News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).
Not 'magically arise'.  Humans create order out of the chaos of the universe and nature because that helps us to make something of the chaos we find ourselves in.  I have created an order of what I am able to perceive as the universe around me.  Whether or not it comports with what you consider order to be is not important to me.  I realize that time is considered to be linear and the same everywhere on this world.  But for me, that's not the case.  Every day I find time zips by at times and drags at others.  Time is not the same all the time for me.  When some factor in my life is demonstrated to be seen in error by me, I will then change my mind about that factor.  For me, my order is my order and magic has nothing to do with it; nor does anything spiritual, unnatural, supernatural, have anything to do with it. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2017, 01:25:00 PM
Not 'magically arise'.  Humans create order out of the chaos of the universe and nature because that helps us to make something of the chaos we find ourselves in.  I have created an order of what I am able to perceive as the universe around me.  Whether or not it comports with what you consider order to be is not important to me.  I realize that time is considered to be linear and the same everywhere on this world.  But for me, that's not the case.  Every day I find time zips by at times and drags at others.  Time is not the same all the time for me.  When some factor in my life is demonstrated to be seen in error by me, I will then change my mind about that factor.  For me, my order is my order and magic has nothing to do with it; nor does anything spiritual, unnatural, supernatural, have anything to do with it.

Yes, but you are answering for trdsf.  Yes, we create order, just like G-d in Genesis.  We are demigods.  But epiphenomenalism doesn't claim that ... it claims that random atoms do that, not people.  Wrong level of analysis, but then materialism almost always is.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:34:55 PM
Yes, but you are answering for trdsf.  Yes, we create order, just like G-d in Genesis.  We are demigods.  But epiphenomenalism doesn't claim that ... it claims that random atoms do that, not people.  Wrong level of analysis, but then materialism almost always is.
No, I was telling you that magic has nothing to do with it.  There is no real magic; the stage magic is trickery (but still astounding when done by the good magicians).  Those labels you like to throw out mean little to me.  I have not looked at all of the schools of thought for all philosophy and then picked one and rejected everything else.  If what I say and do suggests a certain school of philosophy, then that is accidental not purposefully done on my part.  I chose the way I look at the universe based on what works for me--and not any philosopher.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).  This is what Wolfram thinks too (reality is cellular automata) ... but he is just a Pythagorean.  Few are as materialist as Descartes, science has moved on to ... physicalism and reductionism.

Dawkins wrote that if you hear someone talking about randomness, he probably doesn't understand evolution. Natural selection is far from random. Many people find it hard to accept that our mind (which is nothing more than the process of our physical brain) evolved to its present state from a single-cell organism.  Jerry Coyne's book, 'Why Evolution is True' is really good. In CF, I recommended Francis Collins, 'The Language of God' to the fundies. You can't read it and not see the truth of evolution. Our consciousness can easily come about from a non-conscious distant ancestor. Francis Collins is a Christian and so CF folks would read his book but they don't know that the first half of the book is all about why evolution is absolutely true from a geneticist's standpoint. The second half of the book is the dumbest I've ever read. He explains why he believes in God and I'm amazed that Francis Collins can suddenly turn from a brilliant geneticist to a moron just because he goes weak in the knees at the mention of blooming God. Whenever I see brilliant people reduced to imbeciles because they want to believe in pesky God, I get upset with this non-existent pest.

trdsf

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).  This is what Wolfram thinks too (reality is cellular automata) ... but he is just a Pythagorean.  Few are as materialist as Descartes, science has moved on to ... physicalism and reductionism.
There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.

And more to the point, it is an open area of research and an unanswered question in science and I cheerily admit that I don't know with any certainty.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Hydra009

Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 03:05:34 PM
There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.
An intriguing idea.  But calling it magic is so much easier.

Baruch

#321
Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 03:05:34 PM
There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.

And more to the point, it is an open area of research and an unanswered question in science and I cheerily admit that I don't know with any certainty.

Beehives and anthills aren't natural, they are artificial.  Social insects are very sophisticated, unlike rocks.  And yes, some things are processes ... not things ... but then that isn't materialism, that is process theology ;-)  Processes are a human description of a complex situation, they don't exist aside from our cogitation.  The ants and bees don't know that we are trying to analyze them, they have their own life/consciousness individually and in groups ... same as humans.  Now you can put a pile of sand into a beach, but (per no spontaneous generation) there won't be crabs that develop out of that sand (there might be in a billion years but that isn't what is meant by spontanous generation).  The crabs come from elsewhere will colonize that sand.

Materialists and confused naturalists would say ... the artificial doesn't exist, and free will doesn't exist.  They make perfect communists, they are only fit to live in a feminist hive mind ;-(
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 27, 2017, 03:17:43 PM
An intriguing idea.  But calling it magic is so much easier.

Magic is the name humans give to technology we don't understand.  We don't understand social insects ... though we know about them.  To understand them, we would have to bee them ;-)  Humans can only understand humans.  Like can understand like, but not unlike.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 10:03:05 AM
I have a problem with answering the question in the poll. 'God as a creator of the universe' is too broad. If God is described as a personal God with consciousness, the likelihood of his existence goes down. If God has attributes which include loving kindness and omnipotence, his likelihood of existing plummets to ZERO.

Yet many responded with 99.9999% certainty no Creator of the universe exists. The argument theism vs atheism begins with whether we owe our existence to naturalistic causes minus any intent or plan to cause the universe and life or whether we owe our existence to a transcendent agent generically referred to as God.  If that isn't true then its a moot point about the nature of God. If it is true then you can decide which if any of the Gods is the God who created the universe.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 07:01:53 PM
  Humans can only understand humans.

And even then not very well considering our inside knowledge.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
Francis Collins is a Christian and so CF folks would read his book but they don't know that the first half of the book is all about why evolution is absolutely true from a geneticist's standpoint. The second half of the book is the dumbest I've ever read. He explains why he believes in God and I'm amazed that Francis Collins can suddenly turn from a brilliant geneticist to a moron just because he goes weak in the knees at the mention of blooming God. Whenever I see brilliant people reduced to imbeciles because they want to believe in pesky God, I get upset with this non-existent pest.

Why do you think that is that an otherwise brilliant person doesn't subscribe to your belief or are you stating its a fact God doesn't exist no Creator was involved in causing the universe and life? I'm going to be terribly disappointed if you reach for your weak atheism towel and claim you only lack belief in the existence of God. So state the facts make your case that lead you to conclude we owe our existence to mindless forces that never intended anything to exist and only imbeciles believe otherwise. 
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 03:05:34 PM
There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.

And more to the point, it is an open area of research and an unanswered question in science and I cheerily admit that I don't know with any certainty.

trdsf

Are humans capable of independent volitional thought or is all thought just a regurgitation of experience and memories and its just an illusion we think independently?

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Unbeliever

#327
We know that sentience can be generated and sustained by organic brains, but we don't know that sentience can be generated and sustained by anything other than organic brains. If the universe had a sentient Creator, then sentience can be generated and sustained by something other than organic brains (assuming the Creator doesn't have an organic brain), but we have no knowledge that that is the case. If it turns out to be the case, then the scientific method is the only means at our disposal for confirming it. It won't be confirmed by people having emotional experiences, or using faulty logic to "prove" it.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 07:00:11 PM
Beehives and anthills aren't natural, they are artificial.  Social insects are very sophisticated, unlike rocks.  And yes, some things are processes ... not things ... but then that isn't materialism, that is process theology ;-)  Processes are a human description of a complex situation, they don't exist aside from our cogitation.  The ants and bees don't know that we are trying to analyze them, they have their own life/consciousness individually and in groups ... same as humans.  Now you can put a pile of sand into a beach, but (per no spontaneous generation) there won't be crabs that develop out of that sand (there might be in a billion years but that isn't what is meant by spontanous generation).  The crabs come from elsewhere will colonize that sand.

Materialists and confused naturalists would say ... the artificial doesn't exist, and free will doesn't exist.  They make perfect communists, they are only fit to live in a feminist hive mind ;-(

I have always known that coming up with wonderful labels is the greatest gift the church has. You seem to use the language of the church but you pervert it. You call it process theology but you are wrong. Process theology says that processes are an essential attribute of God. That is not what trdsf subscribes to so you are wrong to label his position as process theology.

I am a good observer. I have always been intrigued by how the religious mind works. I believe that however intelligent a person is, the moment he goes on his religious mode, he becomes a feeble-minded as a baby. But the church is not what it is today for nothing. It has developed a lot of mechanisms and trickery to save the religious person from logic and truth. Your method appears to me (so far) to be to give labels to everyone. You called me Plato or some ancient Zeus-believing old fool. And you now apply 'process theology' which means a different thing to someone who merely says that the mind is the process of the brain. Your labelling is wrong by any standard and if I didn't call you out on this, others reading this thread might be misled into believing that 'Oh dear! Saying that the mind is a process of the brain is a part of process THEOLOGY!!!'   And the poor brilliant atheist might be hesitant to say that in the future. But he should say it because it's the truth. The mind, consciousness and thoughts are all processes of the PHYSICAL brain and that is NOT process theology. Process theology relates to that imaginary being and trdsf and other respectable atheists have no part of it.

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 07:01:53 PM
Magic is the name humans give to technology we don't understand.  We don't understand social insects ... though we know about them.  To understand them, we would have to bee them ;-)  Humans can only understand humans.  Like can understand like, but not unlike.

There is nothing special in the word 'understand'. Nothing mystical at all. Of course we can understand insects. We probably understand them better than they do themselves. You don't have to be something to understand it. Whether it's insects or even machinery, our understanding of something is not dependent on our becoming that something. Whatever gave you such a silly idea?