The Atheist Book Club discussion
Science
>
I have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist...
Ed Wagemann wrote: "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."So if you hear a sound coming from a place known to be hostile to life (like the inside of an oven) do you immediately assume that the sound is caused by a conscious act or more likely to be some other cause?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "We dont know what made the universe. Was it an accident? "
Sorry Ed, can you confirm that you read the other posts?
'Accident' assumes an event that happens outside of conscious control. Your very conceptualising of a universe without a conscious creator still assumes one.
The universe is likely a natural consequence of it's own properties. That is not an "accident" or a "design", just as stars don't "accidentally" form from gas clouds and neither are they designed to do so.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Was it a conscious act?
WHo knows?"
We do, unless you make a lot of groundless assumptions on the one hand, and then dismiss well grounded ideas as "limited knowledge" at the same time.
Either you can logically prove what you say or you can't, you cannot say "logic works" while dismissing it at the same time.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "But what we do know is that consciousness on Earth is a result of whatever it was that made the universe. "
Again "made" implies a time when the universe wasn't here, but the universe includes time.
Yet the argument is still superfluous. What other things can you name that appear merely because they are the same as something that went before.
You are talking the pseudo-science of morphogenics.
I feel this is relevant herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDQ7vC...
I set it to start about half way through the video, as the first half is just the caller trying to set up a public debate with Matt
Timothy wrote: "Folks, There seems to be a lot of "prove a negative" going on. One cannot prove God doesn't exist. But the burden is on those who assert God to prove he exists. They cannot do so because their unde..."Timothy, athiesm is the belief that god does not exist. I'm not trying to prove that god DOES exist. I'm just trying to show that there is the POSSIBILITY that god exists. In my view if an Athiest cannot prove god does not exist then they should say that they are Agnostic.
----
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Was it a conscious act?
WHo knows?"
Gary writes: We do, unless you make a lot of groundless assumptions on the one hand, and then dismiss well grounded ideas as "limited knowledge" at the same time.
Specifically, what groundless assumption have I made?
I have taken great effort NOT to make assumptions. I have simply described possibilities. Surely you recognize the difference and surely you reconize that I am talking about possibilities - not certainties in any way whatsoever.
ALSO, why do you refuse to admit that mankind has a "limited knowledge" of the universe. This is a huge factor in our discussion, yet you seem to refuse to even acknowledge this. Do you honestly think that people in the year 2512 will look back at us and think, "Wow, they really had all the answers, didn't they"?
This topic matter is one that requires a "Think big picture" outlook.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Timothy wrote: "Folks, There seems to be a lot of "prove a negative" going on. One cannot prove God doesn't exist. But the burden is on those who assert God to prove he exists. They cannot do so be..."Atheism is the rejection of the assertion of god's existance it is NOT a belief, you've no doubt heard the memes atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby, or bald is a hair colour, or abstinence is a sex position.
Shanna has already said it, but let me reinforce what she wrote. Atheism is not a belief. Mind you, some atheists are so adamant that they sound that way. But true atheism is simply a position that says two things: One, if you think there is a God, the burden is on you to prove it, because there is no viable evidence that a God exists; and two, in the absence of such evidence, we have to go forward as if no God exists. Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I feel this is relevant here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDQ7vC..."
agreed
:D"
Evolution has nothing to with atheism. Common mistake made by theists. Atheism is a stance on one subject, and one subject only, the existence of a deity, it speaks to nothing else. Demonstrably so. Christians reject a lot of things inspite of proof.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Timothy, athiesm is the belief that god does not exist."Nope. It's the lack of belief in any god, gods, supernatural or other mystical system of belief.
Belief that god does not exist would be a belief and therefore not atheism.
You keep getting told this by 'atheists' and yet still keep your flawed definition.
So either your argument doesn't apply to 'atheists' or your argument does apply to the type of atheist that only exists in theistic imagination.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Specifically, what groundless assumption have I made?"
(1) That time is linear and universal. (Required for cause-effect ideas of the "creation" of time)
(2) That things need to be 'created' (a process which seems obvious from limited human perception, yet true creation has never ever been observed) therefore the assumption that the universe needs creating is just an assumption.
(3) That somehow the products of a process are present in its initial reactions. A state of affairs only found in specifically self replicating systems like prions and life, and only within the context of themselves. (i.e. life leads to life by reproduction but without ever a significant gap).
(4) That consciousness has a component outside that of known energy and matter interactions.
(5) That "something" "guides" the universe.
(6) That "atheism" is the belief in 100% non-existence of a singular conscious god.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I have taken great effort NOT to make assumptions. I have simply described possibilities. Surely you recognize the difference and surely you reconize that I am talking about possibilities - not certainties in any way whatsoever."
Fair enough. This however means that your "logical proof" becomes a house of cards based on an increasingly unlikely set of assumed possibilities. This eliminates the use of the logical argument as a 'proof'. It also eliminates the use of the argument to declare 'atheism' as flawed as atheism does not contain the assertion you assumed.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "ALSO, why do you refuse to admit that mankind has a "limited knowledge" of the universe. This is a huge factor in our discussion, yet you seem to refuse to even acknowledge this."
Actually quite the contrary. For example you assume that the universe was created and therefore needs a creation event and possibly a creator. However I assert that we don't actually know if we need a creation event at T=0 especially as T=0 would be a singularity and therefore would violate Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
The problem is that you keep retreating to completely outdated conceptions of the universe and then claim that they have validity because we don't know everything yet. What your failing to imagine is that perhaps the answer is not as simplistic and linear as you may imagine and indeed the real answer may be something we have not yet even conceived, not something that was conceived and then discredited before the Romans even reached Britain.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you honestly think that people in the year 2512 will look back at us and think, "Wow, they really had all the answers, didn't they"?"
Of course not. But I doubt they will look back and go, "those silly people, not realising the world was actually flat and at the centre of the universe" (well unless the Republican party have an unbroken string of elections for a century or two.)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "This topic matter is one that requires a "Think big picture" outlook."
I agree entirely, so why do you keep retreating to "little picture" concepts based on primitive ideas of classical and pre-classical physics?
Certainly science is likely to have progressed and to have unveiled ideas we have no concept of now, but this will not then go full circle and prove that primitive concepts were right.
Newtonian Physics gave way to Einsteinian Physics, but Einstein's theory still explains everything observed with Newton's theory. We know that Einstein's theory is not the last word because we need to marry it successfully to Quantum Theory, but the resulting theory would have to explain everything observed with the two theories. A lot of what you are suggesting fundamentally violates both theories so is highly unlikely have a shred of validity.
I recommend if you are serious about the "big picture" then read up on the current state of the field of Cosmology. It's fascinating, mind expanding and amazing. Some of the concepts are hard to really grasp because they are so distant from the human experience. Yet as you say that is the sort of thinking that is required in these kinds of discussion.
timothy said:Shanna has already said it, but let me reinforce what she wrote. Atheism is not a belief. Mind you, some atheists are so adamant that they sound that way. But true atheism is simply a position that says two things: One, if you think there is a God, the burden is on you to prove it, because there is no viable evidence that a God exists; and two, in the absence of such evidence, we have to go forward as if no God exists."timothy how can you hold a position if you dont have a belief? I mean WHAT exactly are you basing your position on, if not a belief? Also, you are descrbing whta I would call the agnostic belief, not an atheist one. I've looked both terms up on-line. Athiests belief that there is no god. Agnostics believe that there is no proof that god exists. There is a bid difference between the two.
(1) That time is linear and universal. (Required for cause-effect ideas of the "creation" of time)
(2) That things need to be 'created' (a process which seems obvious from limited human perception, yet true creation has never ever been observed) therefore the assumption that the universe needs creating is just an assumption.
(3) That somehow the products of a process are present in its initial reactions. A state of affairs only found in specifically self replicating systems like prions and life, and only within the context of themselves. (i.e. life leads to life by reproduction but without ever a significant gap).
(4) That consciousness has a component outside that of known energy and matter interactions.
(5) That "something" "guides" the universe.
I am NOT assuming any of these things to be true Gary. I am simply exploring the possibility that they are true. Big difference.
This 'assumption' I have that the universe was created for instance. You are a smart guy, you know more about physics than the layman, yet your idea that the universe was NOT created is an opinion that even you surely acknowledge is in the minority.
You say you believe this, yet your proof is in the realm of theory instead of reality and common sense. To illustrate the difference, can you please show me one thing that exists in reality that was not created?
I agree entirely, so why do you keep retreating to "little picture" concepts based on primitive ideas of classical and pre-classical physics?Are you saying that just because an idea is old or 'primitive' it does not have value? Or it is wrong?
Obviously we know more than ancient people, but that does not mean that their instincts were wrong. In the case of the ancient Greeks who first came up with the word for soul, for instance, can you say that they were wrong to wonder and want to name that unknown that is responsible for propelling man and life through time and space?
If so, then why were they wrong to wonder about this and to give it name that would allwo them to study and reference this phenomenon?
Do you think there question is no longer valid? Do you think we have figured out WHY we propell through time and space? Before you said it was all just gravity - isnt that a primitive idea in itself?
Actually quite the contrary. For example you assume that the universe was created and therefore needs a creation event and possibly a creator. However I assert that we don't actually know if we need a creation event at T=0 especially as T=0 would be a singularity and therefore would violate Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.Why does T=0 have to be a singularity? Why couldnt the creation of our universe been the result of a creation event?
Again, I'd like you to think about black holes. Where does the matter that gets sucked into a black hole go? Could it go into a white hole or a hole to another universe? Could the matter in this other universe sometimes intersect with our own universe? Does time move at the same rate in this other universe? Does the matter in our own universe that we call dark matter and dark energy possibly be matter and energy from other univeses that are moving so much faster than the matter in our universe that we cannot percieve them?
When thinkign about all of these possibilities, then how certain can we really be that our own universe marks the beginning of time? What makes you so sure that that singularity was not just the first point in a white hole from another universe in which our universe was crated? In which case this idea that t=0 is not a big picture idea. It is a little notion by a group opf carbon-based lifeforms on a dinky planet in a small solar system from a galaxy in a far off corner of our universe who really have no idea what is really going on beyond the reach of the five senses that we have evolved millions of years ago before we climbed out of the slime of pre-historic lakes and times.
I just read through this entire thread.
Someone should convert this into a playscript!
Or maybe a Rock opera.
Someone should convert this into a playscript!
Or maybe a Rock opera.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Shanna has already said it, but let me reinforce what she wrote. Atheism is not a belief. Mind you, some atheists are so adamant that they sound that way. But true atheism is simply a position that..."To your credit, Ed, you are pointing out something that is important yet difficult. What is "belief"? Theologians recognize a difference between "belief" and "faith." This is not just important, it is critical. Yet the two terms overlap. "Belief" is holding something to be true. "Faith" is trusting something to be true. There is a lot of overlap, as I said, bu tin the "pure" sense, "holding" is rigid and "trusting" is open. This is the difference.
Agnostics, perhaps, are the most open, because they remain open to the existence of God. A true atheist is, at heart, an agnostic, but let's face it, there is no compelling evidence for God. God is a human creation and is best understood as a vocabulary for the unknown, rather than a material fact.
Timothy, yes God is a human creation. But so is math, so is science, so is language. Do these things really exist?We can say with some certainty that life exists, that the universe exists. We can see it, hear it, smell and feel and taste it. But there are many mysteries surrounding existence. There are Unknown things that we cannot see, hear, smell, taste feel. Yet we have a sense that these Unknowns exist. And this sense fills us with curiousity and leads us toward developing theories and ideas, etc to explain these things that our 5 senses cannot directly percieve.
math and science are names given by humans to phenomena and laws that were discovered, not that were invented. Saying maths and science were invented by man is like saying a landmass didn't exist until someone got there for the first time. Language is an evolved trait, not a discovered one, it wasn't something we didn't have and then someone invented it, its an evolution of communicative sounds that we also see present in other species. Did you know the nile crocodile has had 18 distinct communicative sounds recorded, and each one has a distinct meaning. Did you know that different monkey species living in the same area not only understand the vst plethora of sounds their own species makes, but also those of other species too, so when one species sees a snake and makes an alarm call for snake, all the different species understand it, but that they each have a different sound to mean snake. Same with the sound for hawk, and the sound for tiger etc etc. Language was not invented, it is an evolution from simple sounds to complex sounds to describe the world around us, and in humans is hand in hand with evolution of intelligence, as we developed words for abstracts too as we became more capable of abstract thought. You say it was invented as if you imagine that a group sat down in each country and worked out what sounds would mean what on purpose, rather than them developing over thousands of years. Language is still developing and changing.If something is unknown, then we should not attribute anything to them, we should not apply agency to these unknowns, instead we should just say they're something we don't understand yet. Why do you capitalise unknowns? And what do you actually mean by it?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Why does T=0 have to be a singularity?"Because it would be a precise moment in time and space which is not permitted under the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That's why I use T->0 or within one planc moment of zero.
To use your black hole analogy, the universe looks like a black hole run in reverse so at the centre a singularity forms, or at least has the "potential" to form. It never forms within our existence though as the time dilation becomes infinite as the singularity forms meaning that the singularity never has sufficient time to appear. (see my direct reply to black holes below)
This is not to say that new physics may not take over at this level, however it is unlikely that this physics will have more in common with more primitive physics like Newtonian and will likely be very hard for us to visualise. Therefore simplistic ideas like a creation point are likely to be woefully simplistic.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Why couldn't the creation of our universe been the result of a creation event?"
I've said this before but I appreciate it's a hard concept to follow from a limited human perspective, but if I restate it again slightly differently it may stick. (It took me a long time before I could begin to grasp it too, to be fair to any readers.)
* Time exists.
* Creation requires a time when something doesn't exist, then a creation event then a time when it does. (That's the simplistic Newtonian 'cause and effect' physics)
* For time to have been 'created' there must be a time when it did not exist, however for there to be a time when time did not exist there would have to be time.
* A creation event cannot happen at T=0 because there is no T<0 for there to be nothing for it to be created from.
So the universe has existed for all time (i.e. there was never a point in time it did not exist) however "all time" is a finite, not infinite, period.
Paradoxically it's a really simple point but at the same time the consequences are incredibly hard to visualise, mainly because it deals with true nothingness or non-existence which is impossible for humans to imagine. (Most humans imagine an eternal vast empty nothingness, but that is actually something as it has both space and time. Nothingness isn't vast, it's nothing.
In a literal sense nothing doesn't exist.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Again, I'd like you to think about black holes."
Certainly, though it could take a while. I wrote one of my longest essays at University on Black Holes and Hawking Radiation. :-)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Where does the matter that gets sucked into a black hole go?"
Well from our point of view, nowhere. The problem most people seem to forget is that strong gravity warps time and space. As matter falls closer and closer to the event horizon the quicker into the future it travels. If you could observe a clock falling into a black hole so that when it hit midnight it crossed the event horizon you would see it slow and slow until in the last seconds it would seem to freeze on the very threshold.
To the clock's perspective it would pass over the threshold without even noticing but if it could survive the radiation and stress and look behind it, it would see the entire future of the universe unspool out behind it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Could it go into a white hole or a hole to another universe?"
Both ideas are hypothesis that suffer from the fact that they try to calculate physics with theories that do not cover such extreme states. Unfortunately with infinite values it is possible to make equations do some strange nonsensical things unless you're very very mathematically rigorous and careful.
Fun example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIq5CZ...
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Could the matter in this other universe sometimes intersect with our own universe?"
Ok careful here for a start as we are moving into a territory where non-physicists tend to assume a lot of things.
First "multiverse" models are not really "many universes", what it really distinguishes between is our "observable" universe and hypothetical regions beyond "normal" observation (but not necessarily beyond all observation.) In fact one of the best formulations at the moment, M-Theory specifically does away with the confusing universe/other universe nomenclature and defines what we would call "existence" as the "Bulk" and our observable universe as a "Brane" (short for membrane) floating in this Bulk.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Does time move at the same rate in this other universe?"
Indeed one of the features of these theories is the idea that time may be local to our own universe and that T->0 occurred at the intersection points of two Branes in the bulk.
What you don't seem to realise is that one of the reasons for these hypotheses is to address the lack of a creation event. If these hypotheses are right it again eliminates the idea of a "creation" event.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Does the matter in our own universe that we call dark matter and dark energy possibly be matter and energy from other univeses that are moving so much faster than the matter in our universe that we cannot perceive them?"
There are many things we cannot perceive but we can observe. It's important to realise the difference in scientific terms.
I do think that you are offering slightly misleading summaries of a few of the more exotic hypotheses to try to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
The "faster than we can perceive" isn't correct, I think that you may be referring to one of the hypotheses addressing the somewhat controversial "FtL neutrino" observation at CERN. What this hypothesis speculated (as best as I can remember and summarise) was that perhaps neutrinos by their very small rest mass could "leak" into and out of our "Brane" into the "Bulk" and since space and time does not exist in the "Bulk" when it leaked back in again it could appear to have crossed a small amount of space in zero time allowing it to appear to be moving FtL without actually passing the light barrier.
As I said though the hypothesis and observation are currently highly speculative.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "When thinkign about all of these possibilities, then how certain can we really be that our own universe marks the beginning of time?"
We cannot be, but 'creation' still remains nonsensical for the above given reason. With creation you end up in a infinite circle of cause and effect which is a circular argument and defines nothing. To have a creation point implies a greater universe of time at least which then simply begs the question where was that universe created? If you assume that universe wasn't then why assume this one was?
Further, the "greater universe" ideas of "M-Theory" and "Evolved Space Time" are sophisticated and coherent attempts at addressing the creation paradox without falling into it. They also may have testable predictions that can be verified and falsified. Simply inserting an anthropomorphic figure to "light the blue touch paper" is no more valid than the infinite number of other hypothetical religious explanations that cannot be 100% proved invalid.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What makes you so sure that that singularity was not just the first point in a white hole from another universe in which our universe was crated?"
Excellent point and I believe the subject of a book that hypothesised the similarities between the observable universe and a black hole interior to hypothesise that perhaps there are many universes that bud off fractally from each other, each one either expanding or collapsing according to their internal properties, with only the universes with the right properties to produce blackholes leading to "offspring" universes (which conveniently also means those universes are conducive to the appearance of stars and enough time and complexity to produce life).
The point is though that t->0 will still not be a creation point, but a transition point from one observable universe to another, thereby again negating the need for creation and therefore a creator.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "In which case this idea that t=0 is not a big picture idea. It is a little notion by a group opf carbon-based lifeforms on a dinky planet in a small solar system from a galaxy in a far off corner of our universe who really have no idea what is really going on beyond the reach of the five senses that we have evolved millions of years ago before we climbed out of the slime of pre-historic lakes and times. "
Based on your own argument here, why do you then keep claiming that you can "prove" the existence of god?
You cannot claim limited perception and then superior perception at the same time except with a towering assertion of arrogance.
It's amusing how you continue to try to mock highly complex ideas as being the result of limited human perception and then use that to try and assert your own (far more primitive and limited) argument. Fair enough we don't know everything, but that does not mean that primitive ideas are therefore correct!
We now know that lightening is not created by Thor but is a natural process involving the build up of static charge and the subsequent event that restores the equilibrium. This does not mean that we should believe in Thor anyway just because we cannot be 100% sure he doesn't actually control the build up of charges deliberately.
Your argument is based on exactly the same concepts that the "Flat Earth Society" uses. Applying simplistic (and therefore easily understood) physics projected to situations that are beyond our daily experience and simultaneously mocking the "limited scope" of science to undermine arguments to the contrary.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/i...
Sorry Ed. I actually skipped a couple of replies by accident. I will answer here while trying not to duplicate the huge one above,Ed Wagemann wrote: "timothy how can you hold a position if you dont have a belief? I mean WHAT exactly are you basing your position on, if not a belief?"
An opinion. An opinion can be formulated on available information, and then updated modified with new information. A belief tends to resist update through confirmation bias and outright denial.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Also, you are descrbing whta I would call the agnostic belief, not an atheist one. I've looked both terms up on-line. Athiests belief that there is no god. Agnostics believe that there is no proof that god exists. There is a bid difference between the two."
As I have said before, that is a theistic definition of atheist, which is fair enough, but I think in that case there are very few of those kinds of atheist in the world.
I for example do not "believe" in the absence of God, I just hold the opinion that it is of so low possibility that it is not worthy of pursuing any more than infinite other possibilities that have no discernible evidence.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I am NOT assuming any of these things to be true Gary. I am simply exploring the possibility that they are true. Big difference. "
You are, until the very point you use those assumptions in a proof, as you have in this (and the other)thread. As soon as you try to build a logical conclusion on them they become the unfounded assumptions that I have described.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "This 'assumption' I have that the universe was created for instance. You are a smart guy, you know more about physics than the layman, yet your idea that the universe was NOT created is an opinion that even you surely acknowledge is in the minority. "
Truth and knowledge are not voted on.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "You say you believe this, yet your proof is in the realm of theory instead of reality and common sense."
I don't "believe". That's the point.
Again you misrepresent what "Theory" means.
"Reality" is also the subject under debate, so defining one thing as "real" to then support the "reality" of something else is a circular argument.
"Common sense" is also inadequate to describing reality. Quantum Theory does not follow "common sense" because we are far too large creatures to experience quantum effects directly. However Quantum Theory has thousands of proofs and gets the right answer where "common sense" fails.
The same with General relativity.
However, you keep arguing that we can't draw conclusions based on our limited experience from a human scale and yet now you are advocating 'common sense' which is rooted in a human scale!
Pick one or the other.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "To illustrate the difference, can you please show me one thing that exists in reality that was not created?"
Everything? There has never been anything observed to be created, just changed from one form to another.
Name anything that has been observed to be "created from nothing".
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Are you saying that just because an idea is old or 'primitive' it does not have value? Or it is wrong?"
No, and you know this already as I have pointed out old ideas that do have value, particularly those thousands of years old ideas that countered the thousands of years old ideas that you are relying on in your argument.
The age of ideas does not matter, what matters is precedence and superseding of ideas. Some ideas are "right" or at least good enough approximations. However some are not. What we do find though is that new ideas need to explain the same phenomena that an old idea explained. New ideas don't tend to go backwards.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Obviously we know more than ancient people, but that does not mean that their instincts were wrong. In the case of the ancient Greeks who first came up with the word for soul, for instance, can you say that they were wrong to wonder and want to name that unknown that is responsible for propelling man and life through time and space?"
"Souls" are not a method of propulsion that I am aware of.
In fact some old ideas of souls are better than modern beliefs in them. The term "soul" works well as a term for the persona of a person and their interactions with their society. However as soon as you reify the soul as an object instead of a label for a process you step into the realm of unfounded belief.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If so, then why were they wrong to wonder about this and to give it name that would allwo them to study and reference this phenomenon?"
I agree with this, but the problem is when you forget that its a label and not necessarily a separate and individual entity.
For example "music". Does music exist without a consciousness to experience it, a culture to place it in context and the physical peculiarities of biological auditory perception that effect our experience of it?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you think there question is no longer valid? Do you think we have figured out WHY we propell through time and space? Before you said it was all just gravity - isnt that a primitive idea in itself? "
Nope.
Mass/energy causes space/time to bend, space/time tells mass/energy how to travel.
That's general relativity in a nutshell and it has been confirmed thousands of times and has never been falsified.
You keep talking about things "propelling" us through time and space, but I for one sit relatively still while I type. It just seems an empty subjective phrase to evoke mystery in places where mystery is absent, thereby distracting people from the true mysteries of the universe and ourselves.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Timothy, yes God is a human creation. But so is math, so is science, so is language. Do these things really exist?"And so we're back to the point I made near the beginning of this thread: you are playing fast and loose with the definition of "exists."
Does God "exist" as an abstraction, like the number three? Yeah, why not? So do unicorns. Who cares? What impact does it have? All you have is a concept with metaphorical meaning, and in this case, it has so many distinct meanings that it's not only essentially useless, it's also terrible to use because of how misleading it is.
gary writes:The point is though that t->0 will still not be a creation point, but a transition point from one observable universe to another, thereby again negating the need for creation and therefore a creator.When two different things get together and produce something that did not exist prior, then that is creation. Something new is created. It makes more sence that our universe was created in this way than in your way - where it just magically pops into existence out of nothingness.
gary writes:Everything? There has never been anything observed to be created, just changed from one form to another.
Name anything that has been observed to be "created from nothing".
If something cannot be created out of nothing, then doesnt that blow a hole in your idea that the universe just spontaneous popped up from nothing?
Gary, I read through both of your posts. I have more questions/comments that I will have to make later when I have more time...
Ed Wagemann wrote: "When two different things get together and produce something that did not exist prior, then that is creation. Something new is created. It makes more sence that our universe was created in this way than in your way - where it just magically pops into existence out of nothingness."Do you actually read anything I write?
I never said the universe pops into existence from nothingness, I specifically said it doesn't because nothingness does not exist. (In fact not existing is indeed the definition of nothingness).
Your concept of "creation" requires a time when something was not in existence, and then a time when it was.
If you accept that the universe wasn't created then therefore you do not need a creator god.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If something cannot be created out of nothing, then doesnt that blow a hole in your idea that the universe just spontaneous popped up from nothing? "
Read what I said. Read it!
I never said the universe spontaneously popped up out of nothing, because that would be a creation event which I have shown multiple times to be logically flawed.
You are the one that advocates that the universe must have been created from nothingness and therefore requiring a creator. I am saying that since there was no time when there was nothing then logically something cannot be created out of nothing because there was no time it did not exist!
Please actually read the responses rather than assuming the answer based on your preconceptions of what I "believe".
Your concept of "creation" requires a time when something was not in existence, and then a time when it was. My concept of creation includes the idea that something NEW can be created from two other things. When a child is concieved, you have a whole new person that comes into being because of the interactions of two entirely different people.
This is what I call creation. The child isnt popping up out of thin air or nothingness.
Every living thing that exists was created in some manner. It seems likely to me that the universe was also created in this manner.
So if you want to play devils advocate and say, okay, lets assume that is what happened. That then brings up the question of what possible things could have caused OUR universe?
Now there are things that our 5 senses can not percieve. There are things that we cannot even imagine or get our brains around in any meaningful manner. Obviously, whatever caused our universe is one of those things.
We have more than 5 senses, Ed. Amazing how things change when you apply the scientific method to our understanding, new things become accepted. And old ideas become rejected. Gary has explained over and over why your prosaic idea is unsupported, he has explained why we can reject the idea of a creator,and why we can reject the idea of a conciousness responsible for such. How many senses do we have?
It's not just the traditional five.
1. sight (visual sense)
2. hearing (auditory sense)
3. smell (olfactory sense)
4. taste (gustatory sense)
5-8. touch: The skin senses
Because touch involves four different sets of nerves, the skin senses are considered four separate senses:
5. heat
6. cold
7. pressure
8. pain
9. motion (kinesthetic sense)
10. balance (vestibular sense)
Hazel, Gary has explained why he rejects the idea of the universe being created. And that is fine. I'm respectful of his opinion. But I have my opinion as well and it would be nice if you could be just as respectful of my opinion as I am of yours and Gary's.To call my ideas "prosaic" is not respectful.
Such a lack of respect has no place in an engaging, interesting and fruitful discussion regarding our differing ideas.
My opinion is that Gary has NOT convincingly explained why the universe could not have been created.
Furthermore, he has not convincingly explained why such a creation could not have been a conscious creation.
In order to prove such things it would be neccessary to disprove every viable possibility of some other explanation.
I have pointed out some of these possibilities to illistrate that mankind's senses (and our general development) has simply not enabled us to percieve enough of our universal reality to unlock such mysteries.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Your concept of "creation" requires a time when something was not in existence, and then a time when it was. My concept of creation includes the idea that something NEW can be created from two o..."
Gary wrote: "Ed Wagemann wrote: "When two different things get together and produce something that did not exist prior, then that is creation. Something new is created. It makes more sence that our universe was..."
So what you are saying that the universe came into existence somehow. Well, I think everyone has to accept that, although it may be that the concept of time needs to be altered to allow us to accept the the universe has always existed, if for no other reason than that nothingness is impossible (but that is another discussion). The word "creation" has been used too often to imply a "creator" (we know who He is) and thus is a bit of a trigger word. Best to use a more neutral construction.
In any case, the existence of the universe does not imply God or a single, intelligent creator. There are too many other possibilities.
Respect opinions. LOL!This is worth reading: http://theconversation.edu.au/no-your...
I really wish I would have written it. I've been thinking it for a couple of years. Alas.
Xox, how is looking for viable possibilities "insisting on deliberate ignorance"? If I was insisting on deliberate ignorance I would be dismissing viable possibilities instead of exploring them.Gary's explanation as to why the universe could not have been created is not convincing enough for me to beleive it. For starters there are too many other viable possibilities that can not be ruled out. And beyond that there is too much speculation in his explanations.
Also his explaination as to why the Big Bang could not have involved consciousness is not convincing for the exact same reasons.
I've read his posts and I've entertained his ideas, but in the end I cannot except them as anything more than simple possibilities on the same scale as the many other possibilities we've touched upon on this thread.
As it stands now, mankind does not have the ability to perecieve our universal reality well enough to provide definitive answers to the mysteries of the universe. Until (and if) that time ever comes I will remain an Agnostic - open to all viable possibilities.
You keep talking about things "propelling" us through time and space, but I for one sit relatively still while I type. It just seems an empty subjective phrase to evoke mystery in places where mystery is absent, thereby distracting people from the true mysteries of the universe and ourselves.Actually as you sit there typing, you are being propelled through time and space. The cells you started with just a few minutes ago when you sat down to type are not all of the same cells you will have when you get up. New cells have formed and chemical reactions are happening every instant. Your brain cells are firing, your digestive system is working, the blood in your viens is pumping, your lungs are breathing in and out, your heart is beating, you hair and your fingernails are growing...and so on and so forth...you are being propelled through time and space...we all are...and where does this propulsion, this Unknown energy if you will, originate from?
Teleology again, Ed. I think you want there to be more to reality than there is. The hard question to ask yourself is why that is so.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "My concept of creation includes the idea that something NEW can be created from two other things. When a child is concieved, you have a whole new person that comes into being because of the interactions of two entirely different people."However, that is not really creation, that is replication.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Every living thing that exists was created in some manner. It seems likely to me that the universe was also created in this manner."
So you are assuming sexual replication of universes.
I covered that option above (see evolved universes), this hypothesis of yours also points out that the chances of it involving consciousness are slim as trillions of species that do not have even rudimentary consciousness can sexually replicate.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So if you want to play devils advocate and say, okay, lets assume that is what happened."
Speculation is fine, but you go on to try to use it as proof. It's a circular argument.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Now there are things that our 5 senses can not percieve. There are things that we cannot even imagine or get our brains around in any meaningful manner. Obviously, whatever caused our universe is one of those things."
Which is why we use science. Quantum physics we don't fully understand, but we can use it to describe things that defy imagination and then make useful predictions from it.
Yet you keep trying to claim that the "common sense" answer is easily comprehensible? You keep contradicting your own arguments.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Hazel, Gary has explained why he rejects the idea of the universe being created."
Which means you still haven't read what I wrote (or perhaps to be fair, not understood.)
I did not reject the "creation" of the universe, I pointed out that we have no indication that the universe was "created", and that the kind of creation you were referring too was not logically consistent with itself.
Now you have changed tack to the "infinite regression" model or "steady state" model of the universe, which is an accepted potential model for the universe's origins. However, this kind of universe no longer needs a "creation" point and the transition of the observable universe needs to go through an extremely simple point of homogeneity otherwise we would see far too much complexity in our early universe. Effectively all information would have to remain in the previous observable universe and not impact on the simple initial conditions of this one. Therefore a complex arrangement like a consciousness would not be a viable origin, unless said consciousness was effectively destroyed in the transitory event.
Which actually syncs quite well with certain Roman, Etruscan and (I think) Persian creation myths amongst others.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "But I have my opinion as well and it would be nice if you could be just as respectful of my opinion as I am of yours and Gary's."
Fine, but you are using your opinion to claim you have "proof" so at that point we are debating it. If it's your belief god exists then evidence and rationale will not really matter to you unless it 'confirms' your pre-selected belief.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "My opinion is that Gary has NOT convincingly explained why the universe could not have been created."
I was trying to explain that the 'creation' you refer to is impossible because (trying desperately not to sound too much like Doctor Who here) you are using a simplistic and linear definition of time when we know that time is a lot more complex and mysterious than your ideas allow for.
If you are not "convinced" by my point, what is the flaw in the evidence or rationale? If it comes down to "belief" then fine, but then your argument is no longer based on logic but on belief.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Furthermore, he has not convincingly explained why such a creation could not have been a conscious creation."
Again read what I wrote. I never said "could not have" because there is always the tiny possibility that all our perceptions have been misled (perhaps deliberately). My point is that believing it is a conscious creation without clear evidence is picking one preferred option and closing your mind to the myriad of other possible origins that have been hypothesised and are yet to be hypothesised.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "In order to prove such things it would be neccessary to disprove every viable possibility of some other explanation."
Excellent point. The one I was trying to make.
Again you present the perfect counter to your own argument and yet still cannot see it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I have pointed out some of these possibilities to illistrate that mankind's senses (and our general development) has simply not enabled us to percieve enough of our universal reality to unlock such mysteries. "
So why do you keep trying to draw one specific conclusion (the existence of 'god') when you admit we don't know enough. Why not remain undecided and give the possibility of 'god' the same ranking as all other possibilities?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Xox, how is looking for viable possibilities "insisting on deliberate ignorance"? If I was insisting on deliberate ignorance I would be dismissing viable possibilities instead of exploring them."
But you are dismissing them, by taking a tiny set of possibilities ('god') and trying to say you have logical proof that this set is right, which then ignores all sets that do not have the 'god' concept.
Unless you are willing to drop your "proof" claim of the thread?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary's explanation as to why the universe could not have been created is not convincing enough for me to beleive it. For starters there are too many other viable possibilities that can not be ruled out. And beyond that there is too much speculation in his explanations."
You are the one trying to "prove" one idea, I am pointing out the many logical flaws in that idea and demonstrating some of the other ideas you are ignoring.
Your the one trying to convince by speculation, I am saying "we do not know, yet" and that of all the possible explanations the 'god' hypothesis is highly unlikely in comparison to other ideas.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Also his explaination as to why the Big Bang could not have involved consciousness is not convincing for the exact same reasons."
Not "could not have". You are making the absolute claim, not I. However, your speculation is next to impossible unless you can clearly demonstrate several concepts.
* consciousness divorced from form.
* creation from nothing.
* universal time.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I've read his posts and I've entertained his ideas, but in the end I cannot except them as anything more than simple possibilities on the same scale as the many other possibilities we've touched upon on this thread. "
Yay! That's the point! There are many possibilities but you are claiming that one is "proved" by an argument that doesn't even make logical sense even if the many assumptions are true.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "As it stands now, mankind does not have the ability to perecieve our universal reality well enough to provide definitive answers to the mysteries of the universe. Until (and if) that time ever comes I will remain an Agnostic - open to all viable possibilities. "
So you are withdrawing your "proof of god" then and remaining open to the idea that there may not be one?
Welcome to atheism.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Actually as you sit there typing, you are being propelled through time and space. The cells you started with just a few minutes ago when you sat down to type are not all of the same cells you will have when you get up. New cells have formed and chemical reactions are happening every instant. Your brain cells are firing, your digestive system is working, the blood in your viens is pumping, your lungs are breathing in and out, your heart is beating, you hair and your fingernails are growing...and so on and so forth...you are being propelled through time and space...we all are...and where does this propulsion, this Unknown energy if you will, originate from? "
Unknown?
Erm...
Biochemists, physicists etc. would say these are things that we can understand easily. It is not "unknown".
In fact we can give a full explanation for every phenomena you just mentioned, so your "god of the gaps" or "mysterious force" isn't a mystery to a scientist.
Timothy wrote: "So what you are saying that the universe came into existence somehow. Well, I think everyone has to accept that,"No.
"Come into existence" implies a time when there wasn't existence and time when there was. That is impossible if one of the things created is time!
So no, I don't have to accept that proposal. I am not saying it is 100% wrong, but you are using linear time where it cannot be used.
Timothy wrote: "although it may be that the concept of time needs to be altered to allow us to accept the the universe has always existed,"
The universe has "always existed" because there was no time that it did not exist because there was no time.
Now there are a few concepts that give a "direction" beyond the T->0 point, but most of these involve either complex time or passage through "singularity events". So these concepts are pure speculation and indeed not proof. Yet one thing that all of those concepts eliminate is the need for "creation" and therefore a need for a conscious creator.
Timothy wrote: "if for no other reason than that nothingness is impossible (but that is another discussion)."
Nothingness doesn't exist because by definition nothingness is non-existence. Seems actually fairly simple.
Timothy wrote: "In any case, the existence of the universe does not imply God or a single, intelligent creator. There are too many other possibilities."
Exactly.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Hazel, Gary has explained why he rejects the idea of the universe being created. And that is fine. I'm respectful of his opinion. But I have my opinion as well and it would be nice if you could be just as respectful of my opinion as I am of yours and Gary's..."You're l;abouring under the delusion that every opinion is valid and deserves respect, which is cetainly not the case here. If you were saying you think strawberry icecream was the best flavour, yet I thought otherwise, I can respect that opinion, and its a valid one.
But in this case, Gary isn't presenting opinion, he's presenting evidence, and then occasionally given opinion that is informed by it. What gary is doing is giving an outline of the reasons why everybody should dismiss your idea, its not opinion when its based on the facts. Your opinion is uninformed, as it has no basis in fact or evidence, you're stating an idea for which you have no evidence, and expect it to be given the same credence as information given by a physicist with the evidence on his side. Garys "opinion" is far more valid than yours, as its informed.
http://theconversation.edu.au/no-your...
Postulating the idea is fine, Ed, but you've gone from doing that to dismissing the evidence in favour of your idea for which there is none.
C.J. wrote: "Can anyone sum up Ed's BEST argument/evidence for whatever he is arguing?Totally lost here.
Thanks :)"
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.
it sort of evolved into that. Ed is claiming that a conciousness created the universe or was present at the creation of the universe, Gary has presented cogent arguments as to why that is wrong, several people have pointed out the logical fallacies within his argument, and its gone from there. Ed is essentially taking the panenthiest position of god being a conciousness that is in everything, despite his claims to be an agnostic.
C.J. wrote: "I thought this was a debate on the existence of god?"I believe on one of these threads Ed has back-pedalled to 'proving that there is a possibility of god existing' and then used that to criticise the concept of atheism by defining atheism as the 'belief in the non-existence of god', a definition that is not shared by the majority of atheists I know.
Both threads claim that his argument is "proof of a god" yet he claims to be agnostic, but 'knowing' a proof would mean that he would no longer be agnostic. He has mocked the idea of traditional religion and has certainly used pantheistic style hyperbole to attempt to evoke mystery and mysticism in the perfectly explicable, however his insistence on a singular conscious deity being a preferred goal to his arguments would typify him as a deist in my opinion.
Of course, a label is only useful if there is a consensus of opinion on what the label means.
So why do you keep trying to draw one specific conclusion (the existence of 'god') when you admit we don't know enough. Why not remain undecided and give the possibility of 'god' the same ranking as all other possibilities?I'm not trying to draw one speciific conclusion (a conscious creation of the universe). I'm simply exploring the possibility. The thread title says I have a 'fairly convincing argument'. It doesn't say anything about having definitive proof.
So you are withdrawing your "proof of god" then and remaining open to the idea that there may not be one?
Welcome to atheism.
Don't you mean welcome to agnosticism - which is what I have been for over 20 years? As I've stated several times, agnostics leave open the possibility of a concious creation. Atheist do not. That is the difference between the two. I have never claimed to believe in god. Not once. But at the same time, I realize that mankind does not have the ability to percieve our universe enough to make a definitive denial of a conscious creation.
agnosticism is not a separate category, it is a subset of both atheism and theism. You get agnostic atheist (which is what comes under the description you keep giving of agnosticism) and gnostic atheists, you get agnostic theists and gnostic theists. True agnosticism doesn't exist because people always lean one way or the other. So, no you're not an agnostic on its own, so what are you? Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I'm suspecting actually, as Gary suggested, agnostic deist.Just a small point, Gary, nor I, nor any other atheist involved in this conversation have claimed to be able to make a definitive denial of a conscious creation, but what has happened is that we have stated, with evidence why the probability of such a thing is so infinitesimally small as to be none existent, and that there is no evidence to support the idea, and as such, the idea can be dismissed. This has pretty much always come with the caveat that if someone provides evidence, the idea can be re-evaluated. But as their is no evidence, and the likelihood of it is pretty much zero, then we rationally recognise that the idea does not deserve as much credence as theories with supporting evidence, such as those that Gary has been discussing. This is the part you don't seem to be getting - the idea does not deserve credence because there is nothing to support it. The possibility can be considered, and on the lack of evidence, and the lack of logical consistency, rejected.
Hazel wrote: "it sort of evolved into that. Ed is claiming that a conciousness created the universe or was present at the creation of the universe..."No, actually I'm claiming it is POSSIBLE that consciousness was a part of the Big Bang. And that possibility remains open until someone can rule that possibility out - which no one has been able to do.
God got thrown into the discussion because well, what is the defintion of God? God is defined as a conscious creator of our universe. Since I have argued that consciousness could have existed at the Big Bang (what is commonly considered the creation of our universe) that consciousness could be defined as 'god'.
The problem is that god is a loaded word. It is a word that conjures up thousands of years of religious doctrine and philosophicla mumbo jumbo and so forth. It is a word that causes a knee-jerk back-raising reaction amongst atheists and in general it derails any discussion of the universe into some contentious, snarky arena that encourages close-mindedness.
Soul is a word that has a similar reaction.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not trying to draw one speciific conclusion (a conscious creation of the universe). I'm simply exploring the possibility. The thread title says I have a 'fairly convincing argument'. It doesn't say anything about having definitive proof."A convincing argument for the existence of god would be one that provides proof, whether by evidence or by logic. An assertion of a possibility is not a logical argument, it is just an assertion and therefore not a convincing argument.
This is using the standard logical meanings of "proof" and "argument".
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Don't you mean welcome to agnosticism - which is what I have been for over 20 years?"
Nope, because agnostism comes from the absence (prefix a-) of knowledge (gnosis). Therefore if you are trying to convince people that god does exist by an argument you surrender the claim "not to know".
Unless you are stating that it is equally possible that practically infinite other possibilities exist alternative to god, including that of a universe without mysticism.
Just as a-theism is the absence of theism not the presence of a belief in the lack of theos (god).
Ed Wagemann wrote: "As I've stated several times, agnostics leave open the possibility of a concious creation. Atheist do not. That is the difference between the two. "
As I've stated several times, atheists do not agree with your definition of what they "believe".
So lets stop using labels and talk about what our actual opinions are.
My opinion is that there is no evidence for god, convincing or not, nor evidence for any variations on the theme of god, supernatural entity, mystical force, magic, karma, aether, etc. Therefore I generally discard those ideas in favour of looking at ideas that there is evidence for, and accepting that we need to refine our knowledge. This does not mean I deny them, and indeed I would follow them up if evidence was discovered.
You appear to place great credence in the idea that god may exist, elevating the hypothesis to a level where you would make arguments that claim said existence. However, unless there is clear evidence you are ignoring countless other possibilities that have equivalent evidence (i.e. none) and therefore are no longer claiming not to know or having an open mind on these other ideas.
hazel wrote:True agnosticism doesn't exist because people always lean one way or the other. So, no you're not an agnostic on its own, so what are you? Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist? I'm suspecting actually, as Gary suggested, agnostic deist.I'm a true Agnostic.
But like Gary says, words and labels dont mean much without consensus. So I have googled the defintion of Agnostic and have provided links to the most popular and common defintions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agno...
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agnostic
hazel writes: Gary, nor I, nor any other atheist involved in this conversation have claimed to be able to make a definitive denial of a conscious creation
Sounds like you are Agnostics, just like me, then...
:)
but you're not, you don't give equal credence to ideas other than your own, so you're not true. Otherwise, you wouldn't dismiss everything thats being said to you that contradicts your preconceived ideas.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No, actually I'm claiming it is POSSIBLE that consciousness was a part of the Big Bang. And that possibility remains open until someone can rule that possibility out - which no one has been able to do."Which is the standard tactic of religious apologists you realise? To make a claim and then state "you cannot prove it isn't true". Which is correct and also pointless.
You cannot 100% prove that this universe wasn't instantly created by me 3 seconds ago, with an apparent history already in place.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The problem is that god is a loaded word. It is a word that conjures up thousands of years of religious doctrine and philosophicla mumbo jumbo and so forth. It is a word that causes a knee-jerk back-raising reaction amongst atheists and in general it derails any discussion of the universe into some contentious, snarky arena that encourages close-mindedness."
Well done in being snarky while bemoaning people being snarky.
The word isn't the problem though, it's the concept. Consciousness is a difficult thing to define at the best of times, harder even than life. However, ideas like this take a nebulous concept and then try to apply it well outside of it's area with no justification but the well-documented human tendency to ascribe motivation and mind to any and all phenomena.
The problem isn't atheists "getting there backs up" the problem is when someone postulates an argument with a lot of assumptions that they may not even realise are assumptions based on their cultural upbringing and then closing their minds to the obvious counterpoints then presented to them with typically evasive arguments from ignorance.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Soul is a word that has a similar reaction. "
Soul is a perfectly fine word when used clearly, though words like "persona" are often used instead to remove the mystical baggage. Once you define a soul as having an independent existence to the process that it labels then you get into problems, because that existence is an assumption, and an assumption that has a lot of evidence against it.
Gary wrote: "So lets stop using labels and talk about what our actual opinions are."Here is my opinion Gary:
Consciousness exists in this universe. No one knows when it first came into existence or how. No one really knows the nature of consciousness. What little we do know about consciousness is largely limited to our experience with it on the human level, or at least to just planet Earth - since we see that other lifeforms other than humans also exhibit signs of consciousness.
One thing we know about human consciousness (Earthbound consciousness if you will) is that like everything else that exists in the universe, its genesis can be traced back to the Big Bang. That is to say that everything that exists in our universe is derived from the Big Bang and since Earthbound consciousness exists, then it too derives from the Big Bang.
It is also my opinion that matter is in motion. Time and space are seperate, yet they are connected. Some force (for lack of a better word) propels matter through time and space. The ancient Greeks refered to this force as the soul of the universe - that unknown which keeps us in motion.
My question is why? Why is all of this going on? Atheists seem too eager to dismiss this question of why. There is no why, they say. There is no reason.
Okay, maybe so. But where is the proof?
'Why' is a question that the conscious mind has produced and it is a question that humans have asked ourselves over and over again since the dawn of consciousness. To simply dismiss this question because we can't come up with a readily-available answer just closes off the possibilities AND it refuses to examine the central questions regarding the nature of consciousness. I mean, isn't one of the vital characteristics of consciousness or ability to ask the question "why"?
gary writes:Nope, because agnostism comes from the absence (prefix a-) of knowledge (gnosis). Therefore if you are trying to convince people that god does exist by an argument you surrender the claim "not to know".
I'm not trying to convince people that god exists.
I am exploring the possibility that consciousness was present at the Big Bang.
Ed, if you recognize so clearly that "God" is a loaded word, why did you title your thread with it with the very provocative (and proven incorrect) claim that you "have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist"?By the way, "possible," as you are using it, is also a loaded word. It's loaded in the sense that you mean that the possibility is worth consideration, when everyone else's point here has consistently been that "yeah, possible... but not worth consideration because that possibility is so remote as to be utterly implausible."
Again, I refer you to my argument for how implausible this "possibility" is. It's so implausible that it has a probability of zero of being true.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Consciousness exists in this universe. No one knows when it first came into existence or how."Agreed.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one really knows the nature of consciousness. What little we do know about consciousness is largely limited to our experience with it on the human level,"
Exactly, we are the only creatures that can communicate our concept of "self awareness" to each other.
Consciousness may be an entirely human construct, or even just a subjective illusion based on our interpretation of experience.
For example "free will" as an aspect of consciousness. I just "chose" to write that, or did I? Was what I "chose" just the inevitable conclusion of the pattern of my neurology, influenced by experiences or emotion?
Actually there is some evidence that way. It has been shown that people with damage to the parts of the brain that influence emotions find it extremely hard to make decisions. This shows that our "free will" may not be as free as we assume.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "or at least to just planet Earth - since we see that other lifeforms other than humans also exhibit signs of consciousness."
Highly debatable. Suffice it to say we "project" our ideas of consciousness on other animals, but is that seeing signs or just ascribing motivation? It's hard to call.
If I was to speculate I would say that consciousness is a continuum of increasingly self-aware mental states and capabilities. This is somewhat borne out through child behavioural science where children appear to acquire recognisable consciousness as their neural net builds.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "One thing we know about human consciousness (Earthbound consciousness if you will) is that like everything else that exists in the universe, its genesis can be traced back to the Big Bang."
This is where you seem to fall into the trap of treating consciousness as an object instead of a process.
For example, the elements that constitute "water" come from simpler particles that come from the big bang, but does that mean "water" was part of the big bang? No. In fact the phase space that includes the possibility of water did not occur until stars cooked the first Oxygen atoms.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "That is to say that everything that exists in our universe is derived from the Big Bang and since Earthbound consciousness exists, then it too derives from the Big Bang."
Derives, but not necessarily present at.
The process of "driving" derives from the big bang, but it cannot actually exist until all the prerequisites for driving exist (cars, fuel, drivers)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "It is also my opinion that matter is in motion."
This is a meaningless concept in modern physics. If the universe consisted of a single particle, is it in motion? How can you tell?
Matter generally can be considered at rest in a reference frame. You can choose reference frames where it is moving, but which one? Only matter moving relative to other matter becomes meaningful.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Time and space are seperate, yet they are connected."
This has been disproved by Einstein and any hypothesis that says different would have to explain why space and time appear to be intrinsically linked.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Some force (for lack of a better word) propels matter through time and space."
By basic Newtonian physics this is wrong. A moving object will continue to move in the same manner with no forces acting upon it. Forces do not move matter, forces accelerate matter. Accelerated frames of reference are so far indistinguishable from gravitationally distorted frames of reference.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The ancient Greeks refered to this force as the soul of the universe - that unknown which keeps us in motion."
In motion relative to what? Force = Mass x Acceleration so unless the object is accelerating it has zero force acting on it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "My question is why? Why is all of this going on? Atheists seem too eager to dismiss this question of why. There is no why, they say. There is no reason. "
Yet you are so eager to ask "why" that you don't see the assumption inherent in the question. Asking "why" assumes a purpose, purpose assumes consciousness. So little wonder you jump to the conclusion of god.
Atheists simply do not make such an assumption until there is sufficient evidence to warrant it. Not because they are lazy, but because if you make an assumption you automatically discount other possibilities.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Okay, maybe so. But where is the proof? "
You keep insisting on proving a negative. I will try to illustrate with an analogy.
What if everyday you had to defend yourself from the accusation that "you killed Bob". There is no evidence that you killed "Bob", in fact no one knows which "Bob" is being referred to, there is no body that has been identified as "Bob" (but plenty we could say is hypothetically "Bob"). No one saw you kill anyone, nor has anyone reported "Bob" missing.
However, can you 100% prove that you did not kill "Bob"? How much constructive work would a court get done if everyday it had to prove you didn't kill "Bob"? Then repeat that for "Aaron", "Anne", "Achmed" etc. etc.
In reality if someone took you to court accusing you of "killing Bob" with no evidence, motive or even a missing "Bob", they'd be fairly justified in dismissing the case without having to prove you didn't yes?
That which is asserted without evidence can reasonably be dismissed without evidence.
That isn't close minded, that is leaving the mind open for real evidence.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "To simply dismiss this question because we can't come up with a readily-available answer just closes off the possibilities AND it refuses to examine the central questions regarding the nature of consciousness."
However, assuming one possible answer out of myriads closes the mind to yet unthought of possibilities.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I mean, isn't one of the vital characteristics of consciousness or ability to ask the question "why"?
No.
The question "how" is far more important and informative mainly because it does not presume purpose.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not trying to convince people that god exists."
Then you need to change the title of this thread rather urgently don't you think?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I am exploring the possibility that consciousness was present at the Big Bang. "
Now we can ask "why", "why" do you start at that conclusion and then attempt to work backwards to justify the assumption? Surely it is better to study what we can say actually happened at the Big Bang, and then look what that tells us about how it happened?
Rock wrote: "Yet no one here has made Step One in confronting this issue of consciousness. "Agreed. Which is why it is putting the cart before the horse somewhat to assume that this unknown quantity existed in an unknown form at an unspecified epoch of the early universe.
Rock wrote: "So what you are saying is that there is a chance then?"Heh. Now you want to play games with the word chance too?
Here's why I don't want to answer you--it's too easy for you to opportunistically take it out of context. If I say "no," you'll say I'm being absolutist when I'm not, and if I say "yes," you'll leap upon what you perceive to be a meaningful gap that isn't one and then try to use word games to force it wider than it is.
The problem is what when you say "there is a chance, then..." you immediately conjure up the familiar notion of "chance," by which usually means having a probability greater than zero. It's vastly better to stick with the accurate terminology: I contend that the probability is zero.
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)
"Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation"
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/...