The Atheist Book Club discussion
Science
>
I have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist...
date
newest »
newest »
Ed Wagemann wrote: "You say you don't believe in anything Gary. What about love? Do you believe in love? Do you believe in taking care of children? Do you believe in emotions?"Gary wrote:I don't believe them, I observe them or experience them, I don't need to believe them (and in fact many people who do 'believe' in emotions end up trapped in abusive relationships where they believe they are in love but in actual fact they are afraid or dependent)
I don't 'believe' in taking care of children, I make the moral choice that taking care of them is a good thing. So instead of just assuming it's a good thing, I actually understand why.
Gary, I'm a grade school teacher, I've been doing it for just 4 years (which is several lifetimes compared to most other jobs) and there is one universally truth I have learned when it comes to teaching kids: Kids don't care how much you know UNTIL they know how much you care.
Sure, that is a cliche, but I have seen it at work time and time again. And you can't 'fake' caring. You can't rationalize that it is morally neccesary like some robot. Kids will see through that. They will know.
You have suggested that I read this and I read that. Well I sugest to you to volunteer in some activity with young kids. There are all kinds of organizations from Boy Scouts to Boys and Girls Clubs to Park district activities. Or even go to the local grade school in your area and tell the principle you would like to set up an after school science club for the kids one afternoon a week - or a chess club. I bet that principle would jump at the offer.
The world of ideas and books are great. But at some point real life/real world application needs to come into play. And in real life love and emotions and caring are not some morally rationalized process that a computerized robot can perform. They are what make us human.
Timothy wrote: "I'm afraid I have to agree. God exists in our (well, some people's) minds, no..."Some will argue that everything exist only in our minds...
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Timothy wrote: "I'm afraid I have to agree. God exists in our (well, some people's) minds, no..."Some will argue that everything exist only in our minds..."
Let them. Our existence is real because we perceive it in common. We do not inhabit our own universes, we inhabit a common universe. If you want to buy into a Matrix universe, it is all in our minds, but that implies a deceptive controller--an entity that manipulates our minds while we exist in some form somewhere else. Is that what God is? But this is difficult. It is easier to grant us access to reality, where our perceptions are based on our reaction to that common reality. The simplest explanation is usually the best. And that is that we inhabit a concrete universe, with physical laws that we all recognize in the same way. And, in any case, none of this has to do with God. God is an add-on, a willful creation, not a perception. God simply does not exist in perceivable reality.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Timothy wrote: "I'm afraid I have to agree. God exists in our (well, some people's) minds, no..."Some will argue that everything exist only in our minds..."
Solipsism at its finest. If we exist only in your mind, then your mind must dislike you if we're arguing against you, make us agree with you.
C.J. wrote: "Is there any real proof of life beyond the grave?"biotic decomposition
C.J. wrote: "Spiritual life :)"Therein lies the principle issue with the concept of a "consciousness at creation". What is a consciousness?
Well perhaps it's easier to define what consciousness isn't.
Is consciousness independent of the physical body of the individual possessing it? Well since an individuals experience of consciousness can be altered significantly or even taken away by the application of drugs, electricity or surgery this would indicate that consciousness is influenced by the physical flesh of the individual. We can also collect secondary evidence where we induce experiences into the consciousness (fear, pain, happiness, comradeliness) and see similar physiological responses in between individuals and even between species.
This means that the flesh must communicate it's status to our consciousness, and our consciousness must communicate it's changes back to the flesh.
This means that if there is some method of communication between the mass/energy of the conscious individual and the hypothetical "essence" of the consciousness. This interaction must be detectable (for the body to be able to both respond and send information to it) and therefore measurable.
Previous experiments such as trying to weigh the body to detect the difference in weight of a hypothetical soul leaving have failed.
Medical history has shown us that damage to the brain tissue in particular leads to damage and dysfunction of the consciousness of the individual, leading to severe alterations in personality and the 'experience' of consciousness. Incremental damage in the form of various degenerative diseases have an incremental effect on the persons quality of consciousness. Severe damage can result in the temporary (unconsciousness) or permanent (death) cessation of consciousness.
Therefore all the evidence points to consciousness being inextricably linked to the interaction of mass & energy in the conscious being as it interacts with it's surroundings. There is no evidence to indicate an extra non-physical entity and indeed the prediction that if a persons consciousness is immaterial then it should be invulnerable to material influence has been falsified.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that consciousness is dependent on the medium it inhabits just as virtual software still requires physical interactions for it to run on.
Hence in absence of such interactions, a consciousness is impossible, therefore consciousness becomes increasingly unlikely the closer we get to T->0
Corroborating evidence is that consciousness is observably complex, as consciousness requires self awareness and the ability to process thought. The second law of thermodynamics says in a closed system entropy always increases, and the universe is by definition a closed system. The closer you get to T->0 the less degrees of freedom available in the universe (e.g. when the universe was as small as an electron, the existence of much larger protons within the universe was impossible.) So as T->0 things must get simpler and simpler to an extremely simple point which would make a complex consciousness at this point impossible.
C.J. wrote: "What is your theory on the possibility of Artificial Intelligence(AI) ever becoming a reality? I mean an actual conscious, self-aware AI (Terminator, Matrix, Blade Runner ,etc) "Good question. In my opinion, it's inevitable as long as computers keep becoming more sophisticated and powerful. What form that consciousness would take, whether we would recognise it and whether it would be deliberate are all interesting points.
To the best of our knowledge, consciousness is an emergent property that appears when a sophisticated structure of referential processes become self-referential.
In the animal kingdom consciousness can be glimpsed in certain species. For example the magpie can look into a mirror and realise that its looking at itself and dislodge a sticker that had been placed on it by examining it's reflection. This is one of the touchstones of consciousness, self-awareness, being able to identify and quantify a "me" in the world. Many other animals cannot pass this test and instead react with indifference or see the reflection as another individual.
Human development seems to go through the same process. A baby doesn't seem to be entirely 'conscious' at birth, but acquires increasing consciousness as it develops and it's neural structure becomes increasingly complex. This process is as much about interaction with the environment and others as it is about simple growth.
Recent innovations of walking robots have relied on them learning to walk by evolving a neural net, rather than trying to program every possible move into a program. This has led to robots that can walk on uneven surfaces, correct themselves when they slip and can recover from being pushed without breaking stride.
Similar processes have allowed for the training of recognition algorithms that allow robots to identify objects and faces from multiple angles, even when obscured.
All that's required is a complex enough computer with the right neural net programming to allow it to learn. Who knows, Siri or Google may be the harbinger of AI.
Scary thought though. A friend of mine who writes for a video game company was telling me about programming artificial intelligence for opponent "bots" and reaching the level were sometimes the bots would do something completely unexpected from their programming, yet eerily understandable. Like running from the heavily armed player and refusing to engage.
Perhaps the first AI's have already appeared and are wondering what cruel god would create a world in which they are shot at on a daily basis :-D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9bVd3..."Gary wrote:Did you see their other videos, about "911 conspiracies", "Illuminati", "the New World Order", "FEMA concentration camps"... etc.
Personally I will trust the judgement of Einstein and Hawking before I trust the judgement of YouTube conspiracy theorists.
First of all, the folks in that video are not conspiracy theory whackos. They are educators and scientists - with the exception of the last guy, who is a comedian (was a comedian, he's dead now).
Second, none of these scientist support any of the conspiracy theories that you mentioned when you quickly dismissed them.
Third, you claim that I do not take an honest look at any evidence that does not support my view, but arent you doing the same thing by so quickly dismissing these folks as conspiracy whackos?
Fourth, Can anyone here point to any specifics in regard to what this video says that has been debunked or that is based on conspiracy?
What specific piece of information from this "far out new age" video do you take exception with?
a video with David Icke in, the man who thinks all important people in the world are actually giant lizards from outer space, and you claim no conspiracy theorists?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "First of all, the folks in that video are not conspiracy theory whackos. They are educators and scientists - with the exception of the last guy, who is a comedian (was a comedian, he's dead now)."Yes I know Bill Hicks, funny guy, anti-religion but self confessed stoner and "hippy".
As for the others, not a single scientist I could find.
Grant Morrisson: Scottish comic book writer and occultist.
David Lynch: American filmmaker. Known for his surrealist films.
David Icke: In the UK his name is synonymous with whacko conspiracy theories.
Gregg Braden: Spiritualist, has spent 22 years in "hilltop villages and monastries"
Michael Talbot: fiction/science fiction author, believed that certain Quantum physics effects could explain "paranormal"
David Wilcock: Author. He is a proponent of the theory that a large segment of humanity will undergo ascension in the year 2012. He also appeared in several episodes of the History Channel series Ancient Aliens.
Wayne Dyer: is an American self-help author and motivational speaker. (Enough said)
Neil Kramer: specializing in the fields of consciousness, metaphysics, and mysticism
Bill Hicks: Self confessed Stoner
Not an accredited scientist among them. Certainly not "scientists and educators".
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Second, none of these scientist support any of the conspiracy theories that you mentioned when you quickly dismissed them."
Which scientists? None of them are scientists as far as my research showed.
Though you are correct. The conspiracy theories that I mentioned they don't specifically support. In fact I mentioned the sensible conspiracy theories by comparison. David Icke as Hazel points out is a figure of ridicule for his "Reptilian Masters" conspiracy theories, and for several failed prophecies. The others include conspiracies about "ancient aliens" and mankind undergoing an ascension in 2012. Guess we'll know in 8 weeks. The least silly of them is Bill! (Ok to be fair a couple I don't know that well and its a SciFi authors job to be imaginative about the roles of science)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Third, you claim that I do not take an honest look at any evidence that does not support my view, but arent you doing the same thing by so quickly dismissing these folks as conspiracy whackos?"
Well the video contains zero evidence to support your argument. It certainly parallels your argument, but a lot of the "science" is laughably flawed from the start.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Fourth, Can anyone here point to any specifics in regard to what this video says that has been debunked or that is based on conspiracy? "
Ok I will look again, I hope you appreciate the effort;
First minute of video is nothing but standard spiritualist claims with no corroborating evidence or rationale.
1:16 "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. "
There are so many things wrong with that statement it's hard to know where to begin. It's like they heard the string theory hypothesis being discussed at a party.
"Mini-solar system" is an analogy that is known to be fundamentally flawed for a century. If electrons orbited the nucleus they would constantly emit radiation until in seconds every atom in the universe would collapse. So wrong.
"Exists by virtue of a force" wrong, matter is energy and vice versa. Forces are the interactions of spacial topology or the exchange of gauge bosons.
1:28 "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
Even the video itself points out that it is all built on an assumption, and a big assumption at that!
2:08 "All matter is frequency and if you amplify it matter will change."
They cannot even properly apply physics to their pseudo-science. If you amplify a wave the intensity changes, not the frequency.
4:18 "Fear is a very slow dense vibrational state"
It is a military truism that people tend to lose some mass and therefore become less dense when they are afraid.
4:30 "Global society is structured to make us fear"
One crazy conspiracy theory, thank you Mr Icke.
5:50 "Illuminati"
More conspiracy theories.
6:30 "Particles are whirling around at lightening speeds".
Wrong again. Disproved by Quantum Theory.
8:30 personal universe interpretation of quantum theory twisted to justify the modern occultist version of Chaos Magick.
Ok my first viewing I must admit I just dismissed it before I got half way through, the second viewing I found it embarrassingly bad. Nothing but New Age mysticism with a touch of Buddhism and a lot of using of buzz word ideas with badly misstated and misrepresented science.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary, I'm a grade school teacher, I've been doing it for just 4 years (which is several lifetimes compared to most other jobs)"Worked in education for 15 years. Have been a parent for 17 years.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And you can't 'fake' caring. You can't rationalize that it is morally neccesary like some robot. Kids will see through that. They will know."
I don't need to believe that love is a mystical force to experience it. My daughter knows I love her and I know she loves me from the way she treats and respects me. I don't need to "believe" in it, I can just experience the emotion without having to pretend it's magical.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Well I sugest to you to volunteer in some activity with young kids."
The most fun I've had was shooting at them with paintball pellets, but suffice it to say you don't need to preach at me about this.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The world of ideas and books are great. But at some point real life/real world application needs to come into play. And in real life love and emotions and caring are not some morally rationalized process that a computerized robot can perform. They are what make us human."
Again the spiritualist idea that emotions have to be mystical and that rationality is robotic. That idea is again a relic of Victorian concepts of a mechanistic universe that mystics like to evoke to try to contrast their ideas too.
You made me watch that god-awful (pun intended) video, would you view one for me.
This video is one of a random set I was pointed to about debunking the various alleged "proofs" of god's existence. This one debunks the "love must come from god" fallacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu375g...
Being conscious and being self-aware aren't quite the same thing. There's a distinction and I don't think the two can be used interchangibly in this kind of conversation.Folks on this thread have tried shooting holes in the argument that: because consciousness is derived from the Big Bang then it is possible that concsciousness could have been present at the beginning of the universe.
Folks have argued that well, peanut butter also derives from the universe. In fact everything derives from the universe - therefore anything could have been present at the Big Bang.
Of course that is a lame argument. As we all know, consciousness is not the same as peanut butter. In fact it is not the same as anything else Because without conscoiusness, the universe would not exist as we know it. In fact, the ONLY way that we currently know that the universe exists is because of consciousness. You can't say that about peanut butter oand you cannot say that about anything else that exists.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Being conscious and being self-aware aren't quite the same thing. There's a distinction and I don't think the two can be used interchangibly in this kind of conversation."If there is an obvious distinction that disbars it from this conversation (that is proven and not just an assumption of some spooky quality) please share.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Folks have argued that well, peanut butter also derives from the universe. In fact everything derives from the universe - therefore anything could have been present at the Big Bang.
Of course that is a lame argument. As we all know, consciousness is not the same as peanut butter."
You are still missing the point. Yes consciousness is not the same as peanut butter, but it has important similarities.
(1) It requires a certain level of complexity. Consciousness does not appear to exist in simpler organisms and indeed entities that appear to be conscious correlate to those with more complex neural structures.
(2) Both peanut butter and consciousness has so far only been seen based on complex carbohydrate structures.
Prove the existence of consciousness without structure and you would have evidence for your claim.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "In fact it is not the same as anything else Because without conscoiusness, the universe would not exist as we know it."
My emphasis added to show how absurd and circular that statement is. Of course it wouldn't exist as we know it, because we wouldn't know it.
Of course your assumption that the universe would be vastly different without consciousness is again nothing but a groundless assertion, and again it is an assertion that is completely untestable and unfalsifiable meaning it is useless as a tool for probing reality.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "In fact, the ONLY way that we currently know that the universe exists is because of consciousness. You can't say that about peanut butter oand you cannot say that about anything else that exists. "
Again this argument is absurd, you are essentially postulating a reverse anthropic principle where knowing about the universe creates the universe.
Of course this again would disprove your own argument as the more logical conclusion if you are correct is that what we know to be conscious would then "cause" existence which would mean that either we are all gods in a shared reality, or each person is their own god of a personal universe which means that the universe only exists when you look at it.
In any case it is still all just wild speculation without a single shred of evidence or derived rationale.
Gary, I am no longer going to respond to you on this thread. I've pointed out several times that instead of arguing the specific details of my posts you are instead making personal attacks and making bizarre asumptions aobut my motives and my "way of thinking". THis thread is not about me. It is not about my "way of thinking". It is about the evidence. Because you have not been able to disprove my evidence you have lumped me into some intelligensia genereraliztion and prescirbed their way of thinking to mine - and then attacked that. Which not only has nothing to do with my way of thinking as an individual and the unique experiences and thoughts I have come to on my own, but it also has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand.You seem like a nice guy and I will continue having discussions with you on other threads and in other discussion groups, but I think you have gotten too frustrated here and because you have been unable to efectiveley combat my arguments, you have ventured down this ugly path of personal attacks, bizarre assumptions and totally off-the-mark attmepts to catagorize my individual ideas and experiences into so some intelligensia generalization.
So in short, I see no use in responding to you any further on this thread.
-----
CrossProduct wrote: "Like the universe cares there is a tiny bit of consciousness on planet earth. It can wipe it out in a split second with a little comet."
Your argument is implying that the universe has the ability to care. Which means that it would have to have consciousness, correct?
Ed, with all possible respect, your way of thinking is not rational. You have missed Gary's point as well as points I have made and others on this thread. The only frustration I have with this thread is that you continue to adhere to your 'theory' without presenting a shred of rational evidence other than your belief. You are arguing a point with folks who openly profess an atheistic view point and the preference to take observation and empirical evidence over emotional-based 'feelings,' using an emotionally based argument. Good luck with that!As an example of your mis-guided sense of rationality, look closely at your response to CrossProduct. The construction "Like the universe cares.." means "The universe cannot care, does not care, is incapable of caring, etc. Yet you 'argue' with his comment by making the (incorrect) assumption that he is saying the universe cares. Perhaps English not your first language? I'm struggling to explain your behavior in some way that does not lead me to the conclusion (and I am not using the following terms in a perjorative sense) that you are either an idiot or a moron.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary, I am no longer going to respond to you on this thread."As far as I can tell you have yet to respond to me. You have ignored my points and failed to even reply to many let alone to respond. You have repeatedly ignored when I've corrected your erroneous knowledge of science (which isn't your fault) and then repeatedly restated the same erroneous assumptions (which is your fault).
I have replied to all of your points, tried to point out the errors in your logic, errors in your knowledge of science, and tried to show you the amount of other possibilities that you seemed to be ignoring or not aware of. You did not address most of these points except to restate your original ideas.
You then followed this with assumptions that I didn't understand your point, claims that my scientific knowledge was wrong (which you could have read a science textbook to find out it wasn't), then proceeded to question me on my motivations for not accepting your idea when I'd already told you my main motivation was your logic and claims were flawed. Finally you resorted to profanity, peevishness and now censure.
If you feel that I have been responsible for ugly personal attacks, bizarre assumptions and frustration then I say "physician, heal thyself".
Michael wrote: "I'm struggling to explain your behavior in some way that does not lead me to the conclusion (and I am not using the following terms in a perjorative sense) that you are either an idiot or a moron. "
Right Michael, I'm an idiot and a moron. You figured me out. Well done. Because obviously anyone who holds a different belief than yours and Gary's on a subject that is neither provable or unprovable has no intelligence what so ever...
I guess I should add this "convincing" argument to the others...http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/God...
CrossProduct wrote: "It is a pity that you have censored the YouTube link to the video of the Monty Python sketch about the black knight because it was spot on.."Yeah, I should have left it. Ed has, undoubtedly, been hammered flatter than a pancake.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Because obviously anyone who holds a different belief than yours and Gary's on a subject that is neither provable or unprovable has no intelligence what so ever... "Yet again, not holding a different belief because I am not expressing a belief. I do not believe in a god, I do not believe specifically in the absence of any particular god or specifically in any other concept.
On the universe's origin I claim not to know, i.e. agnostic. However, I find not one shred of evidence for a consciousness to be involved so I do not consider it as any more possible than the infinite other possibilities.
If you are not a-theistic then you are theistic which means the belief in a god/gods/supernatural consciousness so by that means you are not agnostic, you're a theist.
(To demonstrate the a- prefix meaning absent not negative. An amoral person has no morals while an immoral person chooses to defy morals, an agnostic does not know while a person who claims to know is a gnostic. Therefore if belief is absent then you are an atheist, otherwise you are a believer.)
CrossProduct wrote: "That god proof list Gary posted is hilarious!"Damn, now I've actually read through the list it was already there at #666. With seasoning from 2, 31, 77, 101, 164, and then ending up in 219...
666? Can we take that as empirical evidence that Ed is actually an agent of Satan?
Michael wrote: "666? Can we take that as empirical evidence that Ed is actually an agent of Satan?"Normally I would say that conflating one spurious piece of data and extrapolating it to a conclusion should be discounted.
However, I'd hate to be accused again of not having an open mind so perhaps I should accept the possibility, and seeing as there is no way to 100% disprove your point you must be right...
James wrote: "I'm pretty glad that you've started this out by noting that you have to define the God that you're going to try to prove exists, but what you don't have here is a convincing argument or a terribly useful definition..."Usefulness is subjective.
Gary wrote: "Yet again, not holding a different belief because I am not expressing a belief. I do not believe in a god, I do not believe specifically in the absence of any particular god or specifically in any other concept."So... what's your point?
If you are saying that you do not have a belief, while I am saying I do, then obviously we don't have the same belief.
My point is that I am not saying that anyone who does not have the same belief a I do is a moron. Other folks here have however suggested that because my belief is different from theirs, that makes me a moron.
And that line of name calling is meaningless.
I've downgraded my expectations. I'm eagerly awaiting the remotely credible argument that god exists.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So... what's your point?If you are saying that you do not have a belief, while I am saying I do, then obviously we don't have the same belief."
Again your 'obviously' carries the implication that I have a "belief". I don't. I don't have a "different belief", I am in lack of a belief.
I do not believe in god or lack of the same. In fact I do not have beliefs, I accept ideas and knowledge based on evidence and if the evidence changes I change what I accept. You show me a belief I have, any belief, and I will stop believing it, because based on the evidence of the success of the scientific method, I hold the current opinion that it is the best way of comprehending existence.
So I do not "believe" in the absence of god, I just do not believe in his presence or any other unproven similar phenomena because there is no evidence.
So your assertion that disbelieving in god requires belief I do not accept.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "My point is that I am not saying that anyone who does not have the same belief a I do is a moron. Other folks here have however suggested that because my belief is different from theirs, that makes me a moron."
Well I have not done this. All I have done is pointed out when you're using 18th-19th century science to support an idea, using 20th century science in a manner that demonstrates you only know the vaguest hints about it (which is not an insult if you haven't actually studied it rigorously) and then subsequently dismissed your own argument by claiming that all our knowledge is insufficient anyway.
Your basic argument falls down on 3 key points.
1. That "consciousness" is assumed to be special in some manner. (No evidence for that, and no falsifiable test put forward.)
2. That incidence requires precedence, which is an ancient Greek idea, refuted within years of its postulation and now goes against entire branches of maths and science in complexity theory and emergent behaviour.
3. That the "Big Bang" (assuming you mean to say the earliest point in the universe) is either a point of creation or recursion. Again unproven.
There are many similar arguments that have been postulated, most more complex (but not actually any more sophisticated) than the one presented. They all tend to be based on assumptions that the layperson often doesn't realise are assumptions. They tend to run the sequence "if A then therefore B therefore C therefore D therefore = desired result". However "A" (and often B or C) is usually one of these assumptions that gets quickly skipped past.
Please note that I am not offering insults or resorting to profanity or frustration. I am simply refuting the claims you have made with logic, reason and evidence.
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)
*Ronald Reagan voice* There you go again, making assumptions about what I have said...
Gary, I am not saying nor have I ever said that having more senses is best simply becuse it is more. What I said was that having more senses will help us percieve our universe more fully. We live in an age of information and the more information we can process means the better suited we are for living in this age of information. More senses will allow us to take in more information. Also, our brains need to evolve ways to process this information...