The Atheist Book Club discussion
Science
>
I have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist...
Ed Wagemann wrote: "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. "Sorry that's not the case.
Simply put it is all possible that this reality we perceive is like "the matrix" and all the observations and experiments are deliberately calculated to delude us. Or (as young Earth creationists would have us believe) our reality has a consciousness outside it that has deliberately set up our observable universe to delude us into thinking its old. Or in fact the entire universe came into existence 1 second ago, along with all your memories up to this point.
All these possibilities are endless, and even if you could conclusively prove a god exists, you couldn't conclusively prove that this god was not the creation of a god beyond that, in an infinite recursion of russian god dolls, or even that this god actually was running inside a computer simulation, which exists inside a godless universe.
The point is that the possible hypotheses are literally endless, so do you require faith not to believe in all of these endless possibilities? No because you don't need faith to ignore the possibilities you haven't even imagined yet, so why do you need it for all of the others.
Lacking faith is instead trusting in our models of what we can independently establish outside of our own egos. If we lack faith then we do not need to resist when we find a more convincing model. However, we need a certain amount of trust in our models, but that comes from successful prediction and observation.
So no. Discounting god with certitude is no more an act of faith than discounting the theory that we all are dreams in the mind of the Great Blue Smurf. Should independently verifiable evidence of a deity be found, then we can put trust in that hypothesis, but putting faith in it ends the enquiry into reality and therein the path of wisdom.
Isabelle wrote: "Something must have created the universe."Please see my replies to Ed for why "creating" the universe is a logical impossibility. Creation is an event, an event requires time, and time is part of the universe. So you would have to "create" the universe to have the time to actually "create" it.
The usual response of something being 'beyond' the universe misses the point about what the universe means. The universe means existence, which means that if something exists then it must be part of the universe to be in existence.
"Creation" is an idea seen from a very human perspective of universal time and sequential events that actually are a lot different when you move away from our limited perspective.
I was bored walking to work. Seems like you solved that problem :D
I clearly don't have a maths head, I wish I understood that. But I did get "not bloody likely to damn near impossible" out of all that.
Shanna wrote: "I clearly don't have a maths head, I wish I understood that."Well the mathematicians on this thread are probably laughing at all of the silly shortcuts I took, but I was trained as a physicist and sometimes the inaccurate back of a fag packet calculation can tell you plenty.
Honestly, this mathematician on this thread doesn't really see the point in such calculations, accurate or otherwise. You nail it home completely and stay in your expertise when you say things like 'Creation is an event, an event requires time, and time is part of the universe. So you would have to "create" the universe to have the time to actually "create" it.'Languages are complex things that exist too, so I suppose those also have to be created--in the sense that they are not at some point and then some consciousness sits down and designs them, bottom to top. Or maybe it is that there are entities that need to engage in some process (here: communication) that causes them to organize certain meanings with certain sounds and then over time to refine them. I mean, who created English? What about French? Did Napoleon do it? We could compare Esperanto, which was created. Lots of people speak Esperanto.
With the universe, it appears likely that it's similar--again I beseech those of you who think otherwise to read Laurence Krauss's book. "Nothing" happens to be unstable because of quantum mechanics, and then from that nothing something will emerge. There is no need for a creator to get the universe going.
Gary said: Discounting god with certitude is no more an act of faith than discounting the theory that we all are dreams in the mind of the Great Blue Smurf. I disagree. First of all what is certitude? How can mankind be certain - without a doubt that it is impossible for the universe to be the result of a conscious creation? Faith means believing in something that you do not have 100% proof of. And mankind simply isnt evolved or intelligent enough to have such proof.
There is a difference between being an athiest and being agnostic, you know. As an athiest and an agnostic we might believe the exact same things except for the one final leap of faith.
The athiest takes that leap of faith. They have faith that they know every possiblity, they know everything about the universe because that is the ONLY way one coudl conclude that there is NO possibility for a conscious creation.
Whereas the agnostic realizes the limitations of mankind's perceptions of the universal reality and realizes it is crazy to have such faith.
Gary said: The photon is never "in two places at the same time" but sometimes it's probable location can interact with itself as if it were.~From the double-slit experiment page on wikipedia:
According to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Carlo Rovelli, observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. ... It has also been suggested that space and distance themselves are relational, and that an electron can appear to be in "two places at once"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-s...
To me this implies that there can be a very close relationship between creation and consciousness. In this case there is proof that a single photon being in two places at once is created from the conscious observation of it.
In a previous post Gary compared consciousness to the physical process of a dog's digestive system (or any other thing that exists in the universe) because these things also derive from the Big Bang. But that argument actually misses the point I'm trying to make. And that is largely my fault because I have not done a good job at explaining or defining consciousness.Defining/explaining consciousness seems impossible to do in one internet board post or even one internet thread. But let's start with the idea of the multiverse and build from there.
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Proje...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I disagree. First of all what is certitude? How can mankind be certain - without a doubt that it is impossible for the universe to be the result of a conscious creation?"The point is that there is an infinite number of other possible things that the universe could be a result of apart from a conscious being creating it, so it takes equal amounts of 'faith' to discount those as it does a conscious creator, i.e. none.
It takes faith to believe in something, it does not take faith not to believe in something, we all manage to do that every day when we fail to believe in Thor/Little Grey Aliens/Mithras.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Faith means believing in something that you do not have 100% proof of. And mankind simply isnt evolved or intelligent enough to have such proof."
Agreed, but believing in something is not the same as lacking belief in something. There are infinite things that one could suggest exists, you don't require faith in all of their non-existence, you wouldn't have time.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "There is a difference between being an athiest and being agnostic, you know. As an athiest and an agnostic we might believe the exact same things except for the one final leap of faith."
I dislike both terms, mainly because there is no consensus of what people mean by each term. For example religious people often assume that atheism is the belief that god does not exist, this is not how I would see it. Agnosticism (From a-gnostic "not knowing"), to me, is the belief that certain things (like the existence or non-existence of god) cannot be known by us intrinsically, while the agnostisism you are seeming to refer to, I would term "Deism" the belief in a creator god, just not necessarily one represented by any current religion.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The athiest takes that leap of faith. They have faith that they know every possiblity, they know everything about the universe because that is the ONLY way one coudl conclude that there is NO possibility for a conscious creation."
No. The atheist simply considers the vanishingly small chance of there being a god to be concurrent (or even beneath) the probabilities of many other entities and theories, therefore not worthy of consideration unless strong positive evidence is established. In the same way an atheist scientist does not need a leap of faith to not believe in the "luminiferous ether" they simply discount the theory as lacking evidence and intrinsic logic.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Whereas the agnostic realizes the limitations of mankind's perceptions of the universal reality and realizes it is crazy to have such faith."
My personal view, considering I dislike the term 'atheist', is that the problem is faith, is belief. Accepting a model of the universe is fine, but as soon as you believe in it you are no longer searching for knowledge, you are instead replacing it with projections of your own ego.
Could a conscious being have "created" the universe we perceive? Yes. However, to accept such an extraordinary model we would require extraordinary proof. It would also have to make logical sense which the concept doesn't. If a being existed "outside" the universe we perceive, then it is part of a greater universe which then needs it's own creator and the time to have a creation event. Claims of self-creation are exactly the same argument that the 'creator' theory was meant to address and therefore the creator answer is infinitely self-referential and ultimately not an answer to the question posed.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "It has also been suggested that space and distance themselves are relational, and that an electron can appear to be in "two places at once""
Important part highlighted. The electron actually existing in two places at once would violate the laws of conservation of energy, conservation of charge and conservation of parity. However this gets to the idea of non-locality where the same electron has a non-local property but without being two separate and distinct entities.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "To me this implies that there can be a very close relationship between creation and consciousness. In this case there is proof that a single photon being in two places at once is created from the conscious observation of it."
That is not proved. Whether a conscious mind is needed or not is not known and it is hard to prove for the simple fact that the end point of any experiment is the observation of the experimenter, otherwise you'd never know the result.
Moreover, if it turns out that a conscious observation is required to collapse the wave form, this then makes a conscious creator impossible as it would have prevented the universe from evolving out of its initial state because it was being observed.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Defining/explaining consciousness seems impossible to do in one internet board post or even one internet thread. But let's start with the idea of the multiverse and build from there."
The first link given holds a few scientific errors and misconceptions, for a start it does not define what multiverse "theory" it is talking about and in fact there are no proper "multiverse" theories. (I know M-Theory has a catchy name but it is still currently in scientific terms a hypothesis, and M-theory isn't really a 'multiverse theory' it is actually an 'expanded universe' theory)
The "multiverse" theory I think you are talking about would probably be the "Many worlds" interpretation of Quantum Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-wor... as this links "quantum theory" with "consciousness" and "multiverses". However, this isn't a theory or even really a hypothesis. The problem with Quantum physics is that it works, we can do the calculations, but we don't know 'why' it works. The multiverse interpretation is just one of many possible interpretations that we have yet to rule out.
Ed, why do you want there to be a god so badly? (I don't really need to respond to what you wrote, btw, since Gary did such an amazing job with it just above.)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "In a previous post Gary compared consciousness to the physical process of a dog's digestive system (or any other thing that exists in the universe) because these things also derive from the Big Ban..."Actually that was me. And the point I made still removes your point, even if you didn't define conciousness well enough. My point wasn't based around the word conciousness, it was based around the word "derives". You made a claim that conciousness is derived from the big bang (paraphrasing here), and so logically it can be present at the big bang, and somehow responsible for it. I pointed out that you can replace the word conciousness with anything else and it still, by the logic you used, is something derived from the big bang, and thus by the logic you used could have been present at the big bang and somehow responsible for it, in whole or in part. As the logical argument you use can have this done to it, the argument falls apart.
And actually,considering your argument is basically conciousness is derived from the big bang, thus it is possible for it to be present at the big bang, just by your wording, no it can't. Derive means it comes from a source, from an origin, so if conciousness is derived from the big bang, the big bang has to happen before conciousness can be derived from it.
Maybe I can explain what I mean Hazel, by asking you some questions.Do you think consciousness is only something that exists here on Earth? Or do you think in the infinite universe there is probablly some other form of consciousness somewhere on some planet in some other galaxy in our vast universe?
Now we dont have any proof ofcourse, but if you think that consciousness might exist somewhere else in the universe, do you think that consciousness has ANY connection to the consciousness that exists on Earth?
I know, I'm indulging in alot of hypatheticals here, but, my point is that things can derive from other things and even though they are not the same, they are connected.
To give a visual methaphor, think of the 4th of July Firework display where you see one huge explosion up in the sky and then there are all these smaller explosions that are tiny versions of the larger one. These little explosions originate from the source explosion, correct?
Os.uh my. Science puts the burden on the proponents of God to marshal evidence in favor of God. They haven't done that. We exist because . . . we don't know. But the notion of a "creator' is fatally flawed and, frankly, ridiculous. And unnecessary. The origin of the universe is an interesting topic, but our task is to address the enormous spectrum of injustices that plague our world. A creator is irrelevant for that. likely our creator, if one existed, made us then went one to make other universes that were better. Whatever. We are still stuck with solving the problems at hand. So let's do it!
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you think consciousness is only something that exists here on Earth? Or do you think in the infinite universe there is probablly some other form of consciousness somewhere on some planet in some other galaxy in our vast universe?"Actually there could be other forms of consciousness on Earth, the brains of several cetaceans are complex enough for it to be possible, the same with some of the apes. Indeed we cannot agree on a consistent definition of consciousness that would allow someone to "prove" they were a conscious being, let alone a whale, or a super-computer or even the point when a zygote becomes a conscious child. We cannot even define whether we are a single consciousness, a consensus of consciousnesses (which would be psychologically valid) or whether a society and culture has its own consciousness that emerges from the consciousness of all. These beings all share our planet, imagine how hard it could be to 'prove' consciousness exists somewhere truly alien.
Herein lies the problem. The common perception is to treat consciousness as being "able to communicate ones self-awareness to us in a manner we can understand." So in fact we are not talking about consciousness we are talking about being "like us" and comprehensible to us.
This is a common feature of humans. As part of consciousness and self-awareness we developed "a theory of mind". This allows us to "put ourselves in someone else's shoes" which is a (possibly unique) feature of our species that enables mutual comprehension and therein the building of communities.
Unfortunately this "theory of mind" we project onto other things based on our own minds. This leads to problems when humans from one culture project motivation onto a widely different culture and therefore misunderstand each other and come to conflict.
Yet we do not stop there. We also apply the theory of mind to everything from screwdrivers to cars to computers. How many times do people swear at a computer that has "chosen" just now to crash, or pleaded with a car not to break down.
It may seem superfluous but this is where religion has its roots. Suddenly the sky rumbles and flashes and we attribute it to a comprehensible motivation we understand, anger. Yet we eventually discovered the rules behind the build up and release of static discharge in the atmosphere, and even how to control it with lightening rods. (Though there were quite a few casualties before the faithful finally gave up on the idea that lightening was consciously directed.)
So again once more with a mystery before us it is the human impulse to project our own experience and to attribute conscious motivations to something we cannot quite yet comprehend.
It's very human, but it is also egocentric, misguided and (unless the thing we project motivation on is a human from a similar culture) always wrong.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Now we don't have any proof of course, but if you think that consciousness might exist somewhere else in the universe, do you think that consciousness has ANY connection to the consciousness that exists on Earth?"
No.
Aliens with some form of consciousness are indeed possible, whether we would comprehend or even recognise it is another matter.
Is it connected to us? No.
Even within our own biosphere similar things have evolved from radically different organisms. The eye has evolved several times with similar features but unique variations. The same with wings, legs, etc. Are the formation of these structures all connected? No. They evolved because the physics of the problem results in a similar solution to result, from the light sensing spots on primitive invertebrates, to insect compound eyes, to the human eye. All use similar features because that's the best solution, but they do not require each other as a template.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I know, I'm indulging in alot of hypatheticals here, but, my point is that things can derive from other things and even though they are not the same, they are connected."
Ah right, you are talking about the old platonic theory of forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_o... the idea that for everything in the world there exists a "perfect" version "somewhere" that all other forms are an imperfect reflection of. For example all circles are the reflection of the platonic "perfect circle".
As hypothesis go, this one was debunked before the alleged birth of christ. It is also the "perfect" (my pun) example of putting the cart before the horse scientifically.
In science we always have to remember that when we do our calculations or make our theories, they are just models, they are idealised versions of situations that are perhaps a lot more complicated if you look deeper into it, but those models will be able to answer basic questions. However these models are not real in themselves, they are just simplified ideals to make calculations simpler.
I really didnt want to get bogged down in semantics over the definition of consciousness because it is a never ending debate - one in which a consenus is hardly ever achieved.Perhaps we can circumvent this quagmire by simply acknowledging that there are diffent levels of consciusness. If someone wants to argue that a venus fly trap or a zygote has consciousness, then that's fine.
---
HOwever, I strongly disagree with the idea that consciousnes that evolves in a far off corner of the universe is not connected to consciousness that evolves on Earth.
THere is some force of nature that has caused mankind and every other conscious being to evolve the senses it takes to have consciousness. We need concsiousness to evolve in a way that we could not evolve if we did NOT hae consciousness.
Plain and simple. If we did not have consciousness what would we be? A pile of matter?
Ed, we didn't evolve these organs etc in order to have conciousness, it just happens to be a result of the process, theres no destination to evolution.
What do you mean by destination Hazel?James, are you saying that a pile of matter that has consciousness is the same as a pile of matter that does not have consciousness?
Or do you recognize they are different? If they are different, then what is the difference?
As every pile of matter that has consciousness is currently also living, I think your question is more than a bit silly.
sorry, Ed, what I meant is that evolution doesn't have a goal, we didn't evolve traits so that we could evolve other traits, it just happens. Evolution isn't directed, it is simply that the traits that increase survival and reproduction at the time are the ones selected for, because the less useful traits result in individuals being less successful, leaving less offspring (or even none at all), and so only the useful traits get passed on to the population at large. There's no aim to it, no goal, no direction or destination, just the selection of the things that work best for the current climate/situation etc.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "HOwever, I strongly disagree with the idea that consciousnes that evolves in a far off corner of the universe is not connected to consciousness that evolves on Earth."By what connection are you referring? What medium of information transfer are you suggesting? A classical connection would be impossible because the information transfer is limited to the speed of light. A quantum non-locality effect would only occur if both consciousnesses were active and entangled before being separated at the speed of light, which means that the connected consciousnesses would have to be together within a human lifespan.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "THere is some force of nature that has caused mankind and every other conscious being to evolve the senses it takes to have consciousness. We need concsiousness to evolve in a way that we could not evolve if we did NOT hae consciousness."
There is no proof or evidence for that point of view. It is nothing more than neoplatonism.
Evolution is not directed. Things do not evolve from worse to better, things evolve in all directions to fill all niches, often then creating new niches for more evolution.
This is why though we call ourselves "higher" life forms, we are still numerically outnumbered, and outweighed by biomass, by primitive organisms.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Plain and simple. If we did not have consciousness what would we be? A pile of matter?"
A star is a pile of matter, but is it inert? No. A fire is a process involving piles of matter, is it magic or mystical, no it's a process involving matter, energy and the interaction of both.
Consciousness is the process of thought, communication and memory that runs using electrochemical energy on a mass of matter, neurochemicals and interacting structures. This doesn't mean it isn't amazing and wonderful, but it doesn't need a "magical" field to occur.
Check the below for a link to a very primitive form of mind that cunningly uses it's surroundings as "physical memory".
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbi...
Until proven otherwise any argument that requires the belief in a mystical quality to consciousness means that the use of it to justify another mystical belief is moot.
Hazel and Gary, here is what I am wondering about:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you both seem to be arguing for the idea that consciousness is some random accident. Am I right to say that? Or am I putting words into your mouths?
If so then that is somewhat different from what I beleive because I lean toward the idea that consciousness has a purpose.
Gary, you say that things do not evolve from worse to better - but that seems kind of subjective in my opinion. I mean, what is better? What is worse? Is it better that mankind has evolved the technology to put satelites in space? Is it better that mankind has evolved the internet and cell phone use, etc? Is it better that manknd has evolved language? Or irrigation? Or Rock music? Some might say yes, some might say no.
I tend to believe that there is a reason that we have evolved in these directions - the reason is to make life easier and to give us more options. If life is easier and we have more options, then the chances of our species surviving is better.
And perhaps that is why we have evolved 'consciousness'...in order to give our species a better chance of continuing.
Is this the notion you are referrin to when you are talking aobut a "belief in a mystical quality to consciousness"?
James, I dont think it is a silly question. Didnt you ever have a teacher who told you that there are no silly questions?Do you at least agree that there is some difference between a pile of matter that is conscious and living and a pile of matter that is not.
If you DO agree to that, then what do you attribute that difference to?
Also, let me ask you another question. If you seperated every single particle, atom, etc of a living person and contain each and everyone of those particles into a seperate vaccum - would each and everyone of those particles be alive?
Would they have consciousness?
you're applying reason to a non-directional event after the event. There is no reason for consciousness. There was nothing guiding evolution towards it. You are applying an agency to evolution that is not there, and thats understandable, its a very human trait to do that, in fact, its an evolved trait to find patterns and see agencies where there are none, this trait has its uses, but it backfires, and your current reasoning is an example of it backfiring. Its the same sort of backfiring that results in religious explanations for life the universe and everything.there is no agency directing evolution, evolution simply occurs so that a population fills a niche. I wonder, are you drawing a difference between sentience and conciousness? As many animals are consciously aware, and then fewer are sentient (but still, more species than just humans).
Evolution works by, for want of a better word, randomly occurring, or sporadic, genetic mutations, caused by a failure in the translation of genetic material during reproduction, either a strand of DNA is replicated when it shouldn't be, or is omitted, or a new base is inserted where there wasn't one before, or one is skipped, due to the inefficiency of the process by which DNA replication occurs. Some of these mutations result in an individual or group of individuals being more successful than their peers, others make them less successful than their peers, and some of these mutations have no effect at all. The individuals which are most successful in a population will as a result of this increased success, pass their beneficial genetics onto their offspring, and will tend to produce more offspring than less successful individuals, as such, over time, the beneficial trait floods the population. This is evolution. it has the appearance of being directed, but its not, otherwise, there would never be negative occurrences of genetic mutations. It is simply that some mutations are more successful than others, and so appear in more of the next generation, until it appears in almost the entire population.
So, good mutations occur, bad mutations occur, neutral mutations occur. Good mutations make individuals more successful, bad mutations make them less successful, and neutral ones do very little indeed. So, good mutations get passed on to more offspring than bad mutations, because bad mutations lower the individuals success rate, and in the end, good mutation is present in almost all, if not all, of the population, and bad mutations are completely, or almost totally absent in the population. And whats good is not dictated by an outside agency, its dictated by what makes the individuals more successful within the environmental, climatic and behavioural niche they're existing in.
Now on conciousness itself. Seeing as neurobiologists, psychologists and evolutionary biologists are still working through this particular tangle of evolutionary traits, its a bit much to expect us to be able to explain it to you. But I've given a very basic idea of how evolution by natural selection works (and as a biologist, its almost painful putting it in such simplistic terms), and thats how conciousness came about, its just the exact pathway it took that we're unsure of. But one thing all scientists in the field agree on is that it is not reasonable or rational to say that its directed by an outside agency such as a god, or a concious universe, as none fo the evidence of the mechanism of evolution supports such an idea. In fact, it often directly contradicts such an idea.
I recommend reading Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, its a brilliant little book that explains how evolution works, and why an external agency such as god is not in any way responsible for it.
As for human evolution, I'd suggest Evolution The Human Story and The Incredible Human Journey both by alice roberts, or if you prefer, you can try to get a copy of her 3 part BBC documentary on the subject, called Origins of Us, if you can get a copy of it, I believe it was also released as a book, but there's no sign of it here on goodreads..
I can't believe I have to address whether or not there are silly questions because of a platitude. Ed, what's the odor of E-sharp?The question you asked compares apples to oranges. Would I agree that some difference between a pile of matter that is conscious and living and a pile of matter that is not? Well, of course I would. One is conscious. What do I attribute that to? The fact that the conscious pile of matter is undergoing certain processes that enable it to be conscious, all of which are related to being a living thing, so far as we know. If we separated every atom of a person into a vacuum, no, it wouldn't be alive. It would be a bunch of atoms (and will be again... indeed, you are made entirely of atoms that you were not made of just a few years ago--it's rather unlikely that a single atom that made you years ago is still part of you--are those atoms still you? still conscious?), and no, it wouldn't be conscious. It would be a bunch of atoms. I attribute that difference to the chemical interactions between the atoms that manifest in the process we call consciousness.
Would you agree that there's a difference between a group of people who are interacting and a group of people who are separated as individuals from one another? What is that difference, and what do you attribute it to?
What you're flirting with here is called "substance dualism" by philosophers. It seems to be the case that you believe that "consciousness" is made of some substance that applies to matter as opposed to it being a phenomenon that arises as a process from matter. That's why Gary accused you of imagining some "mythical" quality to consciousness. There's no good reason to accept substance dualism, though, and plenty of bad ones that lead us to reject it.
What you just did to evolution is a shame. Hazel did a good job correcting you. You are right, though--it seems that living things evolve consciousness because it is useful to survival, or really to reproductive fitness. Hazel describe the process, though. Accidents happen. Useful accidents are kept. Accidents that reduce reproductive fitness are discarded by the indifferent world.
sorry, correction, Evolution the Human Story appears to tbe the book made to accompany the Origins of Us series
Evolution works by, for want of a better word, randomly occurring, or sporadic, genetic mutations, caused by a failure in the translation of genetic material during reproduction, either a strand of DNA is replicated when it shouldn't be, or is omitted, or a new base is inserted where there wasn't one before, or one is skipped, due to the inefficiency of the process by which DNA replication occurs. Yes, I understand this and that human consciousness has evolved in this manner. But I still see the possibility of a certain order in this randomness. A certain direction or purpose.
And I also actually believe in free will - which I'm thinking you might not believe in. I mean I can conciously decide that I am going to raise my arm over my head right now. A phyisicalogical process will follow that is based on muscle memory in the atoms that go back to my childhood. But as James alluded to, the atoms in my body that are making that arm movement possible are not the same atoms that were there 7 years ago let alone when I was a child. WHich suggests to me that there is something in the evolution of the atoms that keep things connected. There is some glue that keeps it all held together, despite the fact that new atoms come and go- there is some 'constant' there...
of course you see an order in it, you're human, and one of our evolved traits is to see patterns. One of our evolved traits is also intelligence, meaning we're intelligent enough to know when there is no purpose, direction or pattern despite the illusion of one. Of course theres a "constant", but it doesn't need to be concious. I think Gary will probably explain the interactions of atoms better than I, as he's a physicist.
What it comes down to Ed, is whether you can agree that we are capable of entertaining a thought without accepting it as true. I can entertain the idea of a conciousness being involved somewhere, but due to the lack of evidence for such, there is no rational reason to accept it as true, or even remotely possible.
Free will is a logically impossible idea. First, we know from investigation of the brain that our unconscious mind makes a decision a split second before our concious mind does, so we have already made a decision before we consciously make it. Now yes, you can choose to lift your arm up, but you can only lift it within certain parameters, you can't hold it in a way that is physiologically impossible for you, and you can't move it from down to up except in a few specific ways. Its only possible for you to do so because you haven't damaged it recently, which would prevent you from lifting it. You can only lift it because there is enough space for you to do so, in another environment you may be too cramped to lift it, thus your will is limited by the environment around you. There is an illusion of free will, but really, we are limited by the world around us, by the people around us, and through their impact on us, and a consideration of our impact on them. True free will cannot exist in a world where you're limited by the world around you, and by other people. Even if you existed in a vacuum, you'd be limited by what a vacuum allows you to do. And if you tried to get as close to free will as you can, then it means not taking anyone or anything else into account when deciding what you want to do, which makes you either a monster or dead very quickly as you simply ignore the cars when you decide you want to cross the road.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Hazel and Gary, here is what I am wondering about:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you both seem to be arguing for the idea that consciousness is some random accident. Am I right to say that? Or am I putting words into your mouths?"
Yes that's wrong.
First "random" is wrong because it implies that in the universe there is only order or randomness at two extremes. That's not how we observe the universe to work. Certainly there are unpredictable things, but unpredictable things often have patterns, not because of some overarching power, but because of the interaction of simple rules.
Pour some salt onto a table, it forms a generally conical structure. The path of any particular grain through the turbulent process of being poured out is utterly random, however the resulting structure shows consistent and repeatable patterns. Is this because salt being poured reflects some "ideal cone of salt"? No it's because of the interaction of simple laws in a complex situation.
For another good example of how simple laws can lead to unpredictable complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton&....
Second your term "accident" comes bundled with the preconception that the discussed event happened outside of conscious control.
Where you would say accident, we would say that a consciousness is an emergent feature of complex sociobiological evolution.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If so then that is somewhat different from what I beleive because I lean toward the idea that consciousness has a purpose."
Which is a belief. Our idea of consciousness observes the fact it exists and then we look at evidence of what it really is, how it came to be and why it may be. Your idea assumes an answer, and then searches for evidence to support that answer.
So again it is a religious belief in the qualities of consciousness used in an attempt to argue for a religious belief, which is a simple circular argument and therefore invalid.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary, you say that things do not evolve from worse to better - but that seems kind of subjective in my opinion. I mean, what is better? What is worse?"
Exactly my point. The assumption that consciousness is a 'better' form of life is subjective. Therefore assuming that life evolves toward consciousness is assuming that consciousness is 'better' than a lack of consciousness on a universal scale.
You are right, there is no better or worse in evolution, there is only "less adapted to a niche" and "more adapted to a niche". Evolution does not go "up", it spreads outwards, finding some combinations barren and some flourish. What is amazing is the way in which evolution creates a new "phase space" for further evolution. For example the way that life exploded in variety when an oxygenated atmosphere was an accidental consequence of other evolved lifeforms.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Is it better that mankind has evolved the technology to put satelites in space? Is it better that mankind has evolved the internet and cell phone use, etc? Is it better that manknd has evolved language? Or irrigation? Or Rock music? Some might say yes, some might say no."
As you say, it's subjective. Is it good for us? Yes. Is it a absolute good? The answer is irrelevant unless you believe in absolutes like an absolute perfect consciousness.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I tend to believe that there is a reason that we have evolved in these directions - the reason is to make life easier and to give us more options. If life is easier and we have more options, then the chances of our species surviving is better."
How does our species "know" this. How does the universe "know" this. Does the universe "forget" this when a niche changes and a species dies out?
What we know is species come and go, flourish and then die however, contrary to what you'd expect it turns out that massive death is what spurs evolution to new heights and innovations. The oxygenation of the atmosphere wiped out almost all life on Earth, but it was followed by unparalleled evolution. The same with every mass extinction in prehistory.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And perhaps that is why we have evolved 'consciousness'...in order to give our species a better chance of continuing."
This is in direct opposition to what you said earlier. Evolving consciousness in order to do something implies "better" and "worse". It implies a deliberate choice to "improve". The biological view is that consciousness is a trait that appeared, turned out to be an advantage, and therefore developed and improved in those that inherited the advantage.
A common creationist deception is "what good is half an eye" and the answer is "quite a lot". Certainly all of the structures are perfectly balanced to fit with the modern eye, but that's to be expected if they evolved complicity. More primitive eyes with simple lenses, lower resolution, no colour vision etc. still allow an animal advantages over an animal that is blind (except in permanent darkness). Even a light sensitive patch on primitive invertebrates is an inheritable advantage over those that lacked it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Is this the notion you are referrin to when you are talking aobut a "belief in a mystical quality to consciousness"? "
Yes. The idea of a "soul" or a mystical quality that then the physical arrangement of neurons and chemicals then somehow "follow". It's also easily disproven. drink an alcoholic drink, take psychoactive drugs like antidepressants (I will refrain from advocating illicit experimentation). Refer to experiments with electrical stimulation of the brain, or of the effects of damage to certain structures of the brain or diseases that effect the brains structure, integrity or neurochemistry. All of these effects show significant alterations to the experience of, quality of and even presence of, consciousness. If consciousness was some kind of mystical energy field none of these physical effects should alter a persons personality, mood, memory or thoughts and yet we know well it does.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you at least agree that there is some difference between a pile of matter that is conscious and living and a pile of matter that is not."Ed, if you're going to argue for there being the possibility of a conciousness that controls the universe etc, then really, you should also extrapolate that idea to there being consciousness that we don't understand or recognise, thus all those things you label as piles of matter without conciousness could have conciousness, just that you or we don't understand as conciousness... why do you assume there is no conciousness in a rock?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "James, I dont think it is a silly question. Didnt you ever have a teacher who told you that there are no silly questions?"Yes but some questions are irrelevant, misleading or superfluous. A lot of wisdom can be found not in finding the right answer but in asking the right question.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you at least agree that there is some difference between a pile of matter that is conscious and living and a pile of matter that is not."
That question for example carries with it the idea that "alive" and "not alive" are two completely distinct states, and the same with consciousness. In fact there is grey areas in both. Does a dog have consciousness? What about an ape? What about a human with severe brain damage that makes their interactions indistinguishable to that of an animal species, what about a computer that passes the Turing test and interacts as if it was at least as conscious as its programmers?
For life there are many definitions, the ability to ingest energy, to grow, to reproduce etc. However most of those definitions also apply to viruses which are little more than complex chemical reactions, and even apply to the phenomena of fire.
One of the biggest difficulties of exobiology will not be finding life, but in identifying whether something alien qualifies as life. For example some exobiologists have suggested that Desert Varnish could be considered at least partially alive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_v....
What we can say about life and consciousness is that they are not physical things like Plato may have believed. There is no magical lifeforce or magical soul. Life and consciousness are both processes, processes that require interactions and interactions require energy and the interactions require something to interact with.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If you DO agree to that, then what do you attribute that difference to?"
An ongoing process.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Also, let me ask you another question. If you seperated every single particle, atom, etc of a living person and contain each and everyone of those particles into a seperate vaccum - would each and everyone of those particles be alive?
Would they have consciousness? "
No. Do the same to the elements in a fire, would it still burn? No. Do the same to the elements in a battery, would it still produce electricity? No. Yet at no point is a magical "field" of fire added to turn fuel, heat and oxidiser into a fire. At no point do you require a mystical energy field to cause the electrochemical imbalances in acids to cause a current flow across the conductors in a battery.
There is no soul?Actually, the ancient Greeks are the ones who came up with the concept of a soul. I think the name they had for it was sol - but I might be wrong.
They defined soul as that UNKNOWN within a living thing that keeps it living. The cosmic glue that keeps the atoms interacting within a living thing. Something beyond what we can see - even with today's technology and our ability to observe reality on a micro-level there are still things going on there that are unknown. Isn't like 95% of our universe made up of dark matter, dark energy?
Gary, I have a tendency to get trapped into argung semantics when I go to give you an answer - and I'm trying to avoid that for the moment. It might very well be necessary to do that and to come to agreed upon defintions before getting into the deep weeds of this discussion. But it would be very time consuming and involve alot of heavy lifting. Defining random, defining accident all in the context of the universal reality, etc. So I'm gonna gloss over it for the moment.
Hazel wrote: "Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you at least agree that there is some difference between a pile of matter that is conscious and living and a pile of matter that is not."
Ed, if you're going to argue for th..."
Didn't you and Gary imply that consciousness is nothing more than atoms reacting to one another? So if it rains and the atoms in mud react to the atoms in a rock, causing the rock to move - wouldnt that be conscious action? I mean, according to the definition that you guys are giving me?
"People made up the notion of God because we realize that we do not have all the answers. We have some answers. We can figure some things out. But we don't have ALL the answers. In fact, I agree with you, we don't even have MOST of the answers.
So if we don't have all the answers, then we have three options. We can search for the answers, which seems to be what you are doing. Or we can say, well there are no answers. Which is what some of the folks on here seem to be saying. Or last of all, we can say that all the answers are all wrapped up in one unified idea that we call God."
Ed Wagemann wrote:Hazel wrote: "Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you at least agree that there is some difference between a pile of matter that is conscious and living and a pile of matter that is not."Ed, if you're going to argue for th..."
Didn't you and Gary imply that consciousness is nothing more than atoms reacting to one another? So if it rains and the atoms in mud react to the atoms in a rock, causing the rock to move - wouldnt that be conscious action?
."
So, are you now retracting your differentiation between concious and non concious piles of matter? You seem to have missed the point of what I was saying. If the universe is controlled by a conciousness, why do you say there are some things that are concious and some things that are not? Seeing as everything is the universe.
And no, gary and I made no such implication. What we said was that conciousness is a process, and a result of evolution. Its you who brought atoms into it. Rocks and rain haven't evolved to have the process of conciousness. They haven't evolved at all.
Okay, I'm trying to understand your point of view. If I were to ask you "Why do we exist?"
You would say, "There is no reason, there is no answer." Am I correct? James might condescendingly say, "That's a sily question"
why do we exist? Because evolution has produced us. Because our parents had unprotected sex, and kept the child and then did a good enough job to allow us to survive? because we don't not exist? Because of alarge number of interacting factors (beyond counting) over the last 4.5 billions years since the earth was created producing the conditions in which we are able to exist, and which shaped the way that each and every species developed and is suited to its niche. Why, what answer would you give?
by the way, thats twice no that you've actually avoided answering the question I put about conciousness in rocks and the like.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "There is no soul?Actually, the ancient Greeks are the ones who came up with the concept of a soul. I think the name they had for it was sol - but I might be wrong."
Sorry the Egyptians were there before them with a far more complex conception of the soul that included up to 9 distinct parts which actually make a good model for psychological makeup.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "They defined soul as that UNKNOWN within a living thing that keeps it living."
How can you define something as unknown surely if you do not know then you cannot define it?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "even with today's technology and our ability to observe reality on a micro-level there are still things going on there that are unknown. Isn't like 95% of our universe made up of dark matter, dark energy?"
Yes but it is unknown, yet, the force that makes stars shine wasn't known until 100 years ago, this does not mean that labelling it magic or attributing it to any other label means anything. Just as lightening was once labelled as god's wrath, or the heavens were labelled as unchanging and eternal. All those guesses were wrong.
When something is unknown it doesn't mean that you can then give it a label of something known and be right.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Defining random, defining accident all in the context of the universal reality, etc. So I'm gonna gloss over it for the moment."
You may think it's semantics from your point of view, but your argument contains assumptions that you do not seem to recognise are even there. It is a common set of misunderstandings of science too, it's not stupid or small minded or anything, it's just not realising that your point is trapped in a human perspective.
Science shows us that the world doesn't work how we may expect it to based on our human perspective. It is recognising that the difference exists.
If you look at the list of common creationist arguments, they are based on faulty understanding of what science has discovered.
E.g. "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This argument assumes that evolution is a linear process going from lower (monkeys) to higher forms (us). As you have said yourself this is not the case. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor that diversified into us, monkeys and other forms, including forms that changed little and forms that changed a lot.
E.g. "evolution says that we just randomly appeared", again no, evolution says that simple interactions built on themselves complicity until they became more and more complex. At no point do you need a random coming together of elements. The real trick will be to find out how chemical reactions crossed the (extrememly blurry) line into life. We don't have a definitive answer yet, but the gap shrinks every year.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Didn't you and Gary imply that consciousness is nothing more than atoms reacting to one another? So if it rains and the atoms in mud react to the atoms in a rock, causing the rock to move - wouldnt that be conscious action? I mean, according to the definition that you guys are giving me?"
"Nothing more" again is a subjective argument which you are still insisting on using despite debunking it yourself early on.
Is the internet "nothing more" than "Ones" and "Zeros" interacting? Yes and yet no. Look at the staggering amount of information, interaction and complexity that the internet allows. Does that require the internet to have a soul?
A society is "nothing more" than a group of people communicating and co-operating, but that leads us to the heights of civilisation and the depths of war. Society is built on high minded ideals of justice, security, honour, integrity yet if you render a society down to its atoms, show me an atom of "justice".
What we are suggesting is that consciousness is a complex and complicit arrangement of atoms and energy across a system of interactions from the neurochemical to the electrical, to the complex social and linguistic communication external to the biological entity.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So if we don't have all the answers, then we have three options. We can search for the answers, which seems to be what you are doing. Or we can say, well there are no answers. Which is what some of the folks on here seem to be saying. Or last of all, we can say that all the answers are all wrapped up in one unified idea that we call God."
So we can search for the answers,
or we can in our arrogance and lack of humility say that if this generation does not know them, we will never know them.
or we can say in our arrogance and lack of humility that our answer is an entity that shares traits of consciousness and emotions consistent with ourselves.
In two out of three cases, you are assuming an answer and stopping asking further questions.
That is far worse than asking a silly question.
Ed, there's no reason to poison the well here. That question is interesting, and to answer it requires a lot of context on the term "why," as in what kind of reason are you looking for? I will tell you that there is no objective, "cosmic" reason that we exist. Does it bother you that we weren't planned for? If so, why?
We have all kinds of subjective purposes, but the universe doesn't give a whit about any of them, never did, and still won't when it eventually destroys every one of us.
So now you're wading out of the appeal to ignorance and a cosmological model into a teleological one. I hope this goes ontological soon.
once again, I'm going to recommend reading Why Evolution Is True, as it will clear up many of the misconceptions you seem to have about evolution. I know I used the words random mutations in an earlier post, but that was in wont of a better word. That better word is spontaneous.
Ed,Atheists do not generally assert that the Judea/Christian god and others do not exist with absolute certainty. We simply assign a very low subjective probability that they do. What probability would you assign to their existence? Any atheist who claims absolute certainty that any god does not exist is in a vastly small minority, and so they do not represent us.
Ed,Also Agnostics do not generally assert that they have a very convincing argument that god DOES exists. An agnostic generally assigns equal weight to the hypothesis that god exists or does not exist. This by definition means you are not an agnostic in the traditional sense. However quibbling over semantics is not interesting so if you wish to call yourself an agnostic then so be it.
I will concede that it is possible that consciousness existed prior to the big bang. If you wish to call this consciousness "god" then very well. But I am curious: do you believe this god has any stance on homosexuality, birth control, the death penalty and so on? Do you believe it is possible to sin against this god?
Some atheists assign a probability of zero, which is not the same as saying God doesn't exist with absolute certainty.
Christopher, I think it is pretty impossible to guess that if there is a God (conscious creator of the universe) what that God would be thinking about those issues.As for sin, that's an interesting question. I know you arent big on semantics, but it might help me here if you gave me your definition of sin, so that I could answer your question better. Personally, I kind of dismiss sin in these kinds of conversations - because sin doesnt usually seem to fit in with conversations around science... but it might be interesting to include sin, just to see what comes from it...
So James, what is the difference between being an Atheist and being Agnostic? It has always been my understanding that Atheist say that there is no God. Period. Whereas Agnostics say there is no definitive proof for the existence of God or proof against the existence of God. It is Unknown...
Christopher says it is just semantics and he is right. But at the same time semantics do count for something...
**I had a busy weekend and I'm just catching up on this thread...**
Hazel wrote: "So, are you now retracting your differentiation between concious and non concious piles of matter? You seem to have missed the point of what I was saying. If the universe is controlled by a conciousness, why do you say there are some things that are concious and some things that are not? Seeing as everything is the universe."I never said the universe is controlled by consciousness.
I don't understand your accusation that I am 'retracting' my differentiation between conscious and unconscious things. Can you explain what you mean?
why do we exist? Because evolution has produced us. Because our parents had unprotected sex, and kept the child and then did a good enough job to allow us to survive? because we don't not exist? Because of alarge number of interacting factors (beyond counting) over the last 4.5 billions years since the earth was created producing the conditions in which we are able to exist, and which shaped the way that each and every species developed and is suited to its niche.
Why, what answer would you give?
You are describing the "How" we exist Hazel, not the why. I do not have an answer as to why we exist.
But I have plenty of questions as to why we exist.
One huge mystery to me is the soul - as defined by the ancient Greeks (the unknown entity that makes man alive). Something is propelling matter in space. There are some rules as to how matter reacts in space (opposites attract for instance). And we know that for every action there is a reaction. And therefore for ever reaction there must be an action that caused it. So I have to wonder is the Big Bang an action or a reaction? Or is it something else?
The mechanics (the HOW) we exist can be observed and studied. But the WHY? That's not so easy for folks to get their minds around.
Thats because there is no why to our existence Ed, we just do. And my answers do give the why, not just the how, as they're the same thing. The soul isn't a mystery, theres no proof it exists, as such, we can reject the idea as false.
Every question you asked int hat final paragraph has already been answered in this thread, you asked, people provided answers, it doesn't conform to what you want, so you ask again. Thats the only explanation I can see for you to ask again, that is the only answer falling short of either you're deliberately making an ass of yourself, or you're too stupid to understand, and I do't want to entertain them as explanations, because I don't think you're stupid.
As for the retraction thing, in one post you state that there ask if we don't have concious, doesn't that just make us piles of matter, there is then some small discussion about concious matter and non-concious matter, in the post I then quoted, you attributed concious action to things that would previously have been covered by the heading non-concious matter, so either you're retracting the claim that there is a difference between the two, because you imply an attribution of actions in things like rain, mud and rocks to conciousness, or you are simply trying to avoid the question asked of you as part of that by asking inane and pointless questions as a response. If the latter, I find it very dishonest of you, especially as you built the question out of a strawman you'd created from what Gary and I had said previously.
So I'll ask again the question you have avoided answering,
if the universe has conciousness, or a conciousness was responsible for creating the universe, then by your logic everything should have conciousness, why do you not attribute rocks with conciousness when you make the differentiation between concious and non-concious piles of matter?
Here, let me give an example:
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 consciousness to be a part of the Big Bang.
6 Logic could also then extend to include the idea that as conciousness was present at the big bang, then it suffused all matter at that time, and so is present in everything after the big bang
7 everything has conciousness, even rocks and rain and chairs.
yes, it hurt to do that, due to all the logical fallacies it he original argument, but it does serve as an example of how the "logic" in this argument can be extended.
You also stated that you don't know why we exist, and really its fine to have ideas, but to entertain them as even marginally liekly without any evidence to back them up is irrational. It is possible to entertain an idea without accepting it, so yes, I can entertain the idea of a conciousness before the big bang, but given the evidence and the science and the logic of situation (as beautifully described by gary) the idea can also be rejected as completely unsupported.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "You are describing the "How" we exist Hazel, not the why. I do not have an answer as to why we exist. But I have plenty of questions as to why we exist."
"Why" assumes purpose before there is any evidence that there is a purpose, a purpose requires a conscious decision, therefore this is a religious belief, not a form of enquiry. "How" does not assume a purpose.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "One huge mystery to me is the soul - as defined by the ancient Greeks (the unknown entity that makes man alive)."
Then perhaps review the science on neurobiology, anatomy and psychology since the ancient Greeks. The soul is only a mystery if you believe it exists, and then have to explain the evidence that the 'soul' is just a reification of the complicit socio-neuro-biological interaction.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Something is propelling matter in space."
Sorry, I did not understand the relevance of this segue, could you expand?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "There are some rules as to how matter reacts in space (opposites attract for instance)."
Opposites attract when talking about the properties of certain vector fields. One of the problems with building a 'Theory of Everything' is that this isn't true with gravity. With gravity, the same attracts and indeed the attraction attracts itself.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And we know that for every action there is a reaction. And therefore for ever reaction there must be an action that caused it."
That is a stating of a simplistic mechanical law that is highly relevant to macroscopic mechanics, yet has less and less bearing as you move away from our perspective. For example, the disintegration of radioactive material does not necessarily require action or reaction, all it requires is potential.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So I have to wonder is the Big Bang an action or a reaction? Or is it something else?"
As stated a few times previously an "action" or "reaction" is an "event". An event can be described as a vector describing the spatial and temporal location of an event. "The Big Bang" or more correctly T=0 cannot be an action or reaction because the temporal and spatial co-ordinates for events to take place do not exist until T>0 so the simplistic idea of a reaction or action does not make logical sense.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The mechanics (the HOW) we exist can be observed and studied. But the WHY? That's not so easy for folks to get their minds around. "
That's because "why" is subjective and assumes a purpose.
Gary wrote: "Opposites attract when talking about the properties of certain vector fields. One of the problems with building a 'Theory of Everything' is that this isn't true with gravity. With gravity, the same attracts and indeed the attraction attracts itself."In basic science at school, the only opposites that I learned attract are magnetic poles. Beyond that, our teacher ensured we knew that opposites attract isn't true, another lesson included realising that cohesion is a stronger interaction than adhesion, so things that are the same stick together in a stronger way than things that are different.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So James, what is the difference between being an Atheist and being Agnostic? It has always been my understanding that Atheist say that there is no God. Period. Whereas Agnostics say there is no definitive proof for the existence of God or proof against the existence of God. It is Unknown..."I don't know if you missed my definitions above, but it does seem that you have a different definition to both terms than I would use. However, that is fine as long as we recognise we don't mean the same thing.
What I do find interesting for your definition of Agnostic is the way the two possibilities are made equivalent - "There is no god" and "There is a god" - when this is not really the case. The "There is a god" actually needs to cover all forms of religious or mystical postulation that have been conceptualised, are conceptualised or will eventually be conceptualised. This goes from impersonal "primal forces" of older Pagan traditions, to the animistic idea of spirits and genii, through pantheonic gods, to dualistic deities, to monotheism, and out to ideas of nested simulated universes etc. All balanced by the idea that placing faith in any one of these concepts above the infinite others without sufficient evidence is a choice not a deduction.
This is why an atheist places the probability of a "god" as tending to zero, because with literally infinite potential variations on ultimate entities, be they preconscious, subconscious, conscious or metaconscious, it would be very narrow minded to place any credence in any of them if you are unwilling to place it in all of them, at which point you would have to believe in infinite conflicting ideas.
Ed, you asked "So James, what is the difference between being an Atheist and being Agnostic? It has always been my understanding that Atheist say that there is no God. Period. Whereas Agnostics say there is no definitive proof for the existence of God or proof against the existence of God."The differences are rather vast, and they depend on how you're using those words.
In technical parlance, agnostic means "without knowledge," so not claiming certainty, and atheist means "without belief in deity." Belief and knowledge are different things. Someone could believe and claim to be sure (gnostic theist), someone could believe and claim not to be sure (agnostic theist), someone could not believe and claim to be sure (gnostic atheist), and someone could not believe and not claim to be sure (agnostic atheist). The vast, vast, vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists on the broad question and gnostic atheists on the question about every specific God they've ever heard of (e.g. the God in the Bible).
In everyday parlance, agnostic usually means "isn't sure" and atheist is taken to me "gnostic atheist," per the above. This is an abuse of the terminology born out of and borne upon the intellectual laziness that prevents most people from spending the few minutes it takes to acquire the necessary linguistic accuracy. Of course, most people are busy, so it's fine until they've have it pointed out to them and then persist. In that, please don't confuse the terms again just because you don't happen to like their definitions.
Gary, just above, noted that "an atheist places the probability of a 'god' as tending to zero." Actually, I place the probability of the existence of God at zero. I do so without claiming to be a gnostic atheist in the general sense, and I have already elaborated on this thread as to how I do it. I'd urge you to get my book and read Chapter 5 if you want more detail. On the other hand, I'm gnostic atheist with respect to any particular god you might name or define, like the one in the bible for a common specific example or like the one you're trying to define as a vague and poorly defined notion of cosmic consciousness that you're claiming on logically fallacious arguments might have existed during the Big Bang.
Pay attention to that last bit. You are arguing for a God that you are defining to be a poorly defined notion of consciousness that might have existed at the Big Bang. The questions that definition raises are "why should anyone care about this definition? what does this god do? how can that be shown?"
What you're doing from there is essentially resting on the fact that the term "God" is a poor metaphor that means something different to almost everyone that uses the term. To wit, if you gave this argument for God and plainly said that this definition of God is what you were arguing for sometime in the seventeenth century in Europe, there's a good chance you'd have been burned as a heretic. It's dangerous to use terms like "God," then, because they always mean one thing to the speaker and a different thing to the listener.
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)
I am going to assume here that by Big Bang you are referring to t >> 0 or the earliest possible time in the universe, sometimes simplistically referred to as "creation" but that is a term that is highly misleading.
First, could the universe be the result of an 'accident', well strictly speaking an accident requires initial conditions, then an unintended event, then a consequence. You cannot have initial conditions that precede time, just like you cannot push a ball north of the north pole, that direction isn't a boundary, it is simply a direction that doesn't exist. You cannot have an event until after you have time to have an event in.
Accident also has connotations of an event that has occurred outside of some deliberate control, so an 'accidental' universe still implies that you are thinking of a creator.
The same argument then applies to a concious creation. There has to be initial conditions, then an event, both require time, but if time is part of the universe (which Einstien has proved it irrevocably is) then you cannot have a moment of creation until you have a universe for that moment to occur in, which would then stop the point of having a creation.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "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."
As pointed out before that is a logically null hypotheses. By that argument, it is just as likely that any other process in the universe therefore created the universe. Whether that process is consciousness, quantum interaction or the canine digestive process.
It also still does not get around the fact that the consciousness requires initial conditions (i.e before the decision), a subsequent moment (to take the action) before t=0 which is logically impossible.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "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?"
Well I'm not that smart, but you are referring to quantum non-locality or 'quantum fuzziness'. This isn't really about one photon existing in two places, this is about the fact that at the quantum scale things don't work according to human intuition and particles are intrinsically unlocalised until they interact. The common interpretation is that the interaction collapses the waveform. However, in experiments groups of particles can form a hybrid waveform which eventually collapses when measured. Some scientists have wondered whether this means that conscious observation is required to collapse the waveform, however there is no conclusive proof for this. There is also the hypothesis of 'decoherence' which simply states that delicate arrangements of these entangled particles collapse when exposed to enough random interactions with no consciousness needed.
The photon is never "in two places at the same time" but sometimes it's probable location can interact with itself as if it were.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "***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.;) "
No problem at all Ed. Discuss at your own pace. Thank you very much for your kind update however.