God Exists: An Open Debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2012, 02:17 PM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(19-10-2012 01:58 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(19-10-2012 12:30 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'd like to take a crack at this, but be forewarned that unlike some other posters here, I am neither an academic, nor a fountain of knowledge. So I suppose you should classify this as "opinion":

My understanding is that science has managed to identify what humans use words like "order" and "structure" and "law" to describe underlying much of what humans see and experience within the universe. Unfortunately, these same words are also used to describe thing accomplished by humans. Perhaps the confusion is the result of semantic error? I see only one reason (so far) to explain why some humans have chosen to take these semantic errors and extend them to an indication of sentient design underlying the structure of the universe: wishful thinking.

A conscious being looks at the nature that surrounds him and sees systems in place. And it is inconceivable to that conscious being that a system would form without intent. It is the intent the being wonders about. Because in all of nature that he lives in, only animals seem capable of intent. Only conscious entities seem capable of intent.

You can say it's all just an accident formed out of nothing, because when there was nothing there were no laws of logic to prevent it from happening, so...it...just...did.

But that's not a rational belief--even if it's true, it's not a conclusion a rational mind comes to.

There is no proof that everything is a happy accident. There is no proof that a conscious entity is forming this universe in its mind. But of the two, it is not rational to believe the former.

One can say, "I just don't know." One can say, "I just don't care." These are still rational positions. One can assume a consciousness created the systems in nature, that's also rational. But to say it just happened out of nothing for no reason, and just so happens to evolve into systems for no reason, and gravity just happened to pop up, and the laws of physics just happen to be in place, etc. That is magical thinking, and that is not rational.

Ergo, it is not rational to be an atheist. You can be anti-religious and agnostic or apatheistic, but not atheist. No

If you see god as an ineffable vivifying force this appears quite rational.
As for tagging on 'perfection" omniscience" omnipotence" etc then you change the ball game to a vague man made egocentric dogma......................
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 11:39 PM
 
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(20-10-2012 03:09 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Do you really mean to say you've been around here this long and you still don't know what it means to be an atheist? Atheism has nothing to say about external consciousness. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god.

What god?

Quote:For some reason you loathe the term atheist, yet you functionally have become one. You just still want to hang onto some sort of woo about the universe and external consciousness. Fine. Welcome to the fold of those who don't believe in god! Smile

Okay, I can accept that. It's true, I don't believe in God. God doesn't exist. All that exists is a consciousness that has always existed. Nothing else is real, everything else is an imagining of the only thing in existence, what I call the monistic fundamental consciousness.

I wrote this in another forum:

Once again, there are way too many posts to address individually, but I want to thank Lucid Flight for being cordial and open- minded even if she doesn't necessarily agree, at least she understands or tries to understand what I'm trying to say. That is the hallmark of an advanced and highly functional human being. Kudos to her. Clap

When it comes to dreams, I never said that dreams were an argument; I said they were a model. In other words, it's like it is in a dream. In a dream, consciousness (the consciousness of the dreamer in the bed) is the substance of all things in the dream world it creates. So, too, it would be the same for the monistic fundamental consciousness (God). Anything He creates would have to be created from His substance, which is consciouseness.

But what is consciousness? Is it an energy field? No. In fact it's not a physical entity at all. There are logical things we could assume about it, however:

1. It is eternal. In other words, it's always been. There is no time associated with it. It was never created or generated. It simply is the only thing that has ever existed, and it has always existed and can never end. It is in an eternal present moment.

This is easily understood: Even for us there is no past. To think the past exists somewhere is simply magical thinking. The past is merely the memory of a present moment that no longer exists. Also, there is no future. The future is not waiting for us to come to it. It, like the past, is an imagining. The future is what we imagine might be. But in fact, there is no future. All that exists for us to experience is a constant present moment.

2. There is nothing "outside" of this consciousness. This consciousness cannot exist within any space at all. There is no distance from one part of the consciousness to the other. There is no way to stand outside it and point at it.

Again, this is not hard to understand. Think about this: Where are you? Even if you believe consciousness emerges from the operations of neurons--where is that consciousness? Is the brain generating a consciousness field throughout the inside of the cranium? No. Can you point to the subjective observer known as "you." No. You exist, but you don't exist anywhere. :shifty:

3. Most of the monistic fundamental consciousness is not aware of itself. Though everything is made from the substance of consciousness, most of it is unaware of existing.

Just like us. I type, but I am not thinking about where I'm going to put each finger (I type fast). I drive, but I think about other things and do the driving unawares. My body moves, I multitask, most of what I do, I do without thinking about it.

4. The number one force in the universe is telekenesis. Not like moving a cup from one side of the table to the other with one's mind, but moving the quantum fluctuations that move the electrons, that fire the neurons, that stimulate the muscles, that move my hand to slide my cup across the table. One day, what I am saying will be the cornerstone of the Grand Unified theory. But we will not get there until we stop thinking that consciousness is emergent from neural activity. :think:

Enough people have had precognition, not just me. Enough people have remote viewed. Enough people have had NDEs: you can't just write it all off as delusion, and if only one incident is true, in all of the history of humankind, it confirms that consciousness is not emergent. Then there are the protozoa that display will and memory but have no central nervous system at all. This makes the case all on its own. 8-)
Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 11:54 PM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(20-10-2012 11:39 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 03:09 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Do you really mean to say you've been around here this long and you still don't know what it means to be an atheist? Atheism has nothing to say about external consciousness. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god.

What god?

Any and all gods. As long as you believe that there is no omnipotent being that created the universe, you can be considered an Atheist. Note, you can concede the logical possibility, but as long as you don't consider it likely or prefer a different explanation you can call yourself an Atheist.*

If you don't know if there is such an omnipotent being or not and don't take a side, you're probably an Agnostic.

If you believe that there is such an omnipotent being that created the universe, but don't think he interferes in human affairs, you're a Deist.

If you believe that there is a god that created the universe, and that he has a plan for the human race, and rules, then you are a Theist.

If you believe in two or more "gods" or "beings" of great, but not necessarily omnipotent power that may or may not have created the universe, then you are a Polytheist.

If you believe that all human beings and (optionally) animals and (optionally) matter is part of one giant universal consciousness, then you are a Pantheist.



*(optionally an "Agnostic Atheist" if you're a pedant)

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
20-10-2012, 11:56 PM
 
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(20-10-2012 11:18 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Hi Egor, thanks for the reply Smile
An external consciousness created our universe? Possible, but I'm not sure whether there are evidence supporting that. Still learning more about the different ideas regarding how the universe began.

I wonder how, hypothetically, such a thing my be proved.

Quote:My initial thoughts were that consciousness only came much later, when the nervous system has developed to a certain advanced point, until I read from you on how Paramecium seems to have a consciousness due to its ability to learn. My hypothesis is that it has something to do with the altered gene regulation within the paramecium due to application of a stimuli, thus changing its behaviour.

I believe that's asking DNA and RNA to do too much.

Quote:Also, it seems that another more recent paper has suggested that the learning did not take place (http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466...2.533-538) I'm unable to access the paper however, so I cannot say who is right or wrong at this point of time without looking into the research methodology of the aforementioned paper.

The paper you mention was written by the same researchers who did the work I cited. This recent paper is a further exploration; they were trying to see if the paramecium could be trained to do more complex tasks, but they conclude that they cannot and that it may require a CNS to accomplish more complicated tasks than what they originally did. So, it's not a negation of the previous research; the scientists are just seeing how much they can get out of the paramecium.

I would buy the paper, but I'm very familiar with the original work, so I'm pretty clear on what they're saying just by reading the abstract.


Quote:Something slightly off topic. I had the chance to work with Paramecium quite recently, and seen some interesting responses, like how they seem to huddle together as they die after I add Janus green into the slide, and how they respond when there is an obstacle in front of them. The best part of these Paramecium in my opinion is how they twirl around as they move about.

Sounds fascinating. And you know, the trial and error approach they take to things like moving around an obstical is itself a sign of decision-making. They attempt, back up, try a different area, back up, etc.

They act so quickly at times, that I just can't believe their apparent consciousness has anything to do with their DNA or RNA.

It's interesting to talk to someone who has also done some research with paramecia. Kudos. Bowing
Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 02:05 AM
God Exists: An Open Debate
Perhaps Egor just isn't ready yet. I find his propositions eerily familiar. I also find the logic offered to back them equally familiar. This is about where I was maybe 5-6 years ago. Maybe this is all just part of the process of letting go. Perhaps in a few more years he will understand more of what folks here are trying to tell. I hope so.

Until then, Egor, I will leave you with this thought:

A vast cosmic universal all-encompassing super-consciousness is a pretty incredible claim. A paramecium that seems to learn from stimuli, not so much. Small beans, man. What else ya got?

I will say this though, it's been enlightening reading your posts. It's like a rear view mirror for me. I see much of my younger self in you, philosophically speaking. Please, expound.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 02:20 AM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(21-10-2012 02:05 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Perhaps Egor just isn't ready yet. I find his propositions eerily familiar. I also find the logic offered to back them equally familiar. This is about where I was maybe 5-6 years ago. Maybe this is all just part of the process of letting go. Perhaps in a few more years he will understand more of what folks here are trying to tell. I hope so.

Until then, Egor, I will leave you with this thought:

A vast cosmic universal all-encompassing super-consciousness is a pretty incredible claim. A paramecium that seems to learn from stimuli, not so much. Small beans, man. What else ya got?

I will say this though, it's been enlightening reading your posts. It's like a rear view mirror for me. I see much of my younger self in you, philosophically speaking. Please, expound.

I agree, there are definite similarities to my thinking during my initial deconversion.

Not a reason to give up the argument though. If beliefs aren't actively challenged they take much longer to change. Don't be condescending to him though, or he might "backlash" back into theism.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 02:49 AM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(21-10-2012 02:20 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Don't be condescending to him though, or he might "backlash" back into theism.

Hehehe Tongue I don't think you'll see a revert to theism. But expect some rather forceful Anglo-Saxon expressions Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 03:24 AM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
Quote:1. There is a consciousness underlying the physical attributes of the universe. This consciousness must have always existed (eternally) and must still exist. This fundamental monistic consciousness I call "God."

Conscious state can't exist without cause, so that statement would be false. :/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 03:55 AM
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(20-10-2012 11:39 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 03:09 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Do you really mean to say you've been around here this long and you still don't know what it means to be an atheist? Atheism has nothing to say about external consciousness. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god.

What god?

Quote:For some reason you loathe the term atheist, yet you functionally have become one. You just still want to hang onto some sort of woo about the universe and external consciousness. Fine. Welcome to the fold of those who don't believe in god! Smile

Okay, I can accept that. It's true, I don't believe in God. God doesn't exist. All that exists is a consciousness that has always existed. Nothing else is real, everything else is an imagining of the only thing in existence, what I call the monistic fundamental consciousness.

I wrote this in another forum:

Once again, there are way too many posts to address individually, but I want to thank Lucid Flight for being cordial and open- minded even if she doesn't necessarily agree, at least she understands or tries to understand what I'm trying to say. That is the hallmark of an advanced and highly functional human being. Kudos to her. Clap

When it comes to dreams, I never said that dreams were an argument; I said they were a model. In other words, it's like it is in a dream. In a dream, consciousness (the consciousness of the dreamer in the bed) is the substance of all things in the dream world it creates. So, too, it would be the same for the monistic fundamental consciousness (God). Anything He creates would have to be created from His substance, which is consciouseness.

But what is consciousness? Is it an energy field? No. In fact it's not a physical entity at all. There are logical things we could assume about it, however:

1. It is eternal. In other words, it's always been. There is no time associated with it. It was never created or generated. It simply is the only thing that has ever existed, and it has always existed and can never end. It is in an eternal present moment.

This is easily understood: Even for us there is no past. To think the past exists somewhere is simply magical thinking. The past is merely the memory of a present moment that no longer exists. Also, there is no future. The future is not waiting for us to come to it. It, like the past, is an imagining. The future is what we imagine might be. But in fact, there is no future. All that exists for us to experience is a constant present moment.

2. There is nothing "outside" of this consciousness. This consciousness cannot exist within any space at all. There is no distance from one part of the consciousness to the other. There is no way to stand outside it and point at it.

Again, this is not hard to understand. Think about this: Where are you? Even if you believe consciousness emerges from the operations of neurons--where is that consciousness? Is the brain generating a consciousness field throughout the inside of the cranium? No. Can you point to the subjective observer known as "you." No. You exist, but you don't exist anywhere. :shifty:

3. Most of the monistic fundamental consciousness is not aware of itself. Though everything is made from the substance of consciousness, most of it is unaware of existing.

Just like us. I type, but I am not thinking about where I'm going to put each finger (I type fast). I drive, but I think about other things and do the driving unawares. My body moves, I multitask, most of what I do, I do without thinking about it.

4. The number one force in the universe is telekenesis. Not like moving a cup from one side of the table to the other with one's mind, but moving the quantum fluctuations that move the electrons, that fire the neurons, that stimulate the muscles, that move my hand to slide my cup across the table. One day, what I am saying will be the cornerstone of the Grand Unified theory. But we will not get there until we stop thinking that consciousness is emergent from neural activity. :think:

Enough people have had precognition, not just me. Enough people have remote viewed. Enough people have had NDEs: you can't just write it all off as delusion, and if only one incident is true, in all of the history of humankind, it confirms that consciousness is not emergent. Then there are the protozoa that display will and memory but have no central nervous system at all. This makes the case all on its own. 8-)

That's all very interesting, but it doesn't map well to the observed reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 03:58 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 04:03 AM by Vosur.)
RE: God Exists: An Open Debate
(20-10-2012 11:39 PM)Egor Wrote:  Enough people have had precognition, not just me. Enough people have remote viewed. Enough people have had NDEs: you can't just write it all off as delusion, and if only one incident is true, in all of the history of humankind, it confirms that consciousness is not emergent.
Even more people have claimed that they've been obducted by aliens, healed by the Holy Spirit and that they've seen Jesus. Do you believe in any of these claims? You see, the problem with precognition, remote viewing and NDE's is that they are unfalsifiable. There is (currently) no possible way you could prove that someone did not have either of these, since of all them occur in a person's head. As technology progresses, we may be able to verify their claims, but for now, it's nothing but unreliable anecdotal evidence.

(20-10-2012 11:39 PM)Egor Wrote:  Then there are the protozoa that display will and memory but have no central nervous system at all. This makes the case all on its own. 8-)
I doubt that there is a consensus in the scientific community about that. It's an argument from ignorance/argument from incredulity either way if you want to claim that because we have no explanation for something yet/you can't imagine a naturalistic explanation for phenomena X, it must be supernatural explanation Y.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: