Atheistforums.com

I've already expressed my views on this matter on my blog. Here are some relevant links...


There are a couple other relevant blog entries for further reading.

In brief, I argue for God. My definition of God is being with consciousness only, who created the universe. He doesn't have to be all-knowing, omnipresent, infallible, all-loving... There could be more than one and that's irrelevant.

There is no evolutionary advantage to the advent of consciousness, in fact, it may even be a disadvantage. Was there consciousness at the beginning of the universe? The atheist view is that there was not. If consciousness is an evolutionary advantage, in that it takes the intelligence of a sentient being to run the body of an organism when it reaches a certainty complexity, why was there no consciousness at the beginning of creation? Doesn't it take something special to create that kind of occurrence?

[admin]Please read the rules. No external links before the appropriate membership duration. Sincerely -PickelledEggs[/admin]

This is pretty much consistent with the Hindu/Buddhist view of religion.  Traditional Chinese/Japanese were pretty much naturalist or humanist (in a social way).  Individual "practice" was a viable spiritualism initially for Iron Age Indians, and later Iron Age Chinese.  Other ancient civilizations, in their native practices, emphasized the majority naturalism/humanism of the traditional polytheists.

From the time of Pythagoras at the earliest, and no late than the time of Alexander the Great, there was increasing contact between the Indians, and the West, including West Asia.  There was not only exposure to the binary religion of Zorostrianism, but there were colonies of Indian fakirs and shramanas (Hindu and Buddhist evangelical ascetics) as far West as Athens, Alexandria and Antioch.  From the time of Alexander the Great, for the next 300 years, there was a great intermingling of Greek/Persian/Indian culture N of Afghanistan all the way into N Pakistan.  What we now consider introspective psychology was introduced to the West at this time, and had a profound influence on dissident Jewish and Gentile cultures of the Near East.

In Yoga, and in Zen, the emphasis on  the introspective analysis of consciousness, has continued till this day.  The West inherited this practice, directly via monastic Christian practices and indirectly thru Jewish Kabbalah and Muslim Sufism.  Modern philosophy, which preceded modern psychology, started with the introspective insights of Descartes.  Modern (non-introspective) psychology only came about, first in the West, in the mid-19th century, so it is very new ... but materialistic.  Rejecting the dualism inherited from Descartes and his followers.

I hope this adds to your POV.  I am not intending a detail critique, or a detailed presentation of my own, psychological POV, vis a vis theology.  Other than to say, you are on the right track.  But I am not sure it is correct, though this is the POV of Yoga in particular, that only consciousness matters.  Zen is more skeptical of the focus on consciousness to the excluding of a greater unconscious mentality.

This is a line I copied from one of your blogs: "In effect, atheists are trying to convince you that YOU don't matter."  I guess we hang around a different group of atheists.  First, atheists are not uniform in our thinking.  We are not from the 'atheistic church moving and thinking in lock-step'.  We are united in only one thing--we think god is not; there is no proof of any such thing.  So, clearly that comment of yours is false.  Personally, I feel quite grateful for my being and my life.  I cherish it all the more for knowing that I will not live thru it.  And I don't really care what you believe as long as you don't use those beliefs to try to make me follow them.  You can believe in all of the fake, false, fantasy creatures you want.  Just don't force me to live with those beliefs. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2018, 05:09:12 PM
This is a line I copied from one of your blogs: "In effect, atheists are trying to convince you that YOU don't matter."  I guess we hang around a different group of atheists.  First, atheists are not uniform in our thinking.  We are not from the 'atheistic church moving and thinking in lock-step'.  We are united in only one thing--we think god is not; there is no proof of any such thing.  So, clearly that comment of yours is false.  Personally, I feel quite grateful for my being and my life.  I cherish it all the more for knowing that I will not live thru it.  And I don't really care what you believe as long as you don't use those beliefs to try to make me follow them.  You can believe in all of the fake, false, fantasy creatures you want.  Just don't force me to live with those beliefs.

There is a certain brand of atheists I was targeting, which are the type that don't believe in anything supernatural - whether that be life after death, God, the soul, sometimes free will but not necessarily. Sometimes people who believe in some paranormal stuff claim to be atheists, and I think if there is any aspect of the paranormal that is real you should naturally come to the conclusion that God exists, but some people haven't because they disagree with the concept of a Christian god.

The disbelief in God goes along with a string of reasoning including the belief that all consciousness comes from interactions with atoms/the physical world, in terms of the brain. I believe there is a such thing as a higher consciousness which exists without having to be supported by a physical structure.

Otherwise, there is a mysterious mass explosion that resulted in the formation of matter and such, all stuff without conscious awareness until animals come along.

Suddenly, we are presented with ideas like will, desire, and thought. Apparently, the big bang was a mass explosion that came without thought.

So from your viewpoint, you found meaning in some meaningless, which is life. Do you think life is meaningless? You said you cherish life. Is there any sort of external marker of meaning? Is there any inherent value of meaning, without God? Yes, there is pleasure and displeasure. Is that what you mean by cherishing life? You cherish the pleasure?

My question for you is, is the human experience meaningful in general? Is it being a person, being aware and getting to do stuff that i meaningful? Or is it the endorphins and neurotransmitters that create pleasant feelings that make it meaningful? If your life was filled with nothing but pain, is that a life that is meaningful?

When I say atheists are trying to convince you that you don't matter, it means that atoms and physical dots on a grid are more significant in terms of the universe, than the experience of consciousness.

We only know about consciousness that is the product of the activity of brains. Are you saying that consciousness has some other way of becoming, one that doesn't need brains?

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 02, 2018, 06:08:17 PM
We only know about consciousness that is the product of the activity of brains. Are you saying that consciousness has some other way of becoming, one that doesn't need brains?

Yes. It is not possible to observe consciousness. There is no way of knowing where it exists or does not exist. Naturally, you assume fellow humans have consciousness. You can't prove it though.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 05:35:52 PM
There is a certain brand of atheists I was targeting, which are the type that don't believe in anything supernatural - whether that be life after death, God, the soul, sometimes free will but not necessarily. Sometimes people who believe in some paranormal stuff claim to be atheists, and I think if there is any aspect of the paranormal that is real you should naturally come to the conclusion that God exists, but some people haven't because they disagree with the concept of a Christian god.

The disbelief in God goes along with a string of reasoning including the belief that all consciousness comes from interactions with atoms/the physical world, in terms of the brain. I believe there is a such thing as a higher consciousness which exists without having to be supported by a physical structure.

Otherwise, there is a mysterious mass explosion that resulted in the formation of matter and such, all stuff without conscious awareness until animals come along.

Suddenly, we are presented with ideas like will, desire, and thought. Apparently, the big bang was a mass explosion that came without thought.

So from your viewpoint, you found meaning in some meaningless, which is life. Do you think life is meaningless? You said you cherish life. Is there any sort of external marker of meaning? Is there any inherent value of meaning, without God? Yes, there is pleasure and displeasure. Is that what you mean by cherishing life? You cherish the pleasure?

My question for you is, is the human experience meaningful in general? Is it being a person, being aware and getting to do stuff that i meaningful? Or is it the endorphins and neurotransmitters that create pleasant feelings that make it meaningful? If your life was filled with nothing but pain, is that a life that is meaningful?

When I say atheists are trying to convince you that you don't matter, it means that atoms and physical dots on a grid are more significant in terms of the universe, than the experience of consciousness.

There is a lot in there to unpack.  I'll try to give you a thumbnail sketch of what I think.  I think the universe just is.  We are not close at all to know, much less fully understand how it came to be.  One hypothesis is that it was created by the Big Bang.  What evidence do we have of that and how do I know the evidence is valid?  I must admit to not being a scientist nor physicist.  What little I understand seems to make this a plausible hypothesis (don't know if there is enough evidence for it to be a theory yet) possible.  At least there is some data.  God supplies us with no data; god could be possible, I guess, but from such a lack of evidence I think it is proof that god does not exist.

Also, the universe is totally and completely neutral--does not care (not capable of caring anyway) one way or the other about anything.  Does my life have meaning?  It does to me because I chose to attach meaning to it.  I have had to come to what that meaning is and what it means to me.  And my meaning is only meaning for me.  And I maintain that my morality is my own and is mainly derived from the society in which I grew up and live in.  And it is mine, not yours.  We all have to figure out what the meaning of life is and what moral rules one will follow.  As Joseph Campbell put it--the meaning of life is life.  I find I am alive and that is the meaning of my life--I'm alive.  What does it mean to be human?  I have no generalized thing a human must be or do.  It is all up to the individual to figure that out.  If my life ever becomes, for whatever reason, filled with unending or chronic pain I can find no good reason to continue and I should be able to end it.  But it should be my decision. 

My life was not conceived some entity for whatever reasons that entity had; it is a happenstance thing.  And when I die I will return to the basic building stuff of the universe.  I don't fear that nor have any problem with it. 

And I have never had an atheist try to convince me that I am not important or meaningless--but I've had many theists tell me that.

Brand new user linking to their own website? Someone didn't read the rules.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 06:12:47 PM
Yes. It is not possible to observe consciousness. There is no way of knowing where it exists or does not exist. Naturally, you assume fellow humans have consciousness. You can't prove it though.

No, I can't "prove" any such thing, but then I don't need to. I'm not here to teach, but to learn.

Birdy23 ... consciousness is a big conundrum.  Only people who think about thinking (which is not most of us) find it mysterious.  We mostly take it as axiomatic, that and that at least other humans, are at times, conscious.  I personally think that many higher animals are conscious ... at least in a way related to if not the same as humans.

The idea that mentality (if not consciousness) is non-local, is quite controversial.  But it is only avant-guard to people unaware of pre-modern thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damasio%27s_theory_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

Jordan Peterson, as a Jungian, would support at least, the last two.

Most but not atheists are materialists.  Once you assume materialism, you have to think of mentality as being local and neural ... though epiphenomenalist explanation leaves much to be desired from my POV.

Also per Eastern thought, the separation of supernatural from natural, is a Western affectation, a cultural artifact, of rather recent vintage.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 02, 2018, 06:43:17 PM
Brand new user linking to their own website? Someone didn't read the rules.

They're new and don't know any better. I'm going to let it slide.

QuoteSo from your viewpoint, you found meaning in some meaningless, which is life. Do you think life is meaningless?

Everything is meaningless, and in being meaningless it thus has meaning.

This contradiction is rooted in the fact there is no such thing as "meaning"; it is just a concept we use to make sense of the abstract, because our brains are not very efficient at processing abstract ideas.

Meaning is a useful concept, but it's important to remember it is just that... a concept. It's like the past; it's useful to learn from but carries with it the potential of distracting us from the present.

QuoteMy question for you is, is the human experience meaningful in general?

I would argue that meaning is irrelevant; meaninglessness or meaningfulness neither inherently influence experience.

Dogs demonstrating philosophical self-criticism ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxW9MQ2qPI

Quote from: Shiranu on December 02, 2018, 07:16:37 PM
Everything is meaningless, and in being meaningless it thus has meaning.

This contradiction is rooted in the fact there is no such thing as "meaning"; it is just a concept we use to make sense of the abstract, because our brains are not very efficient at processing abstract ideas.

Meaning is a useful concept, but it's important to remember it is just that... a concept. It's like the past; it's useful to learn from but carries with it the potential of distracting us from the present.

I would argue that meaning is irrelevant; meaninglessness or meaningfulness neither inherently influence experience.

Just what I thought, with a shoutout to Mike CL ... both of your postings are random binary digits.  Also, with that fundamental contradiction .. X is not X ... you should turn in your "rationality" card too.

If you can accept a full contradiction as being real ... and catch arrows out of mid air flying toward you, you are probably ready to leave the monastery.

[quote author=Shiranu link=topic=13151.msg1238527#msg1238527 date=1543796197

This contradiction is rooted in the fact there is no such thing as "meaning"; it is just a concept we use to make sense of the abstract, because our brains are not very efficient at processing abstract ideas.

[/quote]

Compared to what? What is good at processing abstract ideas?

Hell, cognitive dissonance can be a lot of fun! LOL

QuoteCompared to what? What is good at processing abstract ideas?

Nothing, as far as I know. By their very nature abstract ideas should not be easily processed.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 02, 2018, 07:29:52 PM
Hell, cognitive dissonance can be a lot of fun! LOL

Most people like to reference the passage they are referring to, if they are trying to have a discussion.

Well, we sometimes like to indulge in a bit of witty repartee. Or at least make the attempt.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 02, 2018, 07:42:34 PM
Well, we sometimes like to indulge in a bit of witty repartee. Or at least make the attempt.

If it is not referenced what you are referring to, the joke falls flat.

Baruch knew what I was talking about, I think. Besides, you came to us, we didn't come to you, so don't expect us to follow your rules.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 07:47:03 PM
If it is not referenced what you are referring to, the joke falls flat.

We prefer flat jokes here, not bumpy, because that is bad for the tires.

You seem to be YAE ... Yet Another Evangelist.  So I am not expecting what the hoi polloi call "conversation".

Quote from: Shiranu on December 02, 2018, 07:37:54 PM
Nothing, as far as I know. By their very nature abstract ideas should not be easily processed.

Philosophers, theoreticians ... and other useless people do that ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2018, 06:41:18 PM
There is a lot in there to unpack.  I'll try to give you a thumbnail sketch of what I think.  I think the universe just is.  We are not close at all to know, much less fully understand how it came to be.  One hypothesis is that it was created by the Big Bang.  What evidence do we have of that and how do I know the evidence is valid?  I must admit to not being a scientist nor physicist.  What little I understand seems to make this a plausible hypothesis (don't know if there is enough evidence for it to be a theory yet) possible.  At least there is some data.  God supplies us with no data; god could be possible, I guess, but from such a lack of evidence I think it is proof that god does not exist.

Also, the universe is totally and completely neutral--does not care (not capable of caring anyway) one way or the other about anything.  Does my life have meaning?  It does to me because I chose to attach meaning to it.  I have had to come to what that meaning is and what it means to me.  And my meaning is only meaning for me.  And I maintain that my morality is my own and is mainly derived from the society in which I grew up and live in.  And it is mine, not yours.  We all have to figure out what the meaning of life is and what moral rules one will follow.  As Joseph Campbell put it--the meaning of life is life.  I find I am alive and that is the meaning of my life--I'm alive.  What does it mean to be human?  I have no generalized thing a human must be or do.  It is all up to the individual to figure that out.  If my life ever becomes, for whatever reason, filled with unending or chronic pain I can find no good reason to continue and I should be able to end it.  But it should be my decision. 

My life was not conceived some entity for whatever reasons that entity had; it is a happenstance thing.  And when I die I will return to the basic building stuff of the universe.  I don't fear that nor have any problem with it. 

And I have never had an atheist try to convince me that I am not important or meaningless--but I've had many theists tell me that.

What is the purpose of consciousness? Does it serve an evolutionary purpose?

Why did something with so much meaning and value come about from a universe that does not have the ability to grasp meaning? Why would it be in the form of a race that strives above all for self-betterment?

You could argue that that is irrelevant, that it is the nature of the universe, or multiverse, to try every single possibility.

In a universe where it takes a conscious being to give an animal a push to survive, does consciousness not provide a harder push?

Do you believe in free will?

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 08:46:29 PM
What is the purpose of consciousness? Does it serve an evolutionary purpose?

Why did something with so much meaning and value come about from a universe that does not have the ability to grasp meaning? Why would it be in the form of a race that strives above all for self-betterment?

You could argue that that is irrelevant, that it is the nature of the universe, or multiverse, to try every single possibility.

Do you believe in free will?

I don't know that consciousness has any inherent meaning.  It very well may be the result of a part of the evolutionary  process in that a species that develops consciousness as a step in survival of the fittest; a consciousness individual may fit into it's environment better than one without consciousness.  I don't see the universe as trying to do anything--it just is and what happens happens.  You seem to want to give consciousness some special meaning; I don't.  It just is.  You give it value--I do to, but that's because I'd rather have it than not. 

You ask: "In a universe where it takes a conscious being to give an animal a push to survive, does consciousness not provide a harder push?"  I don't understand what you mean.

Free will?  No, humans do not have free will.  We do have the ability to make choices.  In fact, even when we don't make choices, that was a choice.  We are faced with choices daily--shoot, every second of every day.  I'd suggest it as the dictatorship of choice--we must choose, for even not choosing is a choice.  Is this free will?  Not really.  I did not chose to be born, for example.  And according to most religions, we cannot even choose when we leave this life.  We make choices within certain boundaries--we are not free to choose what we want to.

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2018, 09:13:08 PM
I don't know that consciousness has any inherent meaning.  It very well may be the result of a part of the evolutionary  process in that a species that develops consciousness as a step in survival of the fittest; a consciousness individual may fit into it's environment better than one without consciousness.  I don't see the universe as trying to do anything--it just is and what happens happens.  You seem to want to give consciousness some special meaning; I don't.  It just is.  You give it value--I do to, but that's because I'd rather have it than not. 

You ask: "In a universe where it takes a conscious being to give an animal a push to survive, does consciousness not provide a harder push?"  I don't understand what you mean.

Free will?  No, humans do not have free will.  We do have the ability to make choices.  In fact, even when we don't make choices, that was a choice.  We are faced with choices daily--shoot, every second of every day.  I'd suggest it as the dictatorship of choice--we must choose, for even not choosing is a choice.  Is this free will?  Not really.  I did not chose to be born, for example.  And according to most religions, we cannot even choose when we leave this life.  We make choices within certain boundaries--we are not free to choose what we want to.

It is a difference in opinion as I see consciousness as the single most valuable thing there is. Without it, there is absolutely nothing. The universe, with no one around to observe it, does not exist.

Without free will, you are just a passenger on the road of life. You exhibit no influence over the body you are in. I cannot see how one can find happiness, when they do not find the self valuable.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 07:40:47 PM
Most people like to reference the passage they are referring to, if they are trying to have a discussion.

Nobody here will reference scripture, not even me.  I can quote the Enuma Elish however.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 09:31:04 PM
It is a difference in opinion as I see consciousness as the single most valuable thing there is. Without it, there is absolutely nothing. The universe, with no one around to observe it, does not exist.

Without free will, you are just a passenger on the road of life. You exhibit no influence over the body you are in. I cannot see how one can find happiness, when they do not find the self valuable.

Yes, it is a difference of opinion.  The old riddle; if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no body to hear it, did it make noise?  Of course it did.  Noise is simply a vibration of the atmosphere; hearing it does not influence that noise in the least.  The universe is here whether I can sense it or not.  My consciousness has no impact upon the universe; the universe is not an entity that can 'sense' us in any way. 

As I see it, we are not simply a stick floating down the river of life.  We make choices and those choices matter--at least to us.  I influence much about my body and my life.  Not all, but a significant amount.  I cannot make any choice I want to, but I can make very important choices for me and my life.  I find the value of myself for myself.  I do not see anybody as valueless.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 02, 2018, 10:05:51 PM
Yes, it is a difference of opinion.  The old riddle; if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no body to hear it, did it make noise?  Of course it did.  Noise is simply a vibration of the atmosphere; hearing it does not influence that noise in the least.  The universe is here whether I can sense it or not.  My consciousness has no impact upon the universe; the universe is not an entity that can 'sense' us in any way. 

As I see it, we are not simply a stick floating down the river of life.  We make choices and those choices matter--at least to us.  I influence much about my body and my life.  Not all, but a significant amount.  I cannot make any choice I want to, but I can make very important choices for me and my life.  I find the value of myself for myself.  I do not see anybody as valueless.

The universe is but a shared living space for us to interact with. If no one experiences something, it has no value. The universe, before humanity and without God, has no value.

However, to you, the thing that is more powerful and significant, or at least exhibits stronger influence, is the part that has no value. That is the material world.

But what is value, anyway? Perhaps the universe contains value, and it is part of a language that we cannot understand. This argument is meaningless to me, but if you have something to say about it then be my guest.

It takes a conscious being to make decisions, to have thoughts and perceive ideas, and to experience. I see the universe as a program being run by a divine operating system. The physical world is not really real, I interact with it, but it is part of an experience I am sharing with other people. It is some sort of framework for interacting with other souls.

@Birdy23 I will have to ask you to read the rules before continuing to post. Failure to adhere to the rules will result in consequences.

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5589.0

QuoteThe universe, with no one around to observe it, does not exist.

Evidence please.

QuoteWithout free will, you are just a passenger on the road of life. You exhibit no influence over the body you are in. I cannot see how one can find happiness, when they do not find the self valuable.

Agency =/= value.

You would not find a partner valuable because you have control over them; quite contrarily, it's your lack of control over a partner that enhances their value.

I don't find that a like-for-like argument, but it's just meant to point out that having control over something is not inherently good or valuable, nor is being powerless inherently bad or worthless.

QuoteIf no one experiences something, it has no value.

You have told us that we are the one's who argue life is with out value, and yet the core argument you seem to keep on making is that the universe is inherently valueless. You simply are substituting man giving it value with god giving it value... but either way it requires a conscious entity to give value to that which is valueless.

But it remains the same end result; that value is being placed on it rather being intrinsically a part of it, and value is an abstract concept that doesn't actually exist. Be it man or be it god value still is just a fancy word to help conceptualize a much more abstract aspect of existence. But if we completely dismissed the idea of value, if we purged any understanding of it from our minds, reality would be exactly the same as it was before.

I would say you put far too much value in there being value, and too much meaning in the concept of meaning.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 10:26:53 PMIf no one experiences something, it has no value. The universe, before humanity and without God, has no value.

A very suspiciously me-entric stance.

QuoteHowever, to you, the thing that is more powerful and significant, or at least exhibits stronger influence, is the part that has no value. That is the material world.

Well, the material world is a rather large and formidable place.  It is also the only place with forums where you can say how worthless it is (to you).

A lot of people have said that other realms exist.  And a lot of people have said a lot of things with little understanding or evidence or sanity.

QuoteBut what is value, anyway? Perhaps the universe contains value, and it is part of a language that we cannot understand. This argument is meaningless to me, but if you have something to say about it then be my guest.

Nah.  I agree.  It is certainly meaningless.

QuoteI see the universe as a program being run by a divine operating system.

Good for you, I guess.

QuoteThe physical world is not really real

(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-09/29/10/enhanced/webdr06/anigif_enhanced-17070-1443536163-4.gif)

That's where you lose me (and reality).

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2018, 12:03:54 AM
Evidence please.

Agency =/= value.

You would not find a partner valuable because you have control over them; quite contrarily, it's your lack of control over a partner that enhances their value.

I don't find that a like-for-like argument, but it's just meant to point out that having control over something is not inherently good or valuable, nor is being powerless inherently bad or worthless.

You have told us that we are the one's who argue life is with out value, and yet the core argument you seem to keep on making is that the universe is inherently valueless. You simply are substituting man giving it value with god giving it value... but either way it requires a conscious entity to give value to that which is valueless.

But it remains the same end result; that value is being placed on it rather being intrinsically a part of it, and value is an abstract concept that doesn't actually exist. Be it man or be it god value still is just a fancy word to help conceptualize a much more abstract aspect of existence. But if we completely dismissed the idea of value, if we purged any understanding of it from our minds, reality would be exactly the same as it was before.

I would say you put far too much value in there being value, and too much meaning in the concept of meaning.

Referring to the comment about needing evidence to support the view that the world would not exist without being observed, what would happen if there was no one to observe the evidence?

I didn't say the world was valueless, on the contrary I think it is full of meaning. I don't find any one concept in itself to be inherently valuable or invaluable so I find a comparison to not having control over your partner weird.

Experience is valuable, and I don't think it needs to have some sort of conscious acknowledgment that what you are experiencing is valuable in order to be considered valuable.

That's my opinion to counter your opinion.

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 03, 2018, 01:04:50 AM
A very suspiciously me-entric stance.
Well, the material world is a rather large and formidable place.  It is also the only place with forums where you can say how worthless it is (to you).

A lot of people have said that other realms exist.  And a lot of people have said a lot of things with little understanding or evidence or sanity.
Nah.  I agree.  It is certainly meaningless.
Good for you, I guess.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-09/29/10/enhanced/webdr06/anigif_enhanced-17070-1443536163-4.gif)

That's where you lose me (and reality).

You can say that the physical world is real, but what is really real is your experience of the physical world. And that experience is internal, within you.

Quote... what would happen if there was no one to observe the evidence?

The same thing that happens if no one observes it.

No one observed the beginning (assuming it has one) of the universe, and yet the the universe exists.

QuoteI didn't say the world was valueless, on the contrary I think it is full of meaning.

But only because you believe there is something that gives it meaning, rather than it having innate meaning. Which means it is, by default, meaningless.

QuoteI don't find any one concept in itself to be inherently valuable or invaluable so I find a comparison to not having control over your partner weird.

It wasn't a statement of what you believe.

You said that without free-will, life loses value. I responded that free-will, or control, does not necessarily equate to value... nor does lack of free-will (control) equate to a lack of value.

QuoteExperience is valuable, and I don't think it needs to have some sort of conscious acknowledgment that what you are experiencing is valuable in order to be considered valuable.

Experience can also be without value. It's all relative.

QuoteYou can say that the physical world is real, but what is really real is your experience of the physical world. And that experience is internal, within you.

To a Western mind, sure. In Eastern tradition it is often held that... in very simplistic and probably very layman's understanding terms... that experience is universal; the concept of "I" is a way of pretending we are separate from the rest of reality. What you said would run antithesis to the core tenants of Eastern mythology.

Almost all modern Eastern theological mythology revolves around dissolving the concept of an internal experience; nirvana is achieved by realizing that all experience is one universal entity rather than infinite, separate things.

Alot of your ideology does seem to revolve around, as Hydra pointed out, "I, me, mine"... that the self is the end all, be all of understanding. Studying both Western and Eastern ideology, I find that a bit short-sighted, but I understand that is the common mindset now. But even in Western tradition there are many philosophies that stress the importance of recognizing universal experience rather than the personal experience.

When you fall asleep, you become unconscious. When you take a blow to the head, you can lose consciousness. If you become blackout drunk, your consciousness becomes limited. Clearly, consciousness is something that is produced by the brain. If there were some invisible soul producing our consciousness, then why would the status of the brain affect our consciousness? Why should we even assume that a soul exists in the first place?

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 01:55:36 AM
You can say that the physical world is real, but what is really real is your experience of the physical world. And that experience is internal, within you.

Without subjectivity, objectivity is meaningless.  Unless you are Plato.

Quote from: Blackleaf on December 03, 2018, 02:35:51 AM
When you fall asleep, you become unconscious. When you take a blow to the head, you can lose consciousness. If you become blackout drunk, your consciousness becomes limited. Clearly, consciousness is something that is produced by the brain. If there were some invisible soul producing our consciousness, then why would the status of the brain affect our consciousness? Why should we even assume that a soul exists in the first place?

The brain is involved, but seldom used ;-)

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 02:39:21 PM
There is no evolutionary advantage to the advent of consciousness, in fact, it may even be a disadvantage. Was there consciousness at the beginning of the universe? The atheist view is that there was not. If consciousness is an evolutionary advantage, in that it takes the intelligence of a sentient being to run the body of an organism when it reaches a certainty complexity, why was there no consciousness at the beginning of creation? Doesn't it take something special to create that kind of occurrence?

This is a highly logical argument that can be better affirmed with a footnote or two that would stop any unbeliever in his tracks. 

Basically:

"If we have consciousness which is an evolutionary advantage...



Therefore a conscious creator runs the consciousness."

Admittedly these two statements by themselves are non sequitur, but notice I have left three empty spaces which can be filled with undisputed arguments and backed by the heavy lifting already performed by philosophers from antiquity to modern day.  It can be expanded to many spaces, as it deserves space for all the highly intellectual and undisputable claims readily available to a logical mind.

To begin, it draws upon the previous work found in the ontological argument, "that than which nothing greater can be thought...",  see Anselm, 1078, Canterbury, which is roughly equivalent to "if I imagine it, there must be a greater being that allows me to imagine it.  There is no need to present Anselm's work in it's entirety.  We all know that in philosophical and intellectual circles, he was no slouch.  Indeed he was an Archbishop, and his ideas were expanded further by subsequent thinkers such as Rene Descartes, Liebnez, and Alvin Plantinga  Suffice it to say, much of the heavy lifting has already been done for you.  It just needs to be noted.

Your two statements can also be connected logically, by crediting William Paley's argument from the Devine Watchmaker, which has also withstood the tests of time, even while being savagely attacked by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins who disgraced himself in front of the world by arguing against it in his satirical spoof, The Blind Watchmaker.

More modern yet are the great works of respected creationist thinkers like Ken Hamm, Falwell, and Robertson, whose massive wealth bestowed upon them by a righteous god attests to existence of a supreme creator.

These and other arguments of your own can fill the space between the statement and conclusion above.  The more arguments the better, because any first year student of logic knows that a logical argument needs at least three lines.  By increasing the number of lines, the logic is strengthened exponentially.

Good luck with your fine work, and fear not adversity.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 10:26:53 PM
The universe is but a shared living space for us to interact with. If no one experiences something, it has no value. The universe, before humanity and without God, has no value.

However, to you, the thing that is more powerful and significant, or at least exhibits stronger influence, is the part that has no value. That is the material world.

But what is value, anyway? Perhaps the universe contains value, and it is part of a language that we cannot understand. This argument is meaningless to me, but if you have something to say about it then be my guest.

It takes a conscious being to make decisions, to have thoughts and perceive ideas, and to experience. I see the universe as a program being run by a divine operating system. The physical world is not really real, I interact with it, but it is part of an experience I am sharing with other people. It is some sort of framework for interacting with other souls.

Those are your opinions.  Of course, you are entitled to those.  But I disagree with all of your assumptions.  Just because you cannot understand something, cannot fathom something, does not make it so or not so.  What you term 'value' I term wishful believing.  You want something to be, therefore it is.  No.  The universe exists whether or not you are in it.  It exists even if Earth were to blow up.  It existed long before you were and will exist long after you leave.  And it is the only real thing there is--there is nothing supernatural about it; nor does your life encounter anything supernatural.  If it exists, it is natural.  If it does not exist then it is fiction.  Your god, no matter how you describe it, is fiction. 

Consciousness is part of the evolutionary process.  It allows a species a better chance of survival.  Our consciousness gives us awareness in the form of our senses.  Those senses are quite limited when compared to many other species.  Those species use their awarnesses to give them a better chance to survive within the niche they are in; they have evolved those senses to allow them to fit into whatever environment they are in.  Humans are not unique in that respect--or almost any other respect.  And the universe is simply unaware or any of this.  The universe places no premium (or anything else) on what you think of as value.  It is totally and completely neutral--it just is.  Nature on this planet is the same--it just is; neither good nor bad, it just is.  And your god is still simply a fiction.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 02:39:21 PM
My definition of God is being with consciousness only, who created the universe.

How does consciousness only work? This sounds more like that goofy thought experiment thing that people always do, like infinity plus one or being outside or beyond the universe. These are large or unintuitive concepts to most people so they treat them like other things, like a hat or something but it doesn't work and tells us nothing except the person has no understanding of the fundamentals of the thing they are talking about.

I find the idea that any notion of god creating the universe to be uninteresting. This is along the same line as first cause arguments. Why? Is there no other reason to think gods exist other than you have no idea how else the universe could be here? For shame! For shame!

"I can't imagine how it happened, so God must have done it!"

We hear "arguments" like this a lot - argumentum ad ignorantiam - and they never get any better.

Quote from: the_antithesis on December 03, 2018, 01:29:57 PMI find the idea that any notion of god creating the universe to be uninteresting. This is along the same line as first cause arguments. Why? Is there no other reason to think gods exist other than you have no idea how else the universe could be here? For shame! For shame!

Imo, the "unknown --> godidit" idea assumes more intellectual curiosity on the part of believers than is warranted.  Compared to using God to make sense of the universe, it's just as likely that believers are starting out with the idea of a creator god (by starting out I mean post-indoctrination) and presupposing reasons that this god exists.  Gaps in our knowledge are convenient places to put this creator god, and there's none bigger than the beginning of the universe, plus it's a thematic fit.  Rather than a genuine attempt to understand the universe, this is just an attempt to make an indoctrinated belief seem rational.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2018, 02:27:41 AM
To a Western mind, sure. In Eastern tradition it is often held that... in very simplistic and probably very layman's understanding terms... that experience is universal; the concept of "I" is a way of pretending we are separate from the rest of reality. What you said would run antithesis to the core tenants of Eastern mythology.

Almost all modern Eastern theological mythology revolves around dissolving the concept of an internal experience; nirvana is achieved by realizing that all experience is one universal entity rather than infinite, separate things.

Alot of your ideology does seem to revolve around, as Hydra pointed out, "I, me, mine"... that the self is the end all, be all of understanding. Studying both Western and Eastern ideology, I find that a bit short-sighted, but I understand that is the common mindset now. But even in Western tradition there are many philosophies that stress the importance of recognizing universal experience rather than the personal experience.

Yes, I have spent a bunch of time philosophizing with solipsism. So I agree with that. But I don't consider it a shortcoming.

I dream of a god(s) that can sparkle sth. with his wisdom and knowledge.

One day humankind will rise to be a god that depends on a definition.
That god can have some post-post-post..modern sci. and tech. and sensitive gadgets. and enhanced calculatin' and computin' technics...
And he will have might to ''creat''; or at least, the power to observe and to be ghost participant...

For ins. how does it sound that idea: To any liveable planet that can give source to live for homo sapiens; some people is sent to there and they are forgotten their past and let them live in earthly conditions...

So let's see by observing them, how will their life styles will improve...

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 02:39:21 PM
In brief, I argue for God. My definition of God is being with consciousness only, who created the universe. He doesn't have to be all-knowing, omnipresent, infallible, all-loving... There could be more than one and that's irrelevant.

Let's say a consciousness created the universe. I don't see how that necessarily changes anything. It doesn't mean the consciousness still exists. It doesn't mean the universe in any way reflects the nature of its creator. It doesn't mean human beings can communicate with that consciousness and if we could communicate with it it's highly unlikely we could ever understand it.

People create narratives so they can make sense of experience. Humans are driven to do this because they are uncomfortable with chaos and unpredictatability. As an atheist, the problem I have with the religious is they often convince themselves their narratives are knowledge and that everyone else's narrative is fiction. Atheists do this as well on topics like whether consciousness exists after death. Nobody knows exactly how consciousness works but if the narrative is that it's solely a biological process then consciousness dying along with the body fits the narrative, but it isn't knowledge.

People who can't explain what is happening right here and right now are convinced they know what was going on billions of years ago. People who are convinced by their feelings that God is real were once equally convinced by feelings that their harpy ex-wife or abusive ex-husband was their soulmate. I don't pretend to know the nature of my own existance, much less the universe, and accept that the illusion of what I call "I" is largely governed by psychological, biological and social forces I don't understand and cannot fully control. Could a creator consciousness be an additional force? Maybe but it seems like an unnecessary narrative.

If god is real, why can't I find my fucking car keys?

Maybe God's punishing you for your grievous sins?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 03, 2018, 04:34:28 PM
If god is real, why can't I find my fucking car keys?

Because if you found your car keys you would have left the house on time and been in that intersection precisely when the beer truck ran the light, smashed into your vehicle and killed you. Everything happens for a reason. God intervened and saved your life.

Atheists are so ungrateful.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 03, 2018, 01:41:03 PM
"I can't imagine how it happened, so God must have done it!"

We hear "arguments" like this a lot - argumentum ad ignorantiam - and they never get any better.

You make the mistake of labeling the idea of God as universally hokey. I am not arguing for the God of the Bible, or including any assumptions about the being such as the idea that we were "created in God's image." Arguing that we were created in God's image may seem as if we are putting a human face on the creation of the universe or the universe itself, to make up for the fact that the way our brain's work is social and within a human framework, kind of like how earlier religions believed external forces all had spirits, personifying nature in a way that is ego-centric.

I defined God as simply a being that is self-aware, which naturally includes intellect and desires, whatever those may be.

You fail to realize that this isn't that extraordinary of a concept, atheists in the same context use terms like "magical supernatural being," and stuff to that effect to use words with emotional connotations that make the idea of God sound silly. These words borrow emotional connotations from stories invented by pathological liars, including hokey ghost hunting stories and people who make unsubstantiated claims about witchcraft.

God or no god, we don't understand how the universe came to be. God does not answer the question either. Our human intellects are incapable of understanding how we can get something out of nothing. Instead of disappearing in the abyss of studying physical space, you look for a motivation. Studying physical properties of the universe doesn't get you anywhere, neither does referencing a hokey story about God waving his magic wand and people appearing.

It seems to me that atheists do not assign enough significance to the concept of self-awareness and consciousness. You can't prove that consciousness exists. Consciousness cannot be measured because it is not quantifiable. There are numerous accounts of people leaving their body and near death experiences which I imagine you would dismiss as lies.

As humans, another failing in our reasoning is to expect bad outcomes. In hunting and gathering days, it is a survival advantage to assume a sudden rustle in the bushes is a predator and be prepared to run instead of assuming it is a harmless animal. We are fed magical fairy tales in the form of Disney movies as children, and as we get older we have to accept that what love really is falls way short of what we thought as children. We are under constant pressure to "get real."

It's a choice between believing life has a purpose and life is meaningless, the result of mysterious forces non-sentient forces that exist magically and supernaturally and we are at the mercy of these forces.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2018, 02:27:41 AM
To a Western mind, sure. In Eastern tradition it is often held that... in very simplistic and probably very layman's understanding terms... that experience is universal; the concept of "I" is a way of pretending we are separate from the rest of reality. What you said would run antithesis to the core tenants of Eastern mythology.

Almost all modern Eastern theological mythology revolves around dissolving the concept of an internal experience; nirvana is achieved by realizing that all experience is one universal entity rather than infinite, separate things.

Alot of your ideology does seem to revolve around, as Hydra pointed out, "I, me, mine"... that the self is the end all, be all of understanding. Studying both Western and Eastern ideology, I find that a bit short-sighted, but I understand that is the common mindset now. But even in Western tradition there are many philosophies that stress the importance of recognizing universal experience rather than the personal experience.

Naturally, if someone else is experiencing something, you are not experiencing it. I believe in the possibility of overlap, in collective consciousness/unconscious, and empathy. However, if I am not experiencing something, I don't know what it feels like.

Through my process of philosophy I have thought a lot about solipsism so you picked up on that.

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 03, 2018, 09:16:26 AM
Consciousness is part of the evolutionary process.  It allows a species a better chance of survival.  Our consciousness gives us awareness in the form of our senses.  Those senses are quite limited when compared to many other species.  Those species use their awarnesses to give them a better chance to survive within the niche they are in; they have evolved those senses to allow them to fit into whatever environment they are in.  Humans are not unique in that respect--or almost any other respect.  And the universe is simply unaware or any of this.  The universe places no premium (or anything else) on what you think of as value.  It is totally and completely neutral--it just is.  Nature on this planet is the same--it just is; neither good nor bad, it just is.  And your god is still simply a fiction.

First of all, do you believe in free will?

The brain can send signals that cause the body to move or act, regardless if there is someone who "experiences" the emotions, desires, pain, etc.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 05:34:58 PM
First of all, do you believe in free will?

The brain can send signals that cause the body to move or act, regardless if there is someone who "experiences" the emotions, desires, pain, etc.

I answered your free will question several posts back.  I said:"Free will?  No, humans do not have free will.  We do have the ability to make choices.  In fact, even when we don't make choices, that was a choice.  We are faced with choices daily--shoot, every second of every day.  I'd suggest it as the dictatorship of choice--we must choose, for even not choosing is a choice.  Is this free will?  Not really.  I did not chose to be born, for example.  And according to most religions, we cannot even choose when we leave this life.  We make choices within certain boundaries--we are not free to choose what we want to."

Yes, the brain does have what is called the autonomic system--it powers the heart, glands, etc, and works whether we want it to or not.  So, in that that system is at work, we don't have free will over it.  So, no, little if any free will. 

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
You make the mistake of labeling the idea of God as universally hokey.

Yep, that's because the idea of God is universally hokey. Whatever it is you believe in, why do you call it "God"?

QuoteI am not arguing for the God of the Bible, or including any assumptions about the being such as the idea that we were "created in God's image." Arguing that we were created in God's image may seem as if we are putting a human face on the creation of the universe or the universe itself, to make up for the fact that the way our brain's work is social and within a human framework, kind of like how earlier religions believed external forces all had spirits, personifying nature in a way that is ego-centric.

Yep, we're hard-wired to think of ourselves as the be-all and end-all of existence. If giraffes could have a religion, their God would look just like a giraffe, and they'd claim they were made in God's image.

QuoteI defined God as simply a being that is self-aware, which naturally includes intellect and desires, whatever those may be.

That's not a definition of God, it's simply blatherskite. There are as many definitions of God as there are God-believers.

QuoteYou fail to realize that this isn't that extraordinary of a concept, atheists in the same context use terms like "magical supernatural being," and stuff to that effect to use words with emotional connotations that make the idea of God sound silly. These words borrow emotional connotations from stories invented by pathological liars, including hokey ghost hunting stories and people who make unsubstantiated claims about witchcraft.

Isn't what you're doing is making an unsubstantiated claim about God?

QuoteGod or no god, we don't understand how the universe came to be. God does not answer the question either. Our human intellects are incapable of understanding how we can get something out of nothing. Instead of disappearing in the abyss of studying physical space, you look for a motivation. Studying physical properties of the universe doesn't get you anywhere, neither does referencing a hokey story about God waving his magic wand and people appearing.

It seems to me that atheists do not assign enough significance to the concept of self-awareness and consciousness. You can't prove that consciousness exists. Consciousness cannot be measured because it is not quantifiable. There are numerous accounts of people leaving their body and near death experiences which I imagine you would dismiss as lies.

Yep, all lies. I tried for many years to accomplish astral projection, until I finally realized that I'd been duped into believing bullshit.

QuoteIt's a choice between believing life has a purpose and life is meaningless, the result of mysterious forces non-sentient forces that exist magically and supernaturally and we are at the mercy of these forces.

Why does life need a purpose? Especially one imposed on us from outside ourselves? I choose my own purpose, not some fairy-tale God, or those who believe in such a thing.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 03, 2018, 05:58:54 PM
Yep, that's because the idea of God is universally hokey. Whatever it is you believe in, why do you call it "God"?
Yep, we're hard-wired to think of ourselves as the be-all and end-all of existence. If giraffes could have a religion, their God would look just like a giraffe, and they'd claim they were made in God's image.

That's not a definition of God, it's simply blatherskite. There are as many definitions of God as there are God-believers.
Isn't what you're doing is making an unsubstantiated claim about God?

Yep, all lies. I tried for many years to accomplish astral projection, until I finally realized that I'd been duped into believing bullshit.

Why does life need a purpose? Especially one imposed on us from outside ourselves? I choose my own purpose, not some fairy-tale God, or those who believe in such a thing.

Okay, I'm going to try one more time. I'm talking about a being who is self-aware who possesses intelligence and will. You can call that hokey, but the alternative is particles that behave according to properties that "just are."

Honestly I feel like there is a concept in my mind I am trying to express with the words "awareness," "consciousnessness," "intelligence," etc., That doesn't register in your mind so I will just have to accept that there is some sort of barrier here.

And yes, "unsubstantiated claims of witchcraft," I am talking about things pathological liars say. Defining the definition of God for the purpose of an argument is not an unsubstantiated claim about God and I think you should know the difference between these two concepts.

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 03, 2018, 05:55:03 PM
I answered your free will question several posts back.  I said:"Free will?  No, humans do not have free will.  We do have the ability to make choices.  In fact, even when we don't make choices, that was a choice.  We are faced with choices daily--shoot, every second of every day.  I'd suggest it as the dictatorship of choice--we must choose, for even not choosing is a choice.  Is this free will?  Not really.  I did not chose to be born, for example.  And according to most religions, we cannot even choose when we leave this life.  We make choices within certain boundaries--we are not free to choose what we want to."

Yes, the brain does have what is called the autonomic system--it powers the heart, glands, etc, and works whether we want it to or not.  So, in that that system is at work, we don't have free will over it.  So, no, little if any free will.

Yes, the mighty tracing team, which is the human race and the conscious experience.

I had a blog post on this concept but apparently I'm not supposed to include links.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:18:53 PM
Okay, I'm going to try one more time. I'm talking about a being who is self-aware who possesses intelligence and will. You can call that hokey, but the alternative is particles that behave according to properties that "just are."

Honestly I feel like there is a concept in my mind I am trying to express with the words "awareness," "consciousnessness," "intelligence," etc., That doesn't register in your mind so I will just have to accept that there is some sort of barrier here.

And yes, "unsubstantiated claims of witchcraft," I am talking about things pathological liars say. Defining the definition of God for the purpose of an argument is not an unsubstantiated claim about God and I think you should know the difference between these two concepts.

Well, when you say that God has awareness, intelligence, consciousness, etc., that's not defining God, it's only listing some possible attributes of what you think of as God. Presumably, if Santa Claus existed, he too would have those very same attributes, so he'd be no different from this God you're going on about.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:18:53 PM
Okay, I'm going to try one more time. I'm talking about a being who is self-aware who possesses intelligence and will.

Okay--gotcha.  Can you explain to me what proof you have of such an entity? 

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:21:18 PM
Yes, the mighty tracing team, which is the human race and the conscious experience.

I had a blog post on this concept but apparently I'm not supposed to include links.

What does this have to do with free will.  What is your idea of free will?

Birdy seems to think she's got an idea of what a God should be like and so she's sure that God actually is exactly like she pictures it.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 03, 2018, 06:33:19 PM
Birdy seems to think she's got an idea of what a God should be like and so she's sure that God actually is exactly like she pictures it.

I have other beliefs about God, I have simplified it for the purpose of this discussion.

Unlike you, who knows that the world is devoid of purpose or meaning.

If I might ask, was there a purpose to all of this?

It seems we are just arguing random concepts rather than an actual idea at this point.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 03, 2018, 06:24:05 PM
Well, when you say that God has awareness, intelligence, consciousness, etc., that's not defining God, it's only listing some possible attributes of what you think of as God. Presumably, if Santa Claus existed, he too would have those very same attributes, so he'd be no different from this God you're going on about.

This is a false equivalence.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2018, 06:52:21 PM
If I might ask, was there a purpose to all of this?

It seems we are just arguing random concepts rather than an actual idea at this point.

What is the difference between a random concept and an idea?

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:55:46 PM
This is a false equivalence.

So you say. I say otherwise.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:56:36 PM
What is the difference between a random concept and an idea?

We haven't yet heard any ideas from you, just blatherskite.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 02:39:21 PM

My definition of God is being with consciousness only, who created the universe. He doesn't have to be all-knowing, omnipresent, infallible, all-loving...

And yet you suggest that a "thing" has existed forever, before anything else existed, and doesn't have to be all-knowing but knew all about things that didn't exist...enough to know how to create them from sub-atomic particles (that didn't exist) and thus forced them into particular laws (that he knew nothing of) and created a universe of such immensity that the human's known galaxy was but a grain of sand in comparison and then........by and high......reveal his almightyness to said microscopic humans and said, "I made this for you...I love you...oh and just for fun...in order to live you must kill and eat each other....BUHAHAHAHAHA!! " Yeah.......the rest of your thoughts were dismissed as well....meh.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:56:36 PM
What is the difference between a random concept and an idea?

I guess I actually used the words backwards. My bad.

What is the overarching concept we are discussing? Instead we are just talking random, individual ideas that don't seem to be getting to any real point.

Quote from: aitm on December 03, 2018, 07:11:53 PM
And yet you suggest that a "thing" has existed forever, before anything else existed, and doesn't have to be all-knowing but knew all about things that didn't exist...enough to know how to create them from sub-atomic particles (that didn't exist) and thus forced them into particular laws (that he knew nothing of) and created a universe of such immensity that the human's known galaxy was but a grain of sand in comparison and then........by and high......reveal his almightyness to said microscopic humans and said, "I made this for you...I love you...oh and just for fun...in order to live you must kill and eat each other....BUHAHAHAHAHA!! " Yeah.......the rest of your thoughts were dismissed as well....meh.

There there. It must be hard, trying to fathom external thought processes. And you're a MODERATOR, too huh? You big boy you.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:49:48 PM
I have other beliefs about God, I have simplified it for the purpose of this discussion.

Unlike you, who knows that the world is devoid of purpose or meaning.

You see, Birdy, this is what theists that come to this board do.  You say that Unbeliever says the world is devoid of purpose or meaning.  He (nor I) said that.  Why are theists so insistent about putting words into the mouths of atheists?  The world or universe is without any inherent purpose or meaning.  It's only purpose is to be.  Period.  Whatever meaning or purpose I want my life to have I have to supply it.  And I do.  My life has purpose and it has meaning.  I am content with what my life has been and what I think it will be.  In any case, I give it meaning--or not.  One of my choices.  I don't need a supernatural force or entity to do that--I can do it myself.  The purpose of life is life; the purpose of the universe is the universe.

Birdy23 ... once you concede materialism, you might as well be an atheist.  Once you concede naturalism, humanity isn't important either.  What undermines most arguments, whether people realize it or not, are their hidden or unexamined assumptions.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
It seems to me that atheists do not assign enough significance to the concept of self-awareness and consciousness. You can't prove that consciousness exists. Consciousness cannot be measured because it is not quantifiable.

Considering I think consciousness is necessary for existance, that it is the one thing I know to be true, I don't know how I can give it more significance. I don't have to prove that consciousness exists because the fact I am experiencing anything indicates I have consciouness. Whether other people I encounter are conscious is something I can't prove and I have to take on faith. It is possible "I" am the only conscious being. It is also possible what I think of "I" and what you think of as "you" and what Baruch thinks of as "Baruch" are one consciousness that has divided itself, similar to what is seen in split brain. This is all very fanciful but the bottom line is if GSOgymrat doesn't want to suffer unwanted consequences GSOgymrat needs to treat other people as though they were experiencing consciousness similarly.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 07:20:01 PM
There there. It must be hard, trying to fathom external thought processes. And you're a MODERATOR, too huh? You big boy you.

This one's a real charmer!  Quite a desirable new addition to our little community.  The years will just fly by.

This is a rather undisciplined thread, mostly due to OP Birdy23's somewhat random musings and mere assertions.

Birdy23:  You started this thread with the title "Argument from Consciousness".  Three suggestions:

1)  Stay on that topic;

2)  Before going any further provide your definition of consciousness (what it is and what it is not); and

3)  After that, do the hard work to develop a consensus of that defintion.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 02:39:21 PM
There is no evolutionary advantage to the advent of consciousness, in fact, it may even be a disadvantage.

Are you arguing here that consciousness would need to provide an evolutionary advantage before it could be passed down to the population at large? Because if you are that is just plain wrong. Not to mention a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Red hair offers no evolutionary advantage yet about 2% of people have it. There are plenty of other examples of traits that offer no evolutionary advantage whose existence can be explained by evolution if you need them.

Or is your argument simply that creation of the universe required consciousness? If so then there are alternatives to that hypothesis. Brane cosmology is one competing hypothesis, and there are several others.

I prefer to be brane-less ;-)  I also consider the origin of the universe to be irrelevant.  Here and now, that is relevant.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 07:20:01 PM
There there. It must be hard, trying to fathom external thought processes.

It's easy to see foolish thoughts, but tell a fool he is foolish and they call you a fool. Yeah..yer a real brainiac.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on December 04, 2018, 07:37:44 AM
Are you arguing here that consciousness would need to provide an evolutionary advantage before it could be passed down to the population at large?

The OP is not an argument.  It appears to be in sentence structure, but its purpose is just to engage in a series of disconnected defenses of random unsupportable claims of the supernatural.  That is apparent in the length of the thread.  If it was about the OP, the discussion would be over, and others have already alluded to the threads loss of direction.  In fact your own responses indicate you are trying to make sense out of the incomprehensible nature of the discussion

Your queries:

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on December 04, 2018, 07:37:44 AM
Because if you are...

Or is your argument simply that...

We find ourselves in a corral that has no purpose other than to give Birdy someone to talk to.  What started as an honest attempt to discuss a phenomenon that mankind has yet to understand as become an environment for Birdy to throw out random spiritual claims which she feels no obligation to support, because that was never her intention to begin with.  She's just looking for attention.

Quote from: SGOS on December 04, 2018, 09:59:49 AM
The OP is not an argument.  It appears to be in sentence structure, but its purpose is just to engage in a series of disconnected defenses of random unsupportable claims of the supernatural.  That is apparent in the length of the thread.  If it was about the OP, the discussion would be over, and others have already alluded to the threads loss of direction.  In fact your own responses indicate you are trying to make sense out of the incomprehensible nature of the discussion

Your queries: We find ourselves in a corral that has no purpose other than to give Birdy someone to talk to.  What started as an honest attempt to discuss a phenomenon that mankind has yet to understand as become an environment for Birdy to throw out random spiritual claims which she feels no obligation to support, because that was never her intention to begin with.  She's just looking for attention.

Glad I never got past the OP then. :)

Birdy should maybe just adopt a greyhound, then she'd have someone to talk to.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 06:49:48 PM
Unlike you, who knows that the world is devoid of purpose or meaning.

Yep, I do know exactly that. It's almost all I really do know, though, besides the fact of my own existence.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 02:39:21 PM
There is no evolutionary advantage to the advent of consciousness, in fact, it may even be a disadvantage. Was there consciousness at the beginning of the universe? The atheist view is that there was not. If consciousness is an evolutionary advantage, in that it takes the intelligence of a sentient being to run the body of an organism when it reaches a certainty complexity, why was there no consciousness at the beginning of creation? Doesn't it take something special to create that kind of occurrence?

In a word, no.

In rather more words: we have a pretty good theoretical understanding of the processes that got us from a bang 13.799±0.021 billion years ago to today, and overthrowing the wholes of cosmology, astrophysics, geology, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology requires a whole lot more than "I can't wrap my brain around it therefore god!"

There is nothing in the current understanding of the Big Bang that requires a consciousness to set it off.  If you wish to assert that it did require one, you need to prove the need for one, not simply assert your belief that it did as if it deserves to be given the same status as long-studied and data-supported scientific theories.

It doesn't require consciousness to "run the body of an organism when it reaches a certainty complexity" -- most mammals on the Earth today are just as biophysically and biochemically complex as human beings, and are just as evolved as we are.  Certainly at a minimum the other hominidæare, like the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (genus Gorilla) and chimpanzees and bonobos (genus Pan), in addition to ourselves (genus Homo).

Also, the universe doesn't owe you an explanation.  The universe isn't obligated to be explicable.  How unspeakably arrogant you are to expect that your explanation without data deserves to be taken seriously for anything longer than a microsecond!

We are not necessary to the universe.  We are merely possible within the universe.  And that simple idea has awesome implications -- by not assuming we're the point of the universe, think of all the other wonders currently not conceived of, of which the universe is capable of spawning by simple laws and simple physics and simple chemistry.

Your concept of a parochial universe created by a consciousness?  How pathetically small.  I prefer a reality that's larger than my imagination.  I love being shocked out of my complacency.  I genuinely wept when the nitrogen glaciers of Pluto were discovered simply because that was so far past anything I had ever thought possible... and they were real, backed up by observation, not mere assertion.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 05:35:52 PM
There is a certain brand of atheists I was targeting, which are the type that don't believe in anything supernatural - whether that be life after death, God, the soul, sometimes free will but not necessarily.

That would be ALL actual atheists...  There is no "certain brand" of atheists who believe in things supernatural.  If some people do, they aren't atheists.

I always find it a bit fascinating to read some posts where people claim to be atheists and also have some supernatural ideas.  They are completely self-deluded idiots, of course.

Quote from: Cavebear on December 05, 2018, 04:12:01 AM
That would be ALL actual atheists...  There is no "certain brand" of atheists who believe in things supernatural.  If some people do, they aren't atheists.

I always find it a bit fascinating to read some posts where people claim to be atheists and also have some supernatural ideas.  They are completely self-deluded idiots, of course.

Just like any other group of people.  Humans are a failed species.

Well, Birdy23 didn't last very long, huh?

Maybe she fell unconscious striving to become Birdy24.

Maybe she just realized we wouldn't accept her blatherskite without question, and decided to ply her wares elsewhere.

If there is one thing we have learned about the religious is that "interpretation" is not just a word, it's a fucking open invitation to invent shit that any word can mean any other word if the summation equals their pre-determined conclusion. Birdy will be back....them whack jobs never seem to leave...

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 02, 2018, 05:35:52 PM
There is a certain brand of atheists I was targeting, which are the type that don't believe in anything supernatural - whether that be life after death, God, the soul, sometimes free will but not necessarily.

If any of those things exist then they are not supernatural. They would be just natural.

Quote from: Birdy23 on December 03, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
I am not arguing for the God of the Bible, or including any assumptions about the being such as the idea that we were "created in God's image."

Lol, you are arguing for an abrahamic god. You are just doing it with an untraditional language and from a less common perspective. Basically you are just trying to upgrade the traditional outlook by chopping certain aspects of the common understanding which is far more traditional than you think. It's what we call, new age hokum.

What you describe here as 'consciousness' is a modern cooked up idea of the 'soul'; as a creator; the eternal source for the soul. What makes beings uniquely themselves. They are themselves and make sense because they include a part of that 'soul', in your terms, that 'consciousness'.

There is a common way of reasoning that leads the most people to believe their god is omnipotent. Because as they believe it created all things, they also believe it includes the knowledge of all things. A perfect circle. So their understanding is that god must be omnipotent...and so on. A primitive understanding of the old world of everything black and white, like perfect geometrical shapes; an order. Otherwise it is chaos which is evil according to that understanding, that belief.

[As the human itself is not, somebody, something must be omnipotent. Desire for control. Because we start to live without choosing and then we die. We feel pain. Think about it like a fantasy, a desire reflected to a fantasy being. An anthropomorphic fantasy, if you will. Pretty much like pagan gods, because it is an upgraded version of them. Actually which makes the term 'monotheism', one god pretty useless and again an anthropomorphic fantasy from the second level if you put that desire for control; order in the first level.]

But while people believe or want to believe in a god, they don't buy this any more, do they? For some time now, the old picture falls short. Esp. today as we are living in a world that finds out more everyday that chaos/coincidence is the begining and the common state of existance and being; a world that now understands that majority of concepts the most intelligent species it knows has created for thousands of years are just anthropomorphic bullshit, but nothing else. Talk about depression, struggle and search.

So what you -and a lot of people- are doing is trying to upgrade the understanding of abrahamic god(s) into a new, more satisfying one. Because doesn't matter how you describe it, you are coming from the same point of 'some special substance of its own' giving meaning to all things and that without it nothing makes sense. You just named it differently, the name you thought would make the most sense. So when you start to describe it in more vague, grey terms or spirituality or energy, some different terms replacing the old ones, polishing sides of it...etc. you are not offering something different.     

Human consciousness is nothing but a series of chemical reactions in the brain. When you use the word consciousness in a way that makes you content, it doesn't become something else. Same with your concept of god.

I'll go further and claim that humans cannot imagine a fundamentally different idea of god than the one changes between pagan and abrahamic gods. In the end, the abrahamic god.   

Only in European solipsism.  There, Descartes, invented mind, having mutated it from soul.  But the Chinese and Indians have a much older tradition.  Being from Turkey, you are naturally focused on the Abrahamic tradition.  That isn't what you would be saying if you were a dissident from the Indian tradition.

I am skipping your meaningless Descartes remark. A 17th century philosopher's definition of scepticism; existence is not relevant to us. Frankly, nobody who lived before Realism is relevant to us. And I am being generous, sweety, I woke up from the right side of the bed today, as we say. :) Stop throwing random milestones around the way you like.       

The Chinese and Hinduism beliefs are 'oh soo enlightening and different' if you live in Europe or in the States. If yoou live in a certain life standart in a lawful country. Not for people who were born and living in these countries; societies those traditions created. That's why belief is belief and religion is religion and hence the cultures they create. With typical gods or not. They are all the same thing.

No, I am not naturally focused on the Abrahamic traditions, I am just talking about a specific concept of god which belongs to Abrahamic tradition. And far eastern traditions are translated into to Abrahamic traditions long time ago. Also, the culture I live in is much closer to the cultures you count up there than mainstream Christianity. Before Islamisation, Turkic tribes had very similar beliefs and traditions; they were nomadic tribes. 

E: By the way what is that? Argument from which is older? LOL   

 

Quote from: drunkenshoe on December 07, 2018, 08:28:17 AM

E: By the way what is that? Argument from which is older? LOL   

argumentum ad antīquum?

Quote from: SGOS on December 07, 2018, 10:18:53 AM
argumentum ad antīquum?

argumentum ad enlightenum

Buddha is the original woke person.  Seculars are simply nastika.  Secularism itself is Eurocentric, White, Racist, Imperialism.