My Argument For God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok, so let be get this straight, atheism has no beliefs, but they tend to believe in science, one thing they most certainly don't believe is real is their 'self' yet their 'self' seems to be quite concerned and bothered by what theists believe, but if you tell them this they say they aren't, but they really are. It's a maze of confusing definitions and beliefs and in the end it's all gibberish

Just read my Historical Atheism post above, and then you will understand.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:08 PM)TheBear Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 04:54 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ultimately is there any point in arguing with me??NOOO!!! None. We are dust in the wind, there is absolutely no point to anything anywhere because it all ends in oblivion. To make the argument 'but it matters now' is BS. No it does not. As many atheists have said, our consciousness is an illusion or a self monitoring system, you are essentially a robot. So with that in mind rape and murder are ok, because, since you will cease to exist your actions mean nothing. Rape is as noble as helping the homeless. We are an accident, you are an accident, heck if you were here in the same room and I held the same beliefs as you why would I not just kill you?? There are no reasons why a shouldn't. There is no morality it is a survival of the fittest and with that view in mind I should just approach life with a psychopathic mindset.

So as I said in the beginning, you believing or disbelieving in certain things at this moment doesn't matter, there is no point to anything anywhere.


What I have just stated is the heart of atheism, what a pitiable lot you all are.

Get lost, you sanctimonious asshole. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, you arrogant prick.

No need to get made, I'm just stating the resulting social repercussions of what believing in atheism means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Atheists have identified a certain thing, God, and run like hell in the opposite direction. God is the center piece of atheism. Most atheist whether they admit it or not still have a nagging feeling deep down that God might be real. If you say this is not true, you are a liar.

Please don't tell us what we believe or feel, it just makes you look really, really stupid.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-01-2015, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2015 06:04 PM by Chas.)
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok, so let me get this straight, atheism has no beliefs, but they tend to believe in science, one thing they most certainly don't believe is real is their 'self' yet their 'self' seems to be quite concerned and bothered by what theists believe, but if you tell them this they say they aren't, but they really are. It's a maze of confusing definitions and beliefs and in the end it's all gibberish

The only confusion appears to be yours.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-01-2015, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2015 05:36 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: My Argument For God
Welcome! I shall endeavor to treat you with respect, at least until you very much show that you are not worthy of it, and approach your ideas with a critical skepticism that anyone with a strong science background can appreciate.


(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I have been browsing these forums for a couple days and have yet to see any compelling evidence that supports any of your atheistic beliefs...

Well, let's clarify what "atheistic belief" means here. An atheist is someone who does not believe that any gods exist, or, more broadly, that no theistic god exists. (Theistic meaning personal and intervening, in contrast with, for example, deistic gods or pantheistic gods.) There is a smaller subset of the atheist community that actively asserts that no gods exist, rather than simply does not buy into the opposite statement. This subset of atheists are known as strong atheists. I, and many other atheists on this forum, do not qualify as a strong atheist. My position is: "This god thing is an ill-defined but extraordinary concept. Though I will examine it out of curiosity and abstract interest, I am not inclined to believe it and will go about my day as if it is not true. If anything, I am inclined to believe that it is not true, but admit that I can't prove its falsehood. I suspect that the nature of the claim, and its ill-definition, is such as to defy any means of testing, that it is completely unfalsifiable, and that it is not even wrong. However, if good, sufficient evidence is presented for the claim (and a clearer definition of the claim as well), I will accept the claim. Until then, then claim is rejected." This is, I think, a policy that anyone with a strong science background could appreciate, as I note in reading ahead that you claim to have, and even accept as natural and ideal. I go a bit further in my position. "Also, belief in this god-claim has caused and continues to cause grievous harm in society. It has provoked unnecessary wars, resulted in extensive death and economic harm, caused the undermining of the education system in many states, caused the defunding of scientific programs, causes parents to beat their children and deny them basic medical care, has been used to justify slavery, segregation, and most other forms of discrimination, and on and on. While not all belief-based behaviors are negative and not all believing individuals display negative behaviors, the overall pattern is alarming. Unless and until the truth of this claim can be demonstrated, I shall therefore commit myself to raising skepticism about the claim, in hope of reducing the atrocities committed by its believers."

That is essentially my position. I would describe this position as atheistic, perhaps even anti-theistic. However, I would be hard-pressed to call any element of it or combination of elements a belief. It is a policy of skepticism and doubt in the face of insufficient evidence and failed predictions, which would cause any scientist to reject the claim. (I refuse to call it a hypothesis until clearer definition and some concrete method of falsification can be provided.)

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ... and also, on the contrary no evidence presented by any theist that is even remotely compelling, except for "well i guess I'd rather just cling to my fragile belief system which is based solely off the bible." Or the typical atheist who literally interprets every biblical passage and is like "HA THESE ARE A BUNCH OF FAIRY TALES, DAWKINS MUST BE RIGHT!!!"

I'll agree with you on the lack of compelling evidence presented, as well as the motivations and character of many theistic arguments here. I'd question your characterization of the "typical" atheist. For myself, I don't regard the Bible as a bunch of fairy tales. It has talking snakes, talking donkeys, geocentrism, all the stars of the universe literally falling to the surface of the Earth (talk about a scale problem), rivers that run in circles, all the impossibilities of the Noah story, angels, devils, giants, dragons... but not one fairy that I recall. But yes, I do regard it as largely myth, fable, and legend, with a bit of real history and a lot of ancient propaganda mixed in.

As for taking it literally? Biblical literalism is not only a strong element of the most... troublesome proponents of religion in our society (making it a good thing to undermine), it is also the closest I've ever seen to a coherent, well-defined, generally-accepted statement of beliefs put forward by Christianity. (Though it's not particularly coherent or well-defined.) It also represents, not just a very large chunk of our opponents, but also the center of mass, so to speak, of our opposition. It's a good place to aim our rebuttals. It is, of course, possible to abandon Biblical literalism, but in doing so we lose clear definition of the claim being discussed. What parts of the claim are actually being asserted to be true, and what parts are just poetry or metaphor rather than factual assertions? This takes an already major obstacle to an unbeliever accepting the claim -- that is, actually knowing what the claim is and understanding it -- and magnifies the difficulties of persuasion. (Also, it's possible to have a non-theistic believe completely divorced from Abrahamic religion, so we could rid ourselves of the Bible entirely, rather than just Biblical literalism, and still have theism.) But you've written a lot more, so maybe you'll clarify the details of the claim you're arguing for.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Because I have a somewhat extensive background in physics I will propose certain thoughts regarding consciousness and some of the physics behind this view. In my opinion the so-called enigma of consciousness is something that for some odd reason scientists have a hard time addressing.

.... now that's odd. I wouldn't have thought that a background in physics would prepare someone to comment on a subject in the field of neurology or psychology. In engineering, maybe, or even chemistry, but there's not much overlap between physics and stuff that deals with consciousness. It's like expecting an electrician to know a lot about search engine optimization because it's done on computers. I find myself curious about the nature and extent of your qualifications. What degrees do you hold, in what fields, from what institutions? What papers have you published, in which journals, and with what peer review process? Normally I wouldn't press on these subjects, but you are citing your own scientific background as a basis for authority, and I'd like a little bit more than the assertions of a random, unknown individual posting on an internet forum to confirm that authority.

Also, I wasn't aware that there was any great problem with our understanding consciousness. The exact details might elude us, in much the same way that the details of every molecule of air moving in a tornado might elude us, but I was of the impression that the general principles were understood. Would you care to expand on what issues you are referring to as this enigma?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well, what is it? We all have it, but its nature is very elusive. It has no known mass, and in fact we have nothing to measure it, quantify it and yet it has the ability to manipulate the four known forces of nature at will, devise insanely complex machines such as the LHC and yet, modern science has the curious habit of dismissing it as some mundane thing that is created somehow by this purely mechanistic universe. (This is going to be a long post, but before you pass judgment read it).

Let's go through these one at a time.

Mass: Why would something not having mass not be a problem? Planetary orbits don't have mass. The planets and the stars they orbit do, but the orbits themselves do not. Data on a disk doesn't have mass. The disk does but the data doesn't. Why should we be surprised that a brain has mass, but the consciousness in a brain does not? This doesn't seem to be a particularly problematic or puzzling statement.

Inability to measure or quantify: Yes, there are great difficulties in measuring or quantifying consciousness. However, this seems to be largely due to the vagueness of the claim, rather than anything inherently mystical about consciousness itself. At what point could we say that an AI in a computer is conscious? A dog or a cat? A developing fetus? The claim of consciousness lacks clear definition or boundaries, at least in common parlance. From Wikipedia:

Quote:Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.

Of particular note: The wide variety of definitions, and the difficulty in clearly articulating them.

Consciousness manipulating the four forces: Ummmm.... no, it doesn't. The electromagnetic force, I'll grant you that, but that's no surprise. Consciousness is situated in the brain, to all appearances, and seems to operate in part on electrical impulses. That it should have some interaction with the electrical impulses in our bodies doesn't seem too strange. But what examples do we have of any direct manipulation of the strong or weak nuclear force by consciousness? None directly. We need some pretty complicated machines to accomplish that. And yes, consciousness helped us build those machines, including the LHC. But it's working at several removes. In any event, none of these are violations of the laws of physics, but simply using the laws of physics to our advantage. And we haven't built anything that can manipulate gravity yet, have we? (I do not count the few "anti-gravity" devices that failed to hold up under examination. .... pun unintended.)

And finally: Mundane? How many psychologists and neuroscientists have you talked to on the subject of consciousness? Most would describe it as intricate, majestic, fascinating... anything but MUNDANE. Why in the world... pun intended this time... should a naturalistic explanation automatically be viewed as drab and desultory? This is simple bias speaking here, nothing more.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  THE DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN QUANTUM PHYSICS and NDES
The big argument and the reason for so many 'models' and hypothesis is that the original intent of the founders of Quantum Physics was to describe the interrelationship between the system being observed and the observer; all of the data indicated that. The later generations of scientists could not define or agree upon a working definition for consciousness and therefore attempted alternative explanations where consciousness played no role. In any case, there is no solid finalized hypothesis in Quantum Theory that is universally agreed upon. The interpretation of the hard data is difficult. It is as if we are peering into a realm beyond the human frame of reference, beyond human experience. The solidification of a final model has not occurred. We have to examine each model; each model has its merits and failing points and represents brilliant thinking as steps toward, bot not achieving that final result.

I thought it was pretty clear that the "observer" in quantum mechanics referred to any instrument, backed by consciousness or not, capable of detecting the phenomenon. In the famous double slit experiment which you're about to reference, the observer refers to the sensor device placed at the slit, rather than the scientists considering the data from the sensor. Unless we wish to argue that the sensor itself is conscious (which wouldn't be much of a stretch, in that we can say that its ability to register an event constitutes an awareness, but certainly is not the same type of consciousness you were talking about earlier), there need be no conscious observation taking place at all for the "observer" to impact distinctively quantum phenomena like the double slit experiment. That position is even falsifiable: Set up the double slit experiment as normal, but don't let anyone see the data from the sensor. Hell, just disable the sensor's output entirely. Don't plug it into your computer or twitching needle or whatever you'd normally display the data on. Leave it a black box... working, but not showing us the results. The double slit experiment will still work, even when the "observer" is just an electronic sensor and not a conscious mind. Now let's try a few thought experiments. What if we collect the data from the sensors... and then delay looking at it? Will the observation from the double slit experiment change the moment we look at the data? Would our observation after the fact, rather than the sensor's observation in the moment of the particle's passing, change the past? What if we devised an experiment in which we looked at the results on the screen first, to see if it were an interference pattern or a pair of stripes, and then BASED on that, decided whether we would look at the data? If it's a pair of stripes (what happens with an observer), we delete the data from the device's memory without ever reading it, and if it's an interference pattern (what happens with no observer), we then view the data. What would the result of this experiment be?

Go ahead and perform these experiments. You've got a strong physics background, so you shouldn't have much trouble getting access to the equipment. It will show you that it is the presence of a sensor device, and not necessarily a conscious mind, that creates the observer effect. If it's actually human consciousness that dictates the outcome of this experiment, publish and collect your Nobel prize.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  My pre-requisite for any theory to hold any water whatsoever is to explain the Double Slit Experiment and/or observed and measured entangled particles. This real experiment has been performed under ever increasingly meticulous conditions. There is real data; you can hold the data in your hand. Moreover, most of the modern 'interpretations' of Quantum Physics cannot explain both the Double Slit Experiment and entangled particles and the data and the outcome.

I know less about entanglement than I do about the double slit experiment -- and I frankly don't know much about that either. (Though I do know enough to question your definition of "observer".) So instead, let me for the sake of argument naively accept your claim that modern interpretations of quantum physics do not adequately explain both the double slit experiment and quantum entanglement. To this I'd say... so what? The physics of Ptolemy's day didn't adequately explain the movement of the planets through the heavens, and the physics of Newton's day didn't fully explain Mercury's motion. Obviously there's more to learn... but just as obviously, the ignorance of Ptolemy and Newton did not constitute any proof of theism. I'll need to hear more than "there's stuff that we don't know, can't explain, and don't understand" in order to conclude "God". For that matter, I'd need more than "here's how I can explain this WITH God". I'd need something testable, with predictive power. (And also a clear definition of the god you're talking about... vague statements don't actually claim anything, after all.) As someone with a strong scientific background, I'm certain you can understand that.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  My solution to the problem is that time and space both do and do not exist; space-time in this physical cosmos is a mere perception. In short what I'm saying is consciousness is infinite, and therefore exists in some infinite domain. This universe is finite it has a defined beginning i.e. the big bang and it therefore is bound and is not infinite. If what I am saying is correct and consciousness is infinite, an infinite thing cannot fit inside of a finite box, meaning your consciousness is currently perceiving events in a finite system, but does not actually exist 'in' it.

And now I am moving from skeptical inquiry to outright doubt regarding your physics background. A solid physics education requires a good deal of math. Someone with a significant, university-level background in math would actually understand what "bound" and "infinite" mean, and you clearly do not. Simply bounding the subject of consideration on one side -- the past, in the case of the big bang -- does not make it bound overall. There is still the possibility of infinite future time, or infinite extent in multiple spacial directions. To say that something is finite requires showing that it is bound in ALL directions, and not one. This is something that a physicist who recalls his math classes would know... and really, there's NO WAY IN HELL you understand quantum mechanics without being really, really good at math.

Also, the Big Bang is just the beginning of the universe as we know it, not necessarily The Beginning. Maybe time began then, maybe not. Maybe there was something preceding it, like the 14(?)-dimensional manifold of string theory. Maybe it was preceded by a Big Crunch as part of a huge eternal cycle. We. Don't. Know. That's not much confidence with which to declare the universe finite.

Also-also, when did this idea of our conscious minds being "infinite" creep in? Anything we can qualify as infinite, we do so as saying it is "more than x" or "not contained by x", where x is any measurement or proposed boundary.

Also-also-also, doesn't our conscious existence begin at some point? Be it at two years after birth or two seconds after fertilization or wherever you arbitrarily decide this poorly-defined concept called consciousness starts applying to us, doesn't it have a beginning? And if so, isn't it just as bound as you say the universe is? Or are you instead suggesting that we existed as conscious minds infinitely into the past, as well? ALL THE WAY infinitely into the past, meaning, before the Big Bang?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I am going to refer to this universe as 'inside the box' and the infinite domain in which our consciousness resides as 'outside the box'. Many NDE accounts report that upon death they travel through a 'tunnel' and emerge into some 'blasting' white light and that the light is inundating then with love and many interpret this as God, another thing that is extremely common is that these people report that space and time ceased to exist and that the place that they were in was infinite and eternal. Many people also have a profound sense of being home. Now while I know NDE accounts are subject to personal belief systems and are by no means hard evidence, the thousand of such accounts are nonetheless quite interesting and are in line with what I am saying. Here are some excerpts from nderf.com to give you an idea of what these people are describing,

"the life I'd been living on planet Earth was an insignificant second of an experiment, which I'd volunteered for. The ME, the I wasn't Anna the lady who'd just given birth, but it was a light being - "LIGHT" in every sense. i was made of the same light as the one the pool was filled with. It sensed everything, felt everything beautiful as there can ever be, thought and understood everything and was floating around inside the pool happily, FINALLY back HOME!!"-Anna A

"The complete expansiveness of sheer JOY I felt at that moment cannot be put to words! Carlos was "dead" but I was more alive than ever!! Carlos never existed! the earth and the universe never existed! People and things are just baseless illusions! If they do not exist eternally, they are not real.. but I AM! I am Innocent!! I cannot die!
I felt the unspeakable, all encompassing, unconditional Love of God for me"- Carlos K

"Everywhere around me was light. There was nowhere that was not light. Light as far as I could see. Light, I knew, further than I could see. This light was very bright but in no way at all did it hurt my sight. This light had a singular property that is utterly indescribable in the extent and scope of its sheer magnitude. The singular property of this light was one of absolute love. This love was utterly unreserved, completely unbounded, and utterly infinite in its scope." -Peter N

So what I am proposing is that these NDErs have caught a glimpse outside of the box and that their consciousness exists in the domain being described. This is why we can’t ‘see’ God, our current human perception is focused on this domain, but we’re not actually ‘in’ it we are at this second in the presence of God…however we think we are alone and God is somewhere hiding ‘out there’. We can perceive events from both within and outside of 'the box' so to speak, because we, not our instruments, are capable of stepping both inside and outside of the box. Our perception and comprehension can easily step outside of the box, for instance. There is no known mechanism that can function outside of space-time. We therefore can only measure phenomenon with tools and methods that are inside the box, so there is no data taken from a perspective outside the box. However, that answer is certainly not universally agreed upon in mainstream thinking. In general, the physical cosmos is regarded as 'real' and not a mere perception to the extent that you and I are artifacts of the physical cosmos, not the other way around, that is, I regard the physical cosmos as an artifact of you and I. This is the result of using tools that can only measure and detect things from 'inside the box.' However, people report perceptions from 'outside the box'.

People have been reporting NDEs throughout the ages, and these were dismissed according to the listener's argument; hallucinations, dreams, and so on. Raymond Moody took notice of the pattern in the late 20th century and it has been almost half a century in the validating stage that 'it does happen.' Perception to an extent has never been regarded as 'proof', and today isn't even regarded as evidence regardless of the source. For example, trained pilots and even astronauts both U.S. and Russian have witnessed UFO activity and even THEIR visual evidence is dismissed. The number of people reporting perceptions from 'outside the box' either in Near Death Experiences or some other state number in the tens of thousands. However, since we have no means to measure or detect things 'outside the box' many scientists still dismiss these without even considering that the tools in their hands cannot measure or detect anything outside the box and thus regard any information other than these primitive tools deliver as 'anecdotal'.

You're right, this isn't hard evidence. The common elements you point to are a sensation of light coupled with a feeling of comfort, rightness, or acceptance. My first thought to explain this would be hallucinations caused by physical shock, oxygen starvation of the brain, and various other ways that the brain is malfunctioning BECAUSE IT'S DYING. Absent, of course, would be the accounts of people who nearly died and didn't sense anything. And no, my proposal carries no more weight than your proposal. They're both proposals (though Occam likes mine better). But that leaves me still waiting for evidence of a theistic god... and these NDE accounts aren't it.

Also, I question what "exists" even means in the context of not being inside the universe. The definition seems to break down, unless you have some more specific definition upcoming about what non-existence means in that context, or what existence consists of absent the universe.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  On the other hand, we take a piece of Kodak film and perform the classic 'Double Slit Experiment,' see the overlapping wave functions and the result, which is in fact, 'outside the box' renders an argument that has been raging for a century. This is regarded as INTERPRETATION of the data. The reason it is stuck in limbo is because no one is accustomed or knows how to look at data that takes a 'snapshot' from outside the box.

In regards to mechanistic approaches that dismiss 'you' as some mundane electrochemical processes in the brain such an approach or theory is quite shallow and has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Really? No evidence? While I'll agree with your upcoming statement that absolute certainty is impossible, there are various observations made about the effects of brain damage upon our ability to consciously perceive, think, remember, and act, as well as other elements related to our consciousness such as personality and temperament. The literature's quite extensive and has shown predictive strength, including down to the point of mapping where the brain and how the brain is damaged to the type of damage resulting to the consciousness. If the consciousness is not housed in the brain, is not a product of the brain's operations, then why would damaging the brain damage the consciousness, and do so in such a location-specific manner? I know that it's possible to spin a wide variety of convoluted explanations for this, but the simplest one is that we are our brains. I'm prepared to go with that until I see at least some evidence to the contrary.

Also, again with the pro-supernaturalistic bias! (Or is it pro-spiritual? Pro-extra-universalist? Whatever.) Aside from your weird and flawed infinity arguments, and the NDE accounts which you admitted were not actually evidence, why would we even think that the brain COULDN'T accomplish consciousness on our own? Or why would we view that as awful and shallow? I'm not, at this moment, saying that we must always prefer an in-house explanation. But I'm asking why you seem so predisposed to prefer and reach for one that is out-of-house. Why such a clear, visceral distaste for a naturalistic, in-universe explanation? Are we not what we are, regardless of whether what we are is brainstuff or extra-universe stuff? Have we not the same thoughts and emotions, the same experiences and poetry, the same rights and the same value, regardless of what we are comprised of? Is your regard of consciousness so fragile that it would be forever destroyed, to think it the product of 4 pounds of gray matter? Or would it not be just as wonderful either way?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  In no uncertain terms, a Universe without me is a thing that I cannot be Certain about. In which case, why study it? A theory that does not explain me yet ironically is an attempt to explain everything is obviously wrong. I need a theory that explains me. If your theory and math exclude me then there is an obvious hole in the math and lucid comprehension.

There is a difference between not explaining you and excluding you. It sounds like you're talking about the latter, but I'm not sure.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I know many of you still believe that consciousness is an artifact of this Universe. This type of a model usually holds the following beliefs: there is actually no observer, the information around you is going nowhere, you are truly dust in the wind. There is no explanation for YOU. Current models suggest that you are ultimately as inert as interstellar dust; made of stardust. I find that explanation unsatisfactory. Stardust cannot examine itself and its nature and reason for being. There is no level of complexity you can raise stardust to in order to achieve this level of consciousness.

That's really a rather strong assertion you're making there, regarding the lack of capability of stardust (meaning, atomic elements forged during stellar evolution and then dispersed during supernovae) regardless of the complexity of its arrangement. Though it's not at the point of solid proof, research into neuroscience and artificial intelligence seems to suggest otherwise. I'd like to see evidence for your claim, rather than just accept a strong assertion at face value.

I'd also question your linkage of this idea to a lack of capacity to observe, understand and process information. Just because you think consciousness can't exist entirely within the universe, doesn't mean that those of us who think consciousness DOES exist entirely within the universe regard it as impaired or impotent. We both largely agree on what consciousness is capable of (even if I'll question your assertion that it can manipulate gravity). We simply disagree on whether it is confined to this universe or not. (Also, I question what that statement even means... you've yet to provide a really clear definition.)

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  If you actually do the math or physics that dictates your physical existence as a a result of this seemingly accurate Big Bang to nearly a trillion decimal places, just to establish that the Universe still exists at all, and the countless trillions of variables progressing with precisions of googols of decimal places, and so on and on, you see how preposterous even suggesting that idea is: the saving grace of that argument is supposedly that a trillion, trillion universes have already formed and failed.

.... wait, what? Are you saying that the odds that I, personally, down to the exact detail, would have come to exist are miniscule? Okay, actually, I'll buy that. So what? If you spin the figurative roulette wheel with a googolplex possibilities, then the odds of the ball landing on ANY of those numbers will be miniscule. But it's got to land on one of them, and whatever one it lands on, there could well be somewhere in that timeline some conscious individual saying, "Hey, the odds of this outcome were miniscule!" Depending on how easy it would be for ANY consciousness to arise in-universe, somewhere, at some time, such a class of event happening might be highly probable.

... also, you can't actually do the math out to that level of precision. Even ignoring the time and processing power required, there would be insufficient data on the starting state, and (more importantly) insufficient data on the probability distributions of the starting state. Also, it ignores the possibility of a probabilistic universe, rather than a strictly deterministic one.

... also also, how the hell does an event being unlikely prove that other universes exist? "I WON THE LOTTERY! 67 MILLION OTHER UNIVERSES WERE JUST BORN!" It's such a leap with nothing to back it up. Unless you're talking about multiple-world theory, in which case all those many universes would exist REGARDLESS, so how does that differentiate between proposals?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The absurdity of such profoundly impossible suggestions establishes the simplest explanation that every person knows deep down is true and correct, consciousness is fundamental to the universe and I would even say it ‘paints it into being’. This explanation is consistent with every religion of man. You know it inherently within yourself. You are not an artifact of this physical cosmos. You have an eternal nature that demands an explanation; why are you here, what are you, what ‘here’ is?

I do not inherently know such a thing, and I would deeply question what scientific process, if any, you could have used to determine what other people do or don't know on the subject. Please stop asserting and provide evidence.

Also, EVERY religion? Let's see... not Taoism... not Kopiism... not Laveyan Satanism... not.... screw it, we've left "every" behind three religions ago, no need for me to go on for thousands more. And why confine ourselves to religions? Religions, by and large, with some exceptions, are defined by the gods they worship. "(Nearly) All religions believe in a conscious being outside reality" is about as meaningful as "nearly all toeheads have blond hair". Why not include philosophies in your survey, such as Stoicism or Nihilism? Why is it only religion that is worthy of examination?

I will give you this much. The world AS WE KNOW IT is a product of our capacity to know it. But whether there is one, or more, underlying realities is independent of this truth, as is whether we arise from such a reality or are intrinsically separate from it.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  PINNING CONSCIOUSNESS TO THE BRAIN
Electromagnetic explanations of brain function suggest that from the QED vacuum that will communicate with two real points in space, such as two atoms in your physical brain, provided there is time symmetry, going both forward and backward in time, so as not to engage in casually prohibited phenomenon via virtual photon exchange. The phenomenon is otherwise frozen in time altogether-that this alters real space-time, matter,mass, and events- ultimately,outcomes, such as a thought that are considered going only forward in time such as you and I experience the flow of time.

That sounds more like an explanation of quantum electrodynamics in general, rather than brain function specifically... assuming that you meant "causally" rather than "casually".

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  A real thought coming into being out of absolute pure nothingness, from a Virtual Photon who is either frozen in time or otherwise going forward and backward in time simultaneously, unwrapping itself into only forward linear time as we experience it, and disappear back into absolute pure nothingness from which it came.

Wait, so thoughts are virtual particles now?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  this description is supposed to explain thought, according to brain biologists who suggest electrochemical processes are somehow responsible for consciousness. In addition the entire idea came about because the biologists were given a mechanism they didn't understand; which became a magic ‘black box.’ That is, they don't know the definitions of electromagnetic phenomenon, so assign it any arbitrary meaning, unwittingly but nonetheless regardless of how absurd it is when the formal definitions are applied correctly. Their new toy was the EEG monitor, and nowhere in any operator’s manual does any manufacturer of such equipment suggest that the device detects or measures consciousness.

What then is the brain? Does it produce consciousness. No, there is no brain. The brain is just a myriad of wave functions. The only known property that qualifies it as matter at all is the quantum mechanical spin characteristic, the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

This would be in the same way that there is no rock, there is no spoon, there is no computer for me to type on, I don't actually have hands or feet, and I don't need food or water to live because there isn't actually any food or water. I'm sure that if someone shot me with a bullet then I wouldn't need to worry because the bullet isn't real either.

Oh, wait, ARE those things real, because while they are waveforms the Pauli Exclusion and quantum spin and so on DO cause them to interact with reality? Oh, okay. .... so what's the brain again?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The general idea is that matter, which makes up the physical brain, is nothing more than a large number of probability waves (potentiality) that REQUIRE consciousness in order to be MATTER. Furthermore the ‘electromagnetic activity’ prized by researchers in consciousness is nothing more than virtual photons, which literally pop into existence out of absolute pure nothingness, exists in a state infinitely dilated in time and therefore symmetrically both progressing forward and backward in time and space simultaneously, then disappear into this pure absolute nothingness again. Moreover, all of these processes REQUIRE CONSCIOUSNESS in order to occur-they therefore cannot be the source of Consciousness.

Carnal thinking scientists are, in my opinion, trying pointlessly and hopelessly to pin consciousness down to a physical brain with electromagnetic phenomenon, neither of which are there.

In the same sense that spoons and rocks don't exist. Got it.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  If you don't understand my argument, the error is not on my part, the error is on your lack of understanding of the science.

Your central argument is a misstatement of the observer effect to name consciousness (rather than just interaction or detection) as the "observer" described in quantum mechanics, followed by an assertion that all the universe is governed by quantum mechanics. The core of this argument is your interpretation that the supposedly-conscious observer must reside outside the universe because it cannot simultaneously be both cause and product of these quantum mechanical phenomena. In addition, you try to add some fairly rotten meat to this rather skeletal argument with a rather hysterical argument from incredulity in which you quite blatantly render quantum mechanics to sound as absurd as you can manage, and also an argument from bias in which you repeatedly lament how awful it sounds that we should arise from "mundane" reality. You also abuse math and probability pretty spuriously, in a manner that someone well-educated in quantum mechanics would not do by accident. Though you claim a science background the first and only thing you've provided that is anywhere near evidence are anecdotal NDE accounts that don't actually serve to differentiate an extra-universe consciousness from brain hypoxia. Not only are these nowhere near good evidence, they are also not what a scientist would include at all. All of this is merely an argument AGAINST a purely naturalistic, or non-spiritual, or whatever-you-call-it model of consciousness. Your only argument in favor of any god, so far, is "NDEs and religions say its true".

I'm not saying I don't understand your argument. I'm saying it's full of fallacies, misrepresentations, and other reasons to doubt it. Though, really, if I didn't understand it, that would STILL be your fault. You're presenting some difficult quantum mechanical concepts to a largely lay audience and making little or no effort to explain what they are. That's like trying to teach toddlers calculus and blaming them for not already knowing trigonometry. Or a bit like a lawyer putting all the traps in a contract into fine print in lawyerese, and blaming the signatory that he conned into signing it for not understanding it, when it might have been quite understandable if rendered in plain English.

In other words, you are coming across less like a scientist well-versed in quantum physics and intelligently discussing some indubitable implications of its more curious phenomena, and more like a con artist trying to batter us into agreement with you with a post too long and scientific jargon too complex for us to comprehend. Which, in the end, doesn't really inspire belief in your claim.

... er, we haven't really gotten to a clear claim on your part, have we?

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The core of what I am alluding to is that this ENTIRE UNIVERSE…EVERYTHING, is just a construct of consciousness. You are not who or what you think you are, YOU are at the very core of reality. Just think about it, how can something be ‘known’ or certain unless it is ‘illuminated’ by consciousness? Your consciousness prevents multiple unobservable universes with an infinite number of ‘yous’ from occurring, YOU cause the wave function collapse, YOU select the outcome. This definition extends to all life, not just humans, even the slightest bug.

Oh, hey, so that thought experiment in which quantum mechanics can spontaneously result in things teleporting through a wall with a very very very low probability... you can control that, right? You have agency over that? All of us have agency over that? We get to determine which waveform collapses? Great! A testable element of your claim! And one that you can do without funding! And it's repeatable! And it's revolutionary! You'll have your Nobel in no time!

Honestly, this is just sounding like a different model of the universe, in which what we sense, directly or indirectly, is all that exists. Things outside that sphere of the senses don't, by definition, exist until they enter the sphere of the senses, at which point they do. That.... honestly doesn't contradict a naturalistic understanding of the universe at all. It's just a semantic word game with the concept of existence.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Eastern religions have eluded to the true self (soul) and have known for thousands of years that consciousness is the thing that truly exists. Here are some quotes from different religions that back up what I am saying.

HINDUISM
“My dear brothers! Remember that you are not this perishable body of flesh and bones. You are the immortal, all pervading, Sat-Chit-Ananda Atman. Thou art Atman. Thou art living truth. Thou art Brahman. Thou art absolute consciousness.” -Sri Swami Sivananda

“The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created. The soul is birthless, eternal, imperishable and timeless and is never terminated when the body is terminated.” -the Bhagavad Gita

ISLAM
“Allah is all in all. Allah sees you, and is with you, wherever you are, whatever you do.” -Quran

CHRISTIANITY
“And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”-
Ecclesiastes 12:7

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”-John 10:34

It seems that these quotes are alluding to the fact that you, your soul or consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is actually of the most high, God, especially Hinduism alludes to this fact. Brahman in Hindusism is essentially God or the supreme infinite from which all things originated. Atman in Hinduism means ‘inner-self’ or ‘soul’. Hinduisms goal is to realize that one’s true self (Atman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman: If atman is brahman in a pot (the body), then one need merely break the pot to fully realize the primordial unity of the individual soul with the plentitude of being that was the absolute. These views are strikingly similar with what NDErs report. Here is one last experience I found noteworthy from nderf (its a great site if you're interested):

Regarding the level of consciousness in the ‘LIght’: “There is no way to compare my consciousness when I was in the Light with my consciousness here on planet Earth.  It's like asking someone to compare the difference between the light from a thousand suns exploding at the same time and the light from a match stick.  Yes, they are both light, but beyond that, there is no comparison.  I can only say that I was in a complete state of love and knowing.  The love of a billion home-comings all rolled up into one instant, and the knowing of every aspect of the complete universe, to become one with God.” -Andrew P

Okay, I'm going to go with "spiritualism" then, to describe what you're talking about.

I also have no idea how, having supposedly proving the existence of a supernatural spirit or soul, you are then making a leap to there being a god, or to any of these religions having gotten any other point of doctrine correct. It's almost like you expect us to have either stopped reading by this point, or fallen into some sort of highly suggestible hypnotic daze.

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Now while Im not going to say hell does or doesn't exist (its entirely possible that there are ‘hellish’ realms or realities manifested by consciousness), these accounts don't allude to any judgment or condemnation, much of that is the result of humans condemning other humans. And in regards to the bible, I believe there has been lots of cultural contamination, and while it is a good spiritual guide in life it should not be taken verbatim..at least thats my opinion.

Comment with any questions/counter arguments, id like to hear them.

Oh, hey, some claims! I'll agree that bad-afterlife accounts are likely the result of humans condemning other humans, and.... if anything I'd go further than you in saying that the Bible is culturally contaminated. That's a bit like saying that water has been dampened. But I'll agree that is best not taken verbatim. As for it being a good spiritual guide... I'll believe it when people who follow and trust in the Bible, literally or not, stop doing evil shit in its name. ... actually, no, I won't, because all the old examples will still be there. In any case, like any scientist, for me the proof would be in the pudding. Let's see some predictive power of "spiritual guidance", rather than arguments from quantum mechanics.

Bottom line, you offer a poor definition of your claims, including a lack of fundamental description about what you mean about being "in" the universe or "out" of the universe. It's not that your claims are necessarily incoherent, it's that they're vague enough that they could be taken to mean almost anything, and thus can hardly be called claims at all. They're not even false. Your quantum mechanical arguments come across as flawed in their premises and the implications you draw from them, your mathematical connections betray your poor understanding of intermediate mathematics and cast doubt on your scientific background, your presentation is more in a manner of someone attempting to confuse than explain, and the entirety of your practical evidence are a few cherry-picked anecdotal accounts of near death experiences, an inaccurate claim of what every religion asserts about consciousness, and one of the hugest leaps I've ever seen from spiritualism to theism.

Your post does not constitute good evidence and does not inspire belief. I reject your claim of the existence of a theistic god as being insufficiently supported by evidence. I will therefore maintain my position of not believing the claim is true, until good evidence for it can be provided.

I would, in particular, since you claim to have a strong scientific background, challenge you to provide some means of testing the falsifiability of your claims, particularly in a manner that contrasts those claims with a more conventional scientific understanding of consciousness. Perhaps that would help you to further refine and articulate them. In particular, my proposed modified double slit experiment and hurl-yourself-at-a-wall experiment might be good candidates, if I've understood your claims correctly. If I haven't, what experiments would you propose? How can we check your claims against reality? If they are false, how can we determine this? Someone with a strong physics background should be readily able to devise such an experiment, and probably has, oh, half a dozen already in mind... or else has already realized that the claims are untestable and thus unknowable.

EDIT: Ye gawds, I started typing while the replies were still on page 1, how did you people fill up the thread so fast?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
14-01-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:14 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 05:08 PM)TheBear Wrote:  Get lost, you sanctimonious asshole. Don't let the door hit you on your way out, you arrogant prick.

No need to get made, I'm just stating the resulting social repercussions of what believing in atheism means.

You need to look up 'atheism' because you clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-01-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok, so let me get this straight, atheism has no beliefs, but they tend to believe in science, one thing they most certainly don't believe is real is their 'self' yet their 'self' seems to be quite concerned and bothered by what theists believe, but if you tell them this they say they aren't, but they really are. It's a maze of confusing definitions and beliefs and in the end it's all gibberish

me
they
they
their
their
you
they
they
they

Wow Mmhm1234, you certainly seem to have a lot of things to say about someone who is not you.

How do you know so much about what is in the heart and mind of another human being?

No... don't tell me... I don't give enough of a shit about you to consider your opinion to be interesting. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
14-01-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: My Argument For God
Well, it was nice chatting with you bloaks, unfortunately I am left completely empty handed and with absolutely no evidence refuting the existence of God. And some substantial evidence in favor of him, unfortunately you can't seem to grasp what I have presented.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 05:27 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:21 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well, it was nice chatting with you bloaks, unfortunately I am left completely empty handed and with absolutely no evidence refuting the existence of God. And some substantial evidence in favor of him, unfortunately you can't seem to grasp what I have presented.


Don't worry, you are insignificant and won't be thought about .... 'bye. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
14-01-2015, 05:29 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 05:21 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well, it was nice chatting with you bloaks, unfortunately I am left completely empty handed and with absolutely no evidence refuting the existence of God. And some substantial evidence in favor of him, unfortunately you can't seem to grasp what I have presented.

And thus endeth yet another excursion into utter madness.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: