open minded, logical and rational thinking.

Neither mass/energy nor force have anything to do with consciousness. Mass is defined by inertia, inertia means a force is needed to accelerate, a force is that which tends to accelerate, energy is simply an expression of relative motion and ability to do work, where in these definitions is consciousness found? Nowhere. And mass/energy and force make up the entirety of the material (charge is simply defined as producing force according to our definitions), so how does anyone have a basis to claim the material itself is conscious? None, consciousness lies outside of the very definitions of what is material. There is every reason to believe that p-consciousness is non-physical, there is no reason to believe the contrary. (Except if you are a materialist atheist, in which case there is every reason to attempt to claim a material consciousness.)

None, consciousness lies outside of the very definitions of what is material. There is every reason to believe that p-consciousness is non-physical, there is no reason to believe the contrary.

Ummm... Why exactly would that be?
What exactly is it about conciousnes, that you do not think is producued inside our brain?
Such an immensly complex organ like the brain can do the most wonderful things, like thinking and feeling and choosing, yet conciousnes can not?

Why not?
Conciousness is not material, but neither are thoughts or feelings and yet they exist because they are produced in the brain.

also:
Even if it is completely immaterial and doesn't originate in the brain,
how could you sense anything outside your brain?

Let's say you die and go to a heaven, and you see you are in a heaven, how do you see it?
With conciousnes? Because conciousnes can't see.
If you see anything, it must be somehow produced in your brain.

Conciousnes alone is by far not enough to go to heaven and see angels, etc.

But why in the world would there be a made-up time filler anyway? How would the brain know there was any time to make up in that viewpoint?

Because when your brain stops receiving the input it's used to it still tries to work with what it has even though it's slowly shutting down.
(People seeing their lives flash by, seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, etc.)

As for the kid who supposedly saw his dead sister even though he didn't know she existed, that is about as far from proof as saying god exists because you saw him.

[Vlerchan]

There was absolutely no appeal to ignorance in anything I said. It was nothing more than logical, open minded rational thinking [...] I presented possibilities and reasonably chose among those possibilities given circumstances. I did not say anything like "since this isn't disproven, it must be true", which is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

[...]

And yes, this is anecdotal, but fair evidence.

Again: "I have to ask: do you have any verifiable proof to back any of what you just posted in response to me?" I'm not counting the word of a stranger as verifiable proof.

Also: you not wording your argument in an overtly-fallacious way doesn't make it any less fallacious. You're exploiting the gaps in scientific knowledge in order to make your argument seem credible, parachuting your own theories in - theories than conveniently rely on un-provable and un-disprovable elements (notably) such as the non-material nature of concioussness and the existence of God.

Furthermore: It only sounds rational if you accept that concioussness is non-material and God exists. I accept neither. Though feel free to present verifiable proof for each and set me straight.

[Its Pretty]

Holy, are we talking about NDEs here?

NDEs are only accounted for after a patient has recovered, and not died.

Given the very illogical nature of the human brain, these may only be false memories, memories of things that didn't happen, experiences they would only wish to believe. Humans are notorious for their reliance on hallucinations to manage everyday life.
Hallucinations can be pretty fun and life changing too, as any acid user might tell you.
Can hallucinations bring about the belief of god? undoubtedly so!

[ImAurora]

Way I see it, we'll never really know if there is one or not. And why does it matter anyways?

[Miserabilia]

Holy, are we talking about NDEs here?

NDEs are only accounted for after a patient has recovered, and not died.

Given the very illogical nature of the human brain, these may only be false memories, memories of things that didn't happen, experiences they would only wish to believe. Humans are notorious for their reliance on hallucinations to manage everyday life.
Hallucinations can be pretty fun and life changing too, as any acid user might tell you.
Can hallucinations bring about the belief of god? undoubtedly so!

I aggree completely

[The Trendy Wolf]

How do you find the truth when everyone defines it differently and some on more than one thing?

In a universe with no life (if such a thing exists), there is only one truth, and that is a logical one. All things within our universe are bound by the laws of logic, but you must consider the infinite amount of knowledge there is in our known universe (And I mean "infinite" literally). Therefore, as we will never know everything that there is to know about our universe, we must accept our limited capabilities while still pursuing the knowledge of whatever we desire while still abiding to what's humanly possible.

In our logical universe exists an emotional one, and it is one that is formed by life itself. One of humanity's, as well as all organisms', many limitations are our emotions and feelings, as they tend to skew our decisions from what is rational. Therefore, as we must remain within our abilities, humans must also be emotional as well as logical beings. Wherever that balance in one's life exists is left up to the person themself to find.

After all, emotions are what give meaning to what would be considered logically meaningless, but that's not saying that such a thing is bad, as we are only human.

[darthearth]

Ummm... Why exactly would that be?
What exactly is it about conciousnes, that you do not think is producued inside our brain?
Such an immensly complex organ like the brain can do the most wonderful things, like thinking and feeling and choosing, yet conciousnes can not?
................
Conciousness is not material, but neither are thoughts or feelings and yet they exist because they are produced in the brain.



Something has to perceive those thoughts and feelings. (By the way, I was talking about the brain being completely dead and inactive such that there is no way it would notice any passage of time to "make-up" things for, your response assumed some brain activity that kept some track of time :-) )

.........

Furthermore: It only sounds rational if you accept that concioussness is non-material and God exists. I accept neither. Though feel free to present verifiable proof for each and set me straight.

I want you both to tell me what part of the brain actually perceives things. Is it the molecule or the electric force field? Those are the two fundamental constituents of the brain, it must be one or the other (an EM wave is just a force field in motion). And further, what makes one molecule or force field perceive things (like seeing a blue sky or hearing music), and another not.

I await your answer. Thank you.

[Miserabilia]

Something has to perceive those thoughts and feelings. (By the way, I was talking about the brain being completely dead and inactive such that there is no way it would notice any passage of time to "make-up" things for, your response assumed some brain activity that kept some track of time :-) )



I want you both to tell me what part of the brain actually perceives things. Is it the molecule or the electric force field? Those are the two fundamental constituents of the brain, it must be one or the other (an EM wave is just a force field in motion). And further, what makes one molecule or force field perceive things (like seeing a blue sky or hearing music), and another not.

I await your answer. Thank you.

]Something has to perceive those thoughts and feelings. (By the way, I was talking about the brain being completely dead and inactive such that there is no way it would notice any passage of time to "make-up" things for, your response assumed some brain activity that kept some track of time :-) )


Something has to perceive those thoughts and feelings.

Yes, that's what the brain is for.
And let's just say, hypotheticaly there is a "soul":

Let's say the sould is a person in a theatre, and the brain is the screen.
If the screen shows nothing, there is nothing to perceive.
Even if there is a soul, that works according to what you say,
it wouldn't perceive anything if you don't have brain ativity.

By the way, I was talking about the brain being completely dead and inactive such that there is no way it would notice any passage of time to "make-up" things for, your response assumed some brain activity that kept some track of time :-)

Well, before they had 0 brain activity, they did still have some, and obviously that's not enough for a clear perception of reality and time.
It may feel like they are still experiencing, but it's actually a slow hallucination caused by the last brain activity.
I don't see anything wrong with that theory?

I want you both to tell me what part of the brain actually perceives things. Is it the molecule or the electric force field? Those are the two fundamental constituents of the brain, it must be one or the other (an EM wave is just a force field in motion). And further, what makes one molecule or force field perceive things (like seeing a blue sky or hearing music), and another not.

Whether it's EM or molecules, it's still something effecting neural cells in the brain.
That's what experience thoughts feelings and everything else we experience essentially is.

And further, what makes one molecule or force field perceive things (like seeing a blue sky or hearing music), and another not.

I've tried to explain this before to you.
It does not.

A brain, heck, even a single cell is like an ant colony;
you can not find the intelligence in a single ant, but in the combined work of all the ants.

http://allaroundwaldo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Giant-ant-colony.jpg

Yes, that is an actual ant colony :eek:

That is a huge, complex system of tunnels, that uses logic and is adaptive to the envirement; it looks perfectly designed.

Yet, one ant does not have the intelligence to design or build this. One ant does not know what it's building, it's following simple instructions.
Together all these simple instructions build a perfect colony.

This is the same with cells in a brain, and molecules in a cell.
A molecule can not perceive, a cell can not think,
they are all ants in the colony.

This is logic that is proven to work.

w6XQQhCgq5c

You can download a golly simulator for free, and try for yourself, it's a simple process.

C2vgICfQawE

[darthearth]

Yes, that's what the brain is for.
And let's just say, hypotheticaly there is a "soul":

Let's say the sould is a person in a theatre, and the brain is the screen.
If the screen shows nothing, there is nothing to perceive.
Even if there is a soul, that works according to what you say,
it wouldn't perceive anything if you don't have brain ativity.


Yes, as far as the soul is bound to the living brain it will see nothing if the brain is completely inactive. But there is no reason to think the soul can't be shown something else that does not originate in the brain. So this doesn't really get anywhere. At least you have shown you understand what I'm saying to some extent with the movie screen/audience analogy.


Well, before they had 0 brain activity, they did still have some, and obviously that's not enough for a clear perception of reality and time.
It may feel like they are still experiencing, but it's actually a slow hallucination caused by the last brain activity.
I don't see anything wrong with that theory?


ok, if that is what you meant.



Whether it's EM or molecules, it's still something effecting neural cells in the brain.
That's what experience thoughts feelings and everything else we experience essentially is.


Are you saying here it is the neural cells that perceive things? But those cells are made of nothing other than molecules and force fields. So the same question remains. How can neural cells perceive anything if they are wholly made of stuff that can't perceive?



I've tried to explain this before to you.
It does not.

A brain, heck, even a single cell is like an ant colony;
you can not find the intelligence in a single ant, but in the combined work of all the ants.

image (http://allaroundwaldo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Giant-ant-colony.jpg)

Yes, that is an actual ant colony :eek:

That is a huge, complex system of tunnels, that uses logic and is adaptive to the envirement; it looks perfectly designed.

Yet, one ant does not have the intelligence to design or build this. One ant does not know what it's building, it's following simple instructions.
Together all these simple instructions build a perfect colony.

This is the same with cells in a brain, and molecules in a cell.
A molecule can not perceive, a cell can not think,
they are all ants in the colony.

This is logic that is proven to work.



You can download a golly simulator for free, and try for yourself, it's a simple process.



I can see how the conglomeration of the "ant colony" is necessary for information to be robust enough for a rich sensory experience of a world, and the thoughts we have of the world. However, this does not address the issue of what it is that is perceiving the information. You say molecules and forces do not perceive, yes, I'm saying the same thing, but simply including a great number of molecules and forces does not change the fact molecules and forces cannot perceive, you'll just have lots of molecules and forces not perceiving. How does taking all the molecules and forces at once throughout the whole brain change anything?

[Miserabilia]

Yes, as far as the soul is bound to the living brain it will see nothing if the brain is completely inactive. But there is no reason to think the soul can't be shown something else that does not originate in the brain. So this doesn't really get anywhere. At least you have shown you understand what I'm saying to some extent with the movie screen/audience analogy.




ok, if that is what you meant.





Are you saying here it is the neural cells that perceive things? But those cells are made of nothing other than molecules and force fields. So the same question remains. How can neural cells perceive anything if they are wholly made of stuff that can't perceive?





I can see how the conglomeration of the "ant colony" is necessary for information to be robust enough for a rich sensory experience of a world, and the thoughts we have of the world. However, this does not address the issue of what it is that is perceiving the information. You say molecules and forces do not perceive, yes, I'm saying the same thing, but simply including a great number of molecules and forces does not change the fact molecules and forces cannot perceive, you'll just have lots of molecules and forces not perceiving. How does taking all the molecules and forces at once throughout the whole brain change anything?

Yes, as far as the soul is bound to the living brain it will see nothing if the brain is completely inactive. But there is no reason to think the soul can't be shown something else that does not originate in the brain. So this doesn't really get anywhere. At least you have shown you understand what I'm saying to some extent with the movie screen/audience analogy.

-_-

I actually completely understand this super complex "screen/audience analogy", it's just that even if there is a soul, it requires a brain to perceive anything.
You cannot see a heaven since seeing requires visual input.
You can not imagine something in your brain without using brain cells.

Are you saying here it is the neural cells that perceive things? But those cells are made of nothing other than molecules and force fields. So the same question remains. How can neural cells perceive anything if they are wholly made of stuff that can't perceive?

Yoooou are still sayin' the same thinggg, and I already explained it.

A. Single. Cell. Or. A. Single. Molecule. Does. Not. Perceive.

This is the whole point of the ant colony example.
A single ant doesn't build a structure, it works with simple cause and effect.
The ants together build a super effecient structure.

A neural cell gets a single, and sends it through to the next cell.
This is perception.

You can make a computer perceive something, and a computer doesn't exist out of things that can perceive. This is the same thing.

I can see how the conglomeration of the "ant colony" is necessary for information to be robust enough for a rich sensory experience of a world, and the thoughts we have of the world. However, this does not address the issue of what it is that is perceiving the information. You say molecules and forces do not perceive, yes, I'm saying the same thing, but simply including a great number of molecules and forces does not change the fact molecules and forces cannot perceive, you'll just have lots of molecules and forces not perceiving. How does taking all the molecules and forces at once throughout the whole brain change anything?

However, this does not address the issue of what it is that is perceiving the information

Actually, it does.

You say molecules and forces do not perceive, yes, I'm saying the same thing, but simply including a great number of molecules and forces does not change the fact molecules and forces cannot perceive, you'll just have lots of molecules and forces not perceiving. How does taking all the molecules and forces at once throughout the whole brain change anything?

Noooo why don't you understand x_x

I never said that adding a greater number of molecules makes them perceive.

THEY. DON'T. PERCEIVE.

A brain perceives.
A brain thinks.
A single cell does not think.
A single molecule does not think.

You are assuming that for an object to work a certain way, all of it's components must do the same.
This is false.


It would require an infinite fractal universe, which is already proven it isn't.

A clock shows the time.
A single atom of the clock does not show the time.

Tadah, it's not that complicated.

[darthearth]

-_-

I actually completely understand this super complex "screen/audience analogy", it's just that even if there is a soul, it requires a brain to perceive anything.
You cannot see a heaven since seeing requires visual input.
You can not imagine something in your brain without using brain cells.



Yoooou are still sayin' the same thinggg, and I already explained it.

A. Single. Cell. Or. A. Single. Molecule. Does. Not. Perceive.

This is the whole point of the ant colony example.
A single ant doesn't build a structure, it works with simple cause and effect.
The ants together build a super effecient structure.

A neural cell gets a single, and sends it through to the next cell.
This is perception.

You can make a computer perceive something, and a computer doesn't exist out of things that can perceive. This is the same thing.





Actually, it does.



Noooo why don't you understand x_x

I never said that adding a greater number of molecules makes them perceive.

THEY. DON'T. PERCEIVE.

A brain perceives.
A brain thinks.
A single cell does not think.
A single molecule does not think.

You are assuming that for an object to work a certain way, all of it's components must do the same.
This is false.


It would require an infinite fractal universe, which is already proven it isn't.

A clock shows the time.
A single atom of the clock does not show the time.

Tadah, it's not that complicated.

If you think we can make computers perceive things, we are using the term to mean different things. I'm talking about conscious, self-aware perception of a world. We can't give computers this. And why do you always claim that I am claiming only one molecule or force field perceives necessarily, I said explicitly that I was considering the entire brain at once and asked you what changes when considering the entire brain, since the entire brain is made of stuff that cannot consciously perceive. Your clock analogy, there still needs to be a consciousness that perceives the time. Again, this seems to end like our last round on this issue on your other thread. I ask questions as simply as I can ask them and you don't seem to understand what I am asking. Oh, well.

[Miserabilia]

If you think we can make computers perceive things, we are using the term to mean different things. I'm talking about conscious, self-aware perception of a world. We can't give computers this. And why do you always claim that I am claiming only one molecule or force field perceives necessarily, I said explicitly that I was considering the entire brain at once and asked you what changes when considering the entire brain, since the entire brain is made of stuff that cannot consciously perceive. Your clock analogy, there still needs to be a consciousness that perceives the time. Again, this seems to end like our last round on this issue on your other thread. I ask questions as simply as I can ask them and you don't seem to understand what I am asking. Oh, well.

And why do you always claim that I am claiming only one molecule or force field perceives necessarily, I said explicitly that I was considering the entire brain at once and asked you what changes when considering the entire brain, since the entire brain is made of stuff that cannot consciously perceive.

THats the point.

NOTHING CHANGES. MOLECULES DO NOT PERCEIVE. THE BRAIN DOES. THE PARTS DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME FUNCTIONS AS THE CONSTRUCTION.
It really is that simple.

The universe is not a fractal.
A brain can think without each molecule having to think.
Why would conciousnes be any different?

Your clock analogy, there still needs to be a consciousness that perceives the time.
That's irrelevant to the example.
I was trying to show that a part does not have the same function as the whole, which you still haven't actualy responded to.

Again, this seems to end like our last round on this issue on your other thread. I ask questions as simply as I can ask them and you don't seem to understand what I am asking. Oh, well.

Actually, I respond in the best possible way I can to everything I say, but instead of actually forming a counter argument you say "I just don't understand what you are asking".

You haven't responded to the parts not being the whole.
You haven't responded to your theory just being Kalam.

You haven't actually responded to much of it, and you just cut it off with
"you just don't understand"?

If you want, I can make it even simpler for you:

Ask me the question you say I am not understanding, in one sentence, and I will answer it.
If you think I don't "understand" the question properly, explain it.

Don't go running of with a claim that I don't understand what you are communicating instead of actually responding to me.

[Sydneyy]

I'm not sure. I think God created the universe.

[Miserabilia]

I'm not sure. I think God created the universe.

Well, lots of people do, and they usually don't have a reason for it.
Since I don't know any reason god needs there to be there to create the universe,
I don't beleive god created the universe.

[darthearth]

A neural cell gets a single, and sends it through to the next cell.
This is perception.



OK, let's try again. Explain this quote. How is this perception? This is nothing but an electrical current.

My argument for transcendent cause is similar to Kalam. And there is nothing wrong with the Kalam argument. No physical infinity has ever been demonstrated to possibly exist by its attempted challengers, just theoretical mathematical infinities. And the 4D space-time block excuse doesn't cut it either, in fact I find it evidently nonsensical. (But kudos to you for mentioning Kalam, I confess I knew nothing of it before you said something and I did some online research, I feel that it is a strong argument that has held up completely.) But I'd rather hear you attempt to explain a materialist based perception for now, because I don't think it can be done. At all.

[Miserabilia]

OK, let's try again. Explain this quote. How is this perception? This is nothing but an electrical current.

My argument for transcendent cause is similar to Kalam. And there is nothing wrong with the Kalam argument. No physical infinity has ever been demonstrated to possibly exist by its attempted challengers, just theoretical mathematical infinities. And the 4D space-time block excuse doesn't cut it either, in fact I find it evidently nonsensical. (But kudos to you for mentioning Kalam, I confess I knew nothing of it before you said something and I did some online research, I feel that it is a strong argument that has held up completely.) But I'd rather hear you attempt to explain a materialist based perception for now, because I don't think it can be done. At all.


How is this perception? This is nothing but an electrical current.
Exactly. Do you understand now?

Like I said about 5 times before:

- A device can serve a function
- The parts of that device do not serve the same function

The function of a tv screen is in this case to show an image of a house.
One pixel of the tv screen does not show an image of the house. It's simply obbeying electrical signals to switch color at certain times.
From out point of view, there is a house visable.
From an objective universal point of view, there are just a bunch of lights turning on and off.

http://kmillar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/interior-interior-furniture-living-room-chinese-house-interior-with-awesome-black-wall-tv-unit-and-cabinet-beautiful-decorations-of-interior-design-with-lcd-tv-screen-breathtaking-house-interior-desig-1024x682.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg
This is simple third grade logic,
and I don't see how you feel such need for closure for this that you assign a god to it.


And there is nothing wrong with the Kalam argument.

Yes there is.
This is the Kalam argument:


1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2 The universe has a beginning of its existence;

Therefore:

3 The universe has a cause of its existence.


----------------

With both 1 and 3 there is something wrong.
First of all, let me correct 1:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence in this universe has a cause of its existence.

Also, nothing has a beginning t its existence. Matter and energy don't begin and end, so I see what the first point means but it's not phrased correctly.

Now two:

2 The universe has a beginning of its existence;

That's basicly right, even though I don't like this phrasing.

Now three:


3 The universe has a cause of its existence.


This is not a legitimate conclusion; all we know is that everything in this universe has a cause, this says nothing about the universe itself.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/04/history.bigbang.jpeg

And the 4D space-time block excuse doesn't cut it either, in fact I find it evidently nonsensical.

4D Space-time doesn't cut what?
What's nonsensical about it?
Are you saying the top psysisists in the world are all wrong, even though the spacetme theory is theoreticaly prooven and works out completely mathematicaly?

(But kudos to you for mentioning Kalam, I confess I knew nothing of it before you said something and I did some online research, I feel that it is a strong argument that has held up completely.)

It's actualy one of the worst apologetic arguments I've ever heard.

But I'd rather hear you attempt to explain a materialist based perception for now, because I don't think it can be done. At all.

Oh really?
How about this? (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203344)

[darthearth]

Exactly. Do you understand now?

Like I said about 5 times before:

- A device can serve a function
- The parts of that device do not serve the same function

The function of a tv screen is in this case to show an image of a house.
One pixel of the tv screen does not show an image of the house. It's simply obbeying electrical signals to switch color at certain times.
From out point of view, there is a house visable.
From an objective universal point of view, there are just a bunch of lights turning on and off.
.........
This is simple third grade logic,
and I don't see how you feel such need for closure for this that you assign a god to it.


So you have a bunch of lights in the brain turning on and off (electric signals in neurons). What is it that is able to see a picture from this? How much more simply can it be put? You say from "our" point of view, where are "we" in the brain? You said electric current is perception, but you failed to explain how it is perception. Again, how can electric current be conscious perception itself? What enables a current to be consciously perceptive? Are you saying all electrical current is conscious? What basis have you to say that? After all of this back and forth, we have gotten nowhere.

[Lovecraft]

The universe doesn't need anything to exist. We could all die instantly and it would literally mean nothing. The universe doesn't care about you. The universe is above the concept of caring. If someone wants to believe in a god, let them. Their god is just as real to them as the sun is to you and I. "Reality" is a fickle concept, and because religion exists gods too can exist. They just don't exist in a way that you consider viable.

I disbelieve in the gods we humans have come up with not because I think they're scientifically improbable, but because if there were gods, they sure as hell wouldn't focus all their time on us. We're conceptually worthless.

[/end pseudophilosophy]

[Miserabilia]

So you have a bunch of lights in the brain turning on and off (electric signals in neurons). What is it that is able to see a picture from this? How much more simply can it be put? You say from "our" point of view, where are "we" in the brain? You said electric current is perception, but you failed to explain how it is perception. Again, how can electric current be conscious perception itself? What enables a current to be consciously perceptive? Are you saying all electrical current is conscious? What basis have you to say that? After all of this back and forth, we have gotten nowhere.

Exactly, we have gotten nowhere, because there is nowhere to get.
the point is that consciousnes doesn't actualy exist.

Right now, you can't proove it does. You can proove medical concsciousnes exists (recognizing yourself in the mirror, etc.) but you can't actualy proof you are a conscious being.

You could do everything you are doing right now, everything you ever did in your life, without being consciousnes.

I feel like you haven't actualy read it, so I'll link it again (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203344)

You are basing all your arguments on the fact that consciousnes exists, or implying that it does, but consciousnes doesn't exist as a physical, material thing or even as en energy.
So you don't need a material explanation for it.
There is a material explanation for everything you do, including all types of medical consciousnes, but not for actual consciousnes, as it makes no difference,

I can easily claim it does not exist at all. Try prooving it. You can't.


The universe doesn't need anything to exist. We could all die instantly and it would literally mean nothing. The universe doesn't care about you. The universe is above the concept of caring. If someone wants to believe in a god, let them. Their god is just as real to them as the sun is to you and I. "Reality" is a fickle concept, and because religion exists gods too can exist. They just don't exist in a way that you consider viable.

I disbelieve in the gods we humans have come up with not because I think they're scientifically improbable, but because if there were gods, they sure as hell wouldn't focus all their time on us. We're conceptually worthless.

[/end pseudophilosophy]

If someone wants to believe in a god, let them. Their god is just as real to them as the sun is to you and I. "Reality" is a fickle concept, and because religion exists gods too can exist. They just don't exist in a way that you consider viable.

I've already been over this. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203549)

I disbelieve in the gods we humans have come up with not because I think they're scientifically improbable, but because if there were gods, they sure as hell wouldn't focus all their time on us. We're conceptually worthless.

Nicely nihilisticly said :)
I am somewhat of a nihilist myself, but I like to think in ways of what can be prooven, and since the god claim can not even be proven I do not beleive it.