The Atheist Book Club discussion
Science
>
I have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist...
Why does this "force, entity, energy or whatever" have to have consciousness? Doesn't make much sense to me. Could you explain a little more? Also you are referring to the "creation of the universe" as if it were a do-it-yourself model kit. "Creation" is a loaded word.
I'm pretty glad that you've started this out by noting that you have to define the God that you're going to try to prove exists, but what you don't have here is a convincing argument or a terribly useful definition.What you have, essentially, is the God identified by deists, who have felt the need for a supernatural creator who doesn't necessarily do anything else once "creating" is done (Jimmy ^^ accurately identifies that "creation" is a loaded word here). Unfortunately, the deist's God lacks necessity--Hawking and Krauss have both published good pieces on that topic recently if you want something current from informed experts on the topic of cosmology and thus "creation."
Jimmy also nails you pretty hard here with "why does it have to have consciousness? Indeed, how are you even defining consciousness? I'm not bringing this up out of some weird post-modern desire to make you feel stupid about words we all usually know--here it's actually relevant. Additionally, what other roles does this consciousness play in the "force, entity, energy, or whatever"?
Further, what is your "fairly convincing argument"? Modern cosmology refutes the necessity of such a creator, conscious or not, and most such arguments are simply an argument to ignorance of one kind or another. Complexity arguments, as a specific subtype of arguments to ignorance, are pretty common here as well. What, by the way, allows you to jump the chasm from "is possible" to "is"? That's a *wide* chasm. Three-hundred-headed monkeys are possible, as are flying pigs....
Lets remember that we humans here on Earth have an unbelievably limited perception of our universe. From this limited perception - no matter how far we think our science and phsyics has advanced - it is nearly impossible to make any definitive claims as to how the universe works. BUT there are things we can say with a fair amount of certainty.One thing that seems 'highly likely' is that if something exists then most likely it was created. Science tells us that our universe has not always existed. Science tells us that it was created during the Big Bang. We dont know how it was created, but we do know that it was created. That unknown "How" it was created - whether it was a force, some magnetic attractions, some energy, etc - is what I am calling god (lower case g). This is a common defintion of god: that thing which created our universe.
Now comes the question of whether that unknown force, entity, magnetic attraction, or whatever it was, had consciousness or not.
Here is what we can say about that.
Everything that exists in our universe derives from the Big Bang.
Consciousness is something that exists in our universe, therefore it derives from the Big Bang as well.
In otherwords whatever force, entity, etc created the Big Bang had the ability to create consciousness as well. So if this force had all the components neccesary to create consciousness, then it is at least POSSIBLE that this entity had consciousness itself.
Xox wrote: "IF you could not explain the weather, you invented gods. Same thing you have done with your lack of understanding of the universe. God of the gap is not an explanation, it is a creation from human ignorance. "
I call it "Intellectual laziness", nothing personal Ed believe me, but I encountered this pattern of thinking all my life. History should have taught us a lesson in that respect.
Mina, actually it is not intellectual laziness at all. In fact it is the exact opposite. I am trying to exhaust every and all possibility without ruling anything out UNLESS there is definitive proof that it is completely impossbile.
Atheism rules out a conscious creator even though (like I have pointed out) there is definately evidence that such a possibility COULD exist.
And that makes atheism "intellectual laziness" doesn't it?
Consciousness exists in our universe. We don't why it exists, but it does.
That's why I mentioned history here. The same way of thinking was followed by our ancestors and grandparents in all the phenomena that they couldn't comprehend at their time; they merely attributed it to a higher intelligent power (Religion of the gaps). Ruling out God could be handled as a matter of probability; the probability of existence of god (or conciousness) to its non-existence, Bertrand Russell's teapot might be very useful in explaining my point.
conciousness is part of a physical process using biochemicals and electrical signals, processes can only happen when there is time for them to happen, space and time didn't exist before the universe began, there was no space or time for a conciousness to exist in, therefore, there could have been no conciousness that created the universe, as the universe needs to exist for space and time to exist,which both need to exist for a conciousness to exist. My physicist friend explains this far better than I do.
Humans have a tendency to make much more out of consciousness than perhaps it really is. Your description, Hazel, was excellent.
Yeah, I'm sure Bertrand Russell's teapot would perfectly exlain your point, Mina...lol
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I am trying to exhaust every and all possibility without ruling anything out UNLESS there is definitive ..."This is noble, Ed, but ultimately it's falling for a shifting of the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, which is you here. Your claim is "there is a consciousness in the universe that (may have) created it." It's up to you to show that is actually the case or nobody, literally nobody--including yourself!--has any reason to believe that it is true. Of course, one of the minor themes of the Harry Potter series is exactly this (Cf. crumple-horned snorkacks), and in the 7th book of that series, Hermione nails the concept perfectly while talking with Mr. Lovegood. We don't have to prove something is impossible to lack acceptance of it.
The default, or null, position in questions like this is "it doesn't exist." When you get called out above for falling for primitive-person thinking, this is exactly what is meant.
It's worse, however, than your lack of proof. Hazel's description above does a wonderful job of dismantling your talk about consciousness. It seems that what we call consciousness arises as an emergent phenomenon on a collection of cells called neurons that create the nervous systems of some living things. Even if "living" were removed from this, and the rather absurd notion that the universe itself has some emergent quality like "consciousness" has any sense to it, it is still emergent, which implies it comes from what is in the universe, not that it precedes it. Still, this is silly since the kind of emergent phenomena that we might call "consciousness" seems only to arise from units that are able to somehow relay information, e.g. neurons, microchips, individuals in a population, etc.
In any case, how could a meta-phenomenon that arises out of what exists predate that which gives rise to it? If you want your "this can't be possible" argument, there it is.
Where is the argument? All I see is an attempt to shift the burden of proof? Of anything is possible but as the claimant it's your job to prove it, and proving it is not saying it's possible and you can't disprove so therefore it's true?
Afterall you can't disprove a pink unicorn that lives in the ocean that requires we throw bales of hay into the water at the shore or it'll drown people in their bathtubs. Now certainly people drown in their bath tubs from time to time and you can't disprove it's my unicorn, does it make my unicorn real? NO, even likely? NO
My argument has nothing to do with unicorns or harry potter...Here let me repeat myself, step by step, and then you tell me exactly what you disagree with.
1. The universe exists.
2. Science tells us that it was created from the Big Bang
3. Everything that exists in the universe today derives from the Big Bang.
4. Consciousness exists in the universe, therefore logic tells us that consciousness also derives from the big bang.
5. Logic tells us that since all the ingredients that are neccesary to create consciousness are present right there in the Big Bang then it is POSSIBLE for conscciousness to be a part of the Big Bang.
My claim from the begining has been that it is POSSIBLE that the unknown force/thing/energy/whatever that created the universe had consiousness. POSSIBLE - because atheism is saying that this is NOT possible. So I dont have to prove that god exists, I simply have to prove that it is POSSIBLE that god exists. Which, according to the basic defintion of god (concsious entity that created the universe), I have done.
This appears to be a convolution of the thoroughly debunked Kalam Cosmological Argument, Ed. You've just added some steps to dodge out of "Creator" and into "vague consciousness" that you're implicitly identifying with "Creator."
james asks - In any case, how could a meta-phenomenon that arises out of what exists predate that which gives rise to it? If you want your "this can't be possible" argument, there it is. Well think of it like this James: You have consciousness, correct? And your parents both had consciousness I'm assuming. Now even though you do not have the exact same consciousness as both of your parents, it is still consciousness. Sure it is different, but it also has many of the same qualities. Now isnt your parents consciousness something that gives rise to AND predates YOUR conssciousness?
So if you are looking for an example of how it is possible then there is an example from your own existance.
Your original assertion "I have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist..." All you have shown is that it's possible (which many atheists would acknowledge, beacuse it can't be disproven, but the very inablity to disprove something is enough reason to dismiss it anyway), not "DOES" as you claimed. You are now "weaseling" (I'm not meaning to be insulting here and another HP reference) out of your original assertion and down playing it to a possibility. Possibility is not proof, like my unicorn, crumple horned snorkacks,leprechauns, fairies or easter bunny or any other thing anyone think up.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Well think of it like this James: You have consciousness, correct? And your parents both had consciousness I'm assuming. Now even though you do not have the exact same consciousness as both of your parents, it is still consciousness. Sure it is different, but it also has many of the same qualities. Now isnt your parents consciousness something that gives rise to AND predates YOUR conssciousness?So if you are looking for an example of how it is possible then there is an example from your own existance. "
But James' consciousness doesn't predate his existence.
Which is what your arguing that god consciousness predated the big bang which created it when you argue it devives from it nesessarily postdating it.
4. Consciousness exists in the universe, therefore logic tells us that consciousness also derives from the big bang. 5. Logic tells us that since all the ingredients that are neccesary to create consciousness are present right there in the Big Bang then it is POSSIBLE for conscciousness to be a part of the Big Bang
If it stems from the big bang how could it have caused it.
Your comparison is not equivalent.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "1. The universe exists.2. Science tells us that it was created from the Big Bang
3. Everything that exists in the universe today derives from the Big Bang.
4. Consciousness exists in the universe, therefore logic tells us that consciousness also derives from the big bang.
5. Logic tells us that since all the ingredients that are neccesary to create consciousness are present right there in the Big Bang then it is POSSIBLE for conscciousness to be a part of the Big Bang."
1. The universe exists.
2. Science tells us that it was created from the Big Bang
3. Everything that exists in the universe today derives from the Big Bang.
4. dog shit exists in the universe, therefore logic tells us that dog shit also derives from the big bang.
5. Logic tells us that since all the ingredients that are neccesary to create dog shit are present right there in the Big Bang then it is POSSIBLE for dogshit to be a part of the Big Bang.
I can replace anything into that argument if you want, "flour", "Sugar", "your mam", "chocolate cake", "trees". I could use this logic to make me god, replace the word conciousness with "me", and I am present at the big bang, I'm the conciousness you speak of, and I'm god.
the number of logical fallacies in this argument are astonishing.
People are picking out point four, but point 3 also fails, as we know that most of the components for life were created from dying stars, not in the big bang. Those components didn't exist until stars died, thus its actual scientific fact that things exist that did not exist at the big bang.
And you seem to have missed the point of my previous post, msg 9, conciousness is a process using the biochemistry and physiology of the brain to exist. There needs to be time and space for these things to exist in, for a process to take place. Time and space did not come into being until one planc time after the big bang, as such, the process of conciousness had no time and space to exist in before the big bang, no conciousness could exist to create the big bang, nor is one needed for it.
Here, this is a good one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS...
Wow, Hazel ftw! Very well said!Since it came up, and sorry for the plug, the reason I wrote the book I wrote is because I'm so tired of the "atheists can't prove God doesn't exist" burden of proof shift. I'm a mathematician. In my book, in Chapter 5, actually, I present an "fairly convincing argument" that the probability that God exists is zero. This isn't some trite silliness either--I believe the exact same thing is true of any concept that could exist but that has absolutely no evidence stacked up in favor of it.
Maybe you should read my book, Ed.
And I was so rubbish at physics at school too. I'm starting to think it was the teaching technique not a lack of ability on my part.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Yeah, I'm sure Bertrand Russell's teapot would perfectly exlain your point, Mina...lol":D My 5-year old nephew finds it funny as well! Congratulations on your impressive "fairly convincing argument that god exists" or whatever you call it; replacing creator with consciousness was really spot-on.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Mina, actually it is not intellectual laziness at all. In fact it is the exact opposite. I am trying to exhaust every and all possibility without ruling anything out UNLESS there is definitive ..."
Ed, atheism does not attempt to rule out or PROVE that god does not exist. An atheist states that he/she will not accept anything on faith (distinct from belief, see some of my other posts). An atheist can be intellectually lazy about cosmology or any other topic. However, if the atheist engages the discussion on cosmology, then to be intellectually diligent, he/she will consider all the facts and apply ratiocination to reach a conclusion. That conclusion will not be a proof. Should new facts come to light, the conclusion will be modified. None of the facts you state are new, and several of your steps of logic are flawed (I think the 'dog shit' argument, however irreverent, said it best).
Michael wrote: " (I think the 'dog shit' argument, however irreverent, said it best)"in retrospect, I think I should have just used the "me" argument, claimed I was god, and started making dictates :P
Hazel wrote: "in retrospect, I think I should have just used the "me" argument, claimed I was god, and started making dictates :P..."Such as "Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies."
no, I was more thinking "thou shalt bring me cake and icecream"
Ed Wagemann wrote: "First of all let me explain that I am an Agnostic. I see no definitive proof that God exists or that God does not exist. I certainly see no proof of there being any god in the classical christia..."
Your error is in the use of the word "conscious." Presumably the universe was created (unless physics can come up with an alternative--and it might). But there is no need to assume a "conscious" creator. Creation can just as well be the result of an act or accident. If you are willing to extend or modify the notion of God to be a force of some sort rather than a consciousness, OK. But if you insist upon a conscious being, no dice. You are making unwarranted assumptions.
Hazel wrote: "no, I was more thinking "thou shalt bring me cake and icecream""I wish this forum format had the Facebook "like" button.
James,I am also a mathematician. I am very curious about your argument that the probability that god exists is zero. Please share.
Christopher wrote: "James,I am also a mathematician. I am very curious about your argument that the probability that god exists is zero. Please share."
Hi Christopher,
Essentially, the concept that I think is missing here is the notion of "almost sureness," or more generally "almost everywhere." My central contention is that the existence of God represents a hypothesis that some infinitely complex being exists, although it has no compelling evidence for it, and thus that we can consider the plausibility of the truth of that hypothesis as being "infinity to one," to throw it loosely. In short, I'm saying that God does not exist, almost surely, or to be slightly more careful with it "the probability that God exists is zero, almost surely."
Indeed, I really want to (and do) go a bit further with this notion. I reference what we might call a "rock of theism" being that it is philosophically indefensible to flatly say God does not exist (see this thread, in fact). I wondered how much purchase, in terms of plausibility of a hypothesis, this buys an idea. My answer is "zero, almost surely." Essentially, to get a little more technical, the sample space of hypotheses that satisfy the "you can't just say it doesn't exist" criterion is certainly infinite, and so any particular idea among them, particularly ones that require infinite complexity, are pretty damned unlikely to be valid without some compelling, philosophically convincing evidence in their favor. God doesn't have this on "his" side.
Part of what drove me on this line of thought is the enormous frustration that arises from repeatedly hearing the fallacy of "well, you can't say it doesn't exist" as if that counts for evidence and then even the claims of people who would want to know better, like Richard Dawkins, that the probability of God's existence is surely some small, but nonzero, number. Why nonzero? I see no reason to elevate it out of zero, almost surely, since "almost sureness" leaves open the possibility, even if it is infinitely implausible. As a result, I was forced to conclude that when we say things like "the crumple-horned snorkack (or God) doesn't exist," we implicitly mean that "as a non-abstract entity, the probability that the crumple-horned snorkack (or God) exists is zero, almost surely."
Ok Ed, from an attempt at an astrophysics point of viewEd Wagemann wrote: "1. The universe exists."
Define 'universe' and define 'existence'. It may seem trite but both terms have been endlessly discussed by philosophers and scientists. It is at least good to recognise that 'existence' is what we can consensually agree on, and 'universe' is a definition meaning 'all of reality' even if that reality turns out to be more than we initially thought it was.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "2. Science tells us that it was created from the Big Bang"
I'm afraid not. The problems here are
(a) the term "created" is not a scientific one. Nothing has ever been observed to be 'created', matter and energy change form. Virtual particles seem to be spontaneously 'created' but since that creation is of something that sums to nothing over a infinitesimal moment of time, it is not the creation we know.
(b) The act of 'creation' requires logically a time where something does not exist followed by a time when it does, however we know that time and space are one so the universe started at the same time as time started, so there was no "before" the universe for the universe to need to be created.
(Yes this leads to some very big questions, which are the subject of continued research.)
(c) The "Big Bang" tells us what happened in great detail from a time when the universe was a fraction of a second old to the ending of the 'big bang' fireball around 380,000 years later. It does not address what happened in the first few moments as current established theories do not function together well enough to understand it. A new theory that combines quantum physics and relativity is required to understand that point.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "3. Everything that exists in the universe today derives from the Big Bang."
Assuming that we use "Big Bang" for "t >> 0" (i.e. the beginning of time.) Then the above is a simple reiteration of the definition that the universe contains everything as time is a part of the universe.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "4. Consciousness exists in the universe, therefore logic tells us that consciousness also derives from the big bang."
Define "consciousness" as there is no consistent definition beyond the consensual agreement that humans have it. When does a human acquire consciousness? Are humans one consciousness (as generally accepted) or are they a collation of several conscious processes that fits well with both psychological models of consciousness and indeed traditional models of the human spirit? Is a sleeping human still a consciousness? Is consciousness a process or an intrinsic ability? Do human groups have a collective consciousness (a trait that has some scientific support). Do other animals experience consciousness? Does consciousness require the ability to communicate? Do hive minds have consciousness?
I could go on, but the point here is not only does the argument pick a random trait from all of existence and then conflate it to attribute to all of existence, but moreover that trait is so little understood as to either be completely vague in its application, or specifically applying a human shared trait to the entire universe based on the point of view of humans.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "5. Logic tells us that since all the ingredients that are neccesary to create consciousness are present right there in the Big Bang then it is POSSIBLE for conscciousness to be a part of the Big Bang."
Actually a logical understanding of the very basics tenets of consciousness show that consciousness is a complex process taking place in the regulated interactions of a complex structure. What we can say about consciousness based on the commonly accepted parameters is that consciousness is a recursive process, requiring stability and continuity to continue. Relatively small changes in the medium bearing that consciousness leads to what we regard as the immediate cessation of consciousness, temporarily if the equilibrium can be restored, or permanently (which we term 'death').
Now what we definitely know about the first minutes of the universe is that it went through violent and chaotic upheavals that fundamentally changed the way the universe interacted and operated as it unfolded into new configurations. This would mean that by the general model assuming that a recognisable consciousness process could form as soon as the universe had the potential complexity required to support one, that consciousness would be rapidly killed as the fundamental interactions it depended on irrevocably changed, resulting in the almost perfectly homogeneous fireball that finally burned out 400 millennia later.
So even if we accept the extremely improbable idea that consciousness occurred as soon as the universe existed, then your argument would show that it died an almost instant and spectacular death.
told you he could explain it better than me... :D
Gary would the formation conciousness in this situation, at the big bang, be the equivalent of the hurricane through the field of plane parts forming a boeing that creationists love to use as a argument against evolution or abiogenisis.
Shanna wrote: "Gary would the formation conciousness in this situation, at the big bang, be the equivalent of the hurricane through the field of plane parts forming a boeing that creationists love to use as a argument against evolution or abiogenisis."Yes, only more so. The problem here is "degrees of freedom". If you imagine a sphere with a certain radius, then according to quantum theory only particles with a quantum frequency equal to some direct multiple of (n) can exist within it. What this means is that possible quantum states within a small sphere are a lot less than quantum states in an open space. This effect can be physically measured http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_....
What this means is as the radius (n) gets smaller the closer we get to t >> 0 then the number of possible states of the universe get geometrically smaller and therefore more simple. In fact some hypotheses on the nature of time equate the "arrow of time" as pointing in the direction of increasing degrees of freedom.
So to answer your postulation Shanna, it would be the equivalent of a hurricane from nowhere randomly assembling a full size Boeing 747 in a box smaller than an atom.
James,Thanks for replying. So essentially you have constructed a continuous sample space and the event that god exists has measure zero. I encourage you to publish the details of your argument online. I think it would boost the sales of your book and if your argument is sound you would get some fame to go with it.
James wrote: "Why nonzero? I see no reason to elevate it out of zero, almost surely, since "almost sureness" leaves open the possibility, even if it is infinitely implausible. "I can agree with the issue here based on another "logical" argument for Gods existence using a flawed form of renormalisation. The idea being that if the probability for gods existence is in any way non-zero then god's existence is a certainty because god is defined as infinite. This is a flawed concept because it equates the probability with possibility, and because I am sure you mathematicians will know better than I that any calculation involving infinity is easy to manipulate to any desired result.
Hi Christopher,Yes, in a manner of speaking. It's not so much that I've constructed a continuous sample space that it is that I've argued that the sample space of such potential hypotheses is necessarily infinite. It's stronger, of course, to argue that the sample space is continuous (or at least uncountable).
Perhaps I'll spend some time picking through and deciding which parts are sufficient to put out on my blog to get the gist of the argument across. Since I wrote the book for lay readers, though, I certainly did not construct it as though it is a formal proof--not that it would really matter much if I did.
Thanks, though, for the encouragement and advice!
So to answer your postulation Shanna, it would be the equivalent of a hurricane from nowhere randomly assembling a full size Boeing 747 in a box smaller than an atom. Soooo, unlikely then... :D
Hazel wrote: "People are picking out point four, but point 3 also fails, as we know that most of the components for life were created from dying stars, not in the big bang. Those components didn't exist until stars died, thus its actual scientific fact that things exist that did not exist at the big bang."You dont seem to be getting what I mean when I say that "everything that exists in the universe derived from the Big Bang".
So let me try to explain it better for you. Okay we have Time, correct. I mean we could all say that time exists, correct?
Now for us little peons on some microscopic planet in some far off galaxy in some remote part of the universe, Time is measured in moments that make the period between the Big Bang and now seem unbelievably huge. Are you still with me? Do you agree with this?
Now you talk about the components in the universe being from dying stars. Okay. So? They still derive from the Big Bang.
These dead stars would not exist if the Big Bang didnt happen and these componenets therefore would not exist if the Big Bang did not happen. THerefore these components derive from the Big Bang.
Now maybe some people say: Well, there is so much time between when the Big Bang happened and when these stars died that, you know, these things that exist after the Big Bang did not exist during the big Bang so they are different somehow, they are seperate from the Big Bang.
BUT really they are not COMPLETELY seperate. They ARE connected.
THey are connected because in Time, you can work backwards and connect the dots. So eventhough to us it seems like an unbelievably long time, something DOES connect the components that make up the universe and the Big Bang in Time.
Hazel wrote: "conciousness is part of a physical process using biochemicals and electrical signals, processes can only happen when there is time for them to happen, space and time didn't exist before the univers..."Lets keep in mind that restricting the definition of universal conciousness to just the qualities of human consciousness is even more infinately redonkulas than trying to define all the qualities of the planet Earth based on the qualities of one grain of sand.
As humans we percieve such an unimaginably small and insignificant micro-fraction of universal reality that it is simply beyond ignorant to think that we can make such grand claims about the universe.
We can take all the data, all the evidence, all the logic and understanding in mankind's history and make some conclusions and come up with some theories about the universe, but Good Gravy, all we know still isnt didily squat on a popcicle stick when it comes to all there is TO KNOW.
We dont even know where HUMAN consciousness came from. We can study the physical properties of the brain and our sensors that inform our brain.
But how did we get consciousness?
How did conscious existance come into being?
How does some species living in sludge in the bottom of the ocean go from not having consciousness to HAVING consciousness?
If we can't even answer these questions about human consciousness, then honestly, do we really have any frickin clue as to the possibilities of universal consciousness
Timothy said:Your error is in the use of the word "conscious." Presumably the universe was created (unless physics can come up with an alternative--and it might). But there is no need to assume a "conscious" creator. Creation can just as well be the result of an act or accident. If you are willing to extend or modify the notion of God to be a force of some sort rather than a consciousness, OK. But if you insist upon a conscious being, no dice. You are making unwarranted assumptions.Could the Big Bang be a result of an accident? Sure, I don't rule that out. But it is not a mistake - as you say - to at least EXPLORE the possibility that it was a conscoius act. That is what I am doing here. And my basic argument IS: Since concsiousness is something that exists in the universe and that it derives from the Big Bang, then there seems to be a posibility that consciousness is connected to the creation of the universe - this Big Bang.
Timothy, maybe you or someone else here can refresh my memory about some work or experiment in quantum physics in which one photon (i believe it was) was able to exist in two places at the same time - and the simple act of observing this is what made it possible. One of you smart guys here have to know what I'm referring to, correct?
***Also, I'm really sorry that I havent been able to respond to all of you who have responded to me - its been a long 3 day weekend for me and if I didnt respond to your question its not due to a lack of respect. Just a lack of sleep.
;)
I wondered how long it would take a complexity argument to show up. We can't possibly understand a "universal consciousness" if it exists, therefore it exists. If you want to explore the possibility that the Big Bang was a conscious act, start be delineating how the universe would be different if it was and was not a conscious act. If you can't identify any real differences, don't add the extra hypothesis.
Just out of curiosity, societies kind of have a social consciousness (called culture) that emerges from the individuals that make it up. Do you think societies are intentionally created by a precedent consciousness, since they have it?
Some are. I helped create a film society as an undergraduate many moons ago. This society was certainly created by a precedent consciousness...;)
Micheal wrote:Ed, atheism does not attempt to rule out or PROVE that god does not exist. An atheist states that he/she will not accept anything on faith (distinct from belief, see some of my other posts).
Actually Michael, it does take faith to say that you are certain there is no possibility that God exists. To say that you are absolutley positive that there is no way that a conscious thing created our universe is saying that you completely understand everything about the universe becasue that is the ONLY way you could have faith that it is entire impossible for the universe to have been created by a conscious act.
Ed Wagemann wrote:"But how did we get consciousness?How did conscious existance come into being?
How does some species living in sludge in the bottom of the ocean go from not having consciousness to HAVING consciousness?"
I've read some books and articles in the past few years that show we're making a lot of progress towards answering those questions. But until we have certain answers, all we can say is "I don't know."
If you don't know, then all you have an argument from ignorance fallacy. It's the same thing as saying "I don't know what made that noise, it must be a ghost!"
If you don't know what caused something or how it came to be, or even what it is, you can't just conclude that it must have been there all along and it must have caused everything that exists today. That's absurd. Before you draw conclusions you need evidence.
The point has already been raised, validly, that until Ed defines what he means by "consciousness," this discussion is moot. Generally, I'd suggest that an entity is "conscious" once it passes some undefined, probably fuzzy threshold of information-sharing complexity. Get enough neurons together? Their interaction defines consciousness. Same thing with circuits that send and manipulate signals in certain ways; same thing with collections of individuals. I don't *know* that's the case, but it's where the research is pointing. That's why it is so maddeningly frustrating to hear people talk about being unable to find consciousness somewhere in the brain. My guess is consciousness is a meta-process, so we're never going to find where, exactly, it is. In fact, asking "where" it is, is asking entirely the wrong kind of question.
Danielle, your anology doesnt accurately reflect what I am saying. I am not saying that "I dont know what made that noise, it must be a ghost." WHat I am saying is "I don't know what made that noise, but there is a good posibility that it was something that has the capability of making noise."
Do you see the difference?
We dont know what made the universe. Was it an accident?
Could be.
Was it a conscious act?
WHo knows?
But what we do know is that consciousness on Earth is a result of whatever it was that made the universe.
Shanna wrote: "Soooo, unlikely then... :D"I'd say logically impossible.
Even if you only consider a system of a single atom to have one degree of freedom, then 4 particles have 4 factorial possible arrangements i.e 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24 degrees of freedom. 5 particles have 5! = 120. Before you get to 100 particles the degrees of freedom sail way past a google permutations.
(This is all ignoring subatomic structure, 3 dimensional space and scalar quantities like mass.
If a 747 weighs around 200 tonnes of aluminium (atomic mass 27) then it has about 200,000,000 x Avagadros number x 27 atoms = (very roughly) 3 x 10power33 which means that fitting 3 x 10power33! degrees of freedom (remembering that calculators tend to choke on anything more than 90!) into the space of 1! atom is a little less than unlikely :-D
I was bored walking to work.
I'm not an Athiest but joined this group because I like to discuss.Anyways all I have to say to this thread is this
Something must have created the universe.
The Atheist Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Why Evolution Is True (other topics)Why Evolution Is True (other topics)
Evolution the Human Story (other topics)
The Incredible Human Journey (other topics)
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (other topics)
"Today ... we have the standard model, which reduces all of reality to a dozen or so particles and four forces. ... It's a hard-won simplicity [...and...] remarkably accurate. But it is also incomplete and, in fact, internally inconsistent..."
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...