Rockism 101 discussion
religion/spirituality/philosophy
>
Logical evidence of the Existence of God...
date
newest »
newest »
I would follow your friends advice James.Gravity Gary? What about positive an negative magnetic attraction? What about free will? What about flowers lifting their pedals to the sun?
Gravity does not explain anywhere close to 100% of the movement that goes on in the universe. gravity is a subsection of that Unknown Something that propels matter through time and space.
Also, you are truly mischaracerizing me when you throw me in with the group of religiously inclined peple who put things in capital letters to make it more mysterious. And I think this false characterization of me goes a long way toward explaning why you are so quick to reject to my ideas.
Let me ask you something Gary. What is your religious background. Could you be expressing such a reluctance toward the possibility of a UNKNOWN conscious creator of the universe due to some kind of rebellion against a bad religious experience from your past? Or do you come from a family of atheists and you are accepting their influence? Or has your experience been something else?
If life was eternal, then I can see the pointlessness of it all. Why do anything when you have infinite time to do it? Why strive to better yourself, or why go out and do things if everything is going to be much better in the afterlife anyway.
That's a good point, but I dont think it has to be either or, meaning that I can see both sides of the arguement: non-existence could expire people. Or it could make them feel like 'whats the point?'
Sorry, Christina, it's not you that I feel this is going in circles with. It's Ed. Between a couple of threads on an identical original post, it's now at well over 200 comments and he's still repeating the same arguments that have been handled repeatedly.I've actually quite enjoyed the interplay between you and Gary as well as our own dialogue.
I should note that my friend doesn't call people idiots. He just stops talking to them, stops answering the same questions and rebutting the same arguments after it becomes apparent that they're not interested in honest discussion. Indeed, he doesn't like when people start calling believers idiots, I don't think. I'm a little harder-nosed than he is on that and think mockery has a place, but as you hopefully have noticed, I haven't been pushed even close to that boundary yet--even by Ed.
I should also add that I'm not "done" with talking to Ed. I'm merely done talking to Ed about things that have already been covered, again and again in some cases. I'm impressed that Gary keeps up with having to rehash the same points again and again with him and isn't getting visibly frustrated. This is why I mentioned my friend--at some point it's not a discussion and just a waste of valuable time, time for which Gary could be professionally compensated for if he sought it that repetitious questions like Ed's are simply wasting.
Obviously, and I agree. Funnily enough though I find the concept of "conversion" to "atheism" quite irritating, though I know most theists would not realize why. If you convert to a belief in atheism, you are not an atheist. The whole point is not to believe in things but to accept ideas, and be willing to change your opinions when evidence demands.I understand. I use the word more in the sense of changing my views but I understand what you are saying. I guess what I am having a hard time understanding is why the two have to be mutually exclusive (referring to your last sentence).
The problem isn't the loudness of the people who do believe that, it's the silence from their moderate comrades that means they get away with such things.
But don't you see progress on this? I'm sure it's slower than most would want. I could resort to the whole Rome cliche... it's a cliche for a reason.
Also, try to look at it from our point of view. We can speak out, but loud atheists would still yell at us, tell us we are enablers just by believing in God and then proceed to inform us of what uneducated morons we are. I understand why people choose to remain silent.
Surely there is a better way for both sides...
Understood. Thanks for the clarification, James.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I would follow your friends advice James."Where should I send the bill, Ed? I'll cut you a discount.
@CJ, Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God?If so, why is it the word of God only inthe Bible? WHy isn't the word of GOd in the dictionary or the phonebook or the Constitution or history books or cook books?
The people who write those are also children of God, aren't they?
Why should the people who wrote the bible be held as better authorities of God's views than those who wrote anything else?
Christina wrote: "You all, especially Gary, have given me a lot of things to look up, research, consider, etc. And has your friend considered that people like me will eventually discuss this interaction positively with other believers and that may have more of an impact than those who are yelling in believers' faces and calling them idiots?"First, apologies, I seem to have missed updates to this thread for a few weeks.
Secondly, thank you Christina. A lot of my tolerance is based on the fact that when I was young I also believed. I know how hard it is to question that belief, in fact sometimes we don't realise that a belief is a belief and instead think it's something we just 'know'.
This is why I comment, mainly because there was no where for me to turn to when I started asking questions.
Whether or not anyone is convinced by my writing, at least I know the information is there for those willing to consider it.
Christina wrote: "I guess what I am having a hard time understanding is why the two have to be mutually exclusive (referring to your last sentence)."
This is partly because of a 'failure' of language and the intrinsic influence that monotheistic religion has had on our culture.
When we us the term "believe" people tend to jump between three different definitions with impunity.
1. An assumption - "My friend is not here, I believe he went to the shop."
2. An opinion - e.g. "I believe that Romney may have lied about his employment at Bain Capital"
3. A faith - "I believe in the Father, Son and Holy ghost, indivisible and eternal and will not brook any doubt to that position"
You could say that perhaps they are kind of a sliding scale, but view the differences if each one is proved wrong. (1) may barely raise an eyebrow "oh he went to the Pub instead", (2) may cause a redefinition of other opinions "oh perhaps he's not a liar all the time", while (3) would cause a major redefinition of who the person is, and in practice is potentially impossible to achieve as pure faith would lead one to deny any evidence, any rationale to the contrary.
This is were difficulties creep in, and the main reason why theists tend to assume that non-theists "believe" in the non-existence of their god. Rationally speaking there is no reason that I would go around believing in the absence of all potential gods, goddesses or mystical forces. Just as a Christian doesn't go around disbelieving in Apep, Mithras or the Morrigan. They simply do not believe.
Also why is 'faith' a virtue? Trust is a virtue, when you place it in someone for the cohesion of a social group, however part of that trust requires recognition if that trust is betrayed, otherwise it is not trust but simple submission. Conviction is a virtue, when one is convinced of something that others disagree with, be it a cause of morality or perhaps a hypothesis or theorem, however conviction requires an intellectual choice to pursue that conviction as long as it remains intellectually valid.
The only thing that Faith serves is itself.
The problem isn't the loudness of the people who do believe that, it's the silence from their moderate comrades that means they get away with such things.
Christina wrote: "But don't you see progress on this? I'm sure it's slower than most would want. I could resort to the whole Rome cliche... it's a cliche for a reason."
Do I see progress, yes, somewhat. However, when people like me point out the dangers of faith, the common answer is "oh that's just extremists" or that they "misinterpreted" deliberately or accidentally. Yet from outside the faith it is a lot clearer that the extremist just extrapolates their faith to a logical conclusion, so as long as the faith remains the potential for extremism remains. Only when faith can be doubted and critiqued can such things be countered.
Christina wrote: "Also, try to look at it from our point of view."
I do, I remember having your point of view. As for atheists yelling at you, you need to look at the big picture. Sure one or two atheists may be outspoken, some may be loud and disdainful, yet that is a drop in the ocean compared to the cacophony directed the other way, but of course if you are used to it you don't notice it.
Almost every week in the City I reside there are people who yell (often with loudspeakers) their admonition for people to believe, Church post signs and bible societies put out posters proclaiming their faith. Media and culture pumps out a backwash of religious assumptions and traditions all centred around major celebrations. Where a few atheists do speak out and get media time, there are entire programs and media channels dedicated to faith, dozens of buildings in every town and more in cities dedicated to faith and often exempted from Tax and given preferential treatment by government.
Try going around for a few days imagining that you are not of a faith and see how relentless it is.
Christina wrote: "Surely there is a better way for both sides..."
Discussion, tolerance, education. Unfortunately I find that monotheistic religions in particular are generally against all three unless they set the agenda. I have attended Christian outreach programs, bible studies, groups etc. and they are only interested in a captive audience to convert. I know this from the speed that they tended to get unnerved when all of their usual arguments that work on the less scientifically educated suddenly fell apart.
However, I hope you have seen that I try to take any question seriously and do my best to answer it to the limits of my own understanding. So if you do have a point you wish to discuss I am open to hearing it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gravity Gary? What about positive an negative magnetic attraction?"Currently the prevailing hypothesis is that during the early (less than a second old) universe the various forces were unified and underwent "spontaneous symmetry breaking" and various vacuum energy state changes such that all the forces separated from each other into what we see to day.
However the point being that electromagnetism is not an unknown force either.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What about free will?"
What about it? There is no force associated with "free will". If you choose to raise your arm, biochemical energy is converted into kinetic and potential energy in a fairly well understood manner. To make the decision your neurons consume a large amount of biochemical energy converting it to electrical and heat energy. No mystical force is required in the explanation let alone evidenced in.
Interestingly enough, it is documented that damage to the emotional centres of the brain can make the victim almost incapable of making a decision. Certain drugs can also interfere with the ability to make clear choices. Free will after all is the freedom to make decisions, if Free will was a mystical force then it should not be effected by mundane physical influences like damage or drugs.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What about flowers lifting their pedals to the sun?"
Yup still nothing unexplained here. Biochemical energy being converted into kinetic in response to a photoeletric effect.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gravity does not explain anywhere close to 100% of the movement that goes on in the universe. gravity is a subsection of that Unknown Something that propels matter through time and space."
You keep talking about things being "propelled" yet we know that things stay at rest unless under influence of a force.
The only mysterious "force" of the universe is Dark Energy. However this is not the mystical influence of a unseen hand either, as the acceleration is as far as we can tell, consistent and uniform, if it owed something to some sort of consciousness then why would it be uniform at all?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Also, you are truly mischaracerizing me when you throw me in with the group of religiously inclined peple who put things in capital letters to make it more mysterious. And I think this false characterization of me goes a long way toward explaning why you are so quick to reject to my ideas."
I wasn't mis-characterising you, it was an observation. You had started putting words like "unknown" and "mystery" in capital letters, and religious apologists also tend to put words like 'god' and 'lord' in capital letters. Hence I asked the question.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Let me ask you something Gary. What is your religious background. Could you be expressing such a reluctance toward the possibility of a UNKNOWN conscious creator of the universe due to some kind of rebellion against a bad religious experience from your past? Or do you come from a family of atheists and you are accepting their influence? Or has your experience been something else?"
So you are suggesting that I am basing my objections on either a belief that religion is bad because of bad history or belief religion is bad because of indoctrination.
Here you are pursuing the same fallacious path that your argument is based on. Just as you are imagining only two possible answers and not realising that there are other possibilities, so your concept of assuming that atheism is a belief in a god not existing is fallacious.
My upbringing was Christian and my rejection of religion was not based on a bad experience, but on freely thinking about the consequences of my beliefs and subsequently realising how much of what I assumed were facts was beliefs.
So neither.
And I do not have a "hard time accepting the possibility", I just find the idea as somewhat primitive and unlikely and have realised that the other possibilities are myriad and far more profound.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "That's a good point, but I dont think it has to be either or, meaning that I can see both sides of the arguement: non-existence could expire people. Or it could make them feel like 'whats the point?' "
I assume you meant 'inspire' unless you were cracking a joke :-)
I find that the whole mortality question tends to be more about the natural (and healthy) fear of death, and the intellectual inability of the ego to imagine it's own absence. I find it's interesting when you consider it with respect to things like interruptions of consciousness.
For example a common non-theistic imagining of death is often phrased as "it's just like falling asleep". Except that people don't remember the point when they lost consciousness, they remember when they have woken up. So imagining death as going to sleep only makes sense if you imagine waking up afterwards and remembering.
The same sort of problems come when people try to imagine other things outside of the potential existence of their own egos. For example the concept of "before the universe" or whats "outside" the universe if it is a finite size. Both questions in physical terms are nonsensical, but we still tend to imagine them as some kind of physical nothingness, yet both are imagining something, not nothing.
So you are suggesting that I am basing my objections on either a belief that religion is bad because of bad history or belief religion is bad because of indoctrination.
Here you are pursuing the same fallacious path that your argument is based on. Just as you are imagining only two possible answers and not realising that there are other possibilities, so your concept of assuming that atheism is a belief in a god not existing is fallacious.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm not even suggesting anything. I'm simply asking questions. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?!? Asking questions is how people learn things, Gary.
You on the other hand are continuing to assume ALL kinds of things about me. You are assuming by simply asking question to gleen information that I am "pursuing the same fallacious path that your argument is based on. Just as you are imagining only two possible answers". I mean seriously - give me a fucking break already. Its getting REALLY tiresome!
And since this has been such a profoundly repetitive pattern on your part (assuming that I am making assumptions everytime I aske a question) that it leads me to ask another question, which is: Couldnt all these accusations of me "assuming" things actually be you projecting your modus operandi onto me?
gary wrote:There is no force associated with "free will". If you choose to raise your arm, biochemical energy is converted into kinetic and potential energy in a fairly well understood manner. To make the decision your neurons consume a large amount of biochemical energy converting it to electrical and heat energy.There you have it: Another example of concsiousness affecting matter, creating motion. The motion is created by a conscious choice.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "There you have it: Another example of concsiousness affecting matter, creating motion. The motion is created by a conscious choice. ."A conscious choice that MRI scanners have seen being thought about and made by electrical impulses in the mind. So that's not an example of the 'mysterious force' of consciousness, it is an example of a known process (neural activity) initiated by neurochemical responses activating biochemical energy to be converted into motion.
So "consciousness" has not affected matter, a conscious material being has effected other materials.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not assuming anything. I'm not even suggesting anything. I'm simply asking questions."Then ask a question honestly. You appeared to ask a question and present two possibilities for my answer, both possibilities that you indicated would be a reason for me to be bias against the concepts you support.
The real question should have been "why do you not support the idea of a consciousness at creation", and my answer would be "because all of my study and research into Astrophysics and Cosmology indicates such an idea is as unlikely as any other mythological concept I could care to compare it too".
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?!? Asking questions is how people learn things, Gary."
I comprehend quite well. I am sure you've noticed that I am quite a keen political observer, even outside my own country, and I know how people can spin a question so that any answer serves their own interest.
Your sudden questioning of my motives for disagreeing with the principle came across to me like an attempt to shift focus from the points I raised that you have failed to address to try to attack my personal 'bias'. This was further indicated by suggesting only two alternatives to explain my position.
If you did not mean to do this deliberately, fair enough, but I have answered your question to be neither of the answers you have suggested.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "You on the other hand are continuing to assume ALL kinds of things about me. You are assuming by simply asking question to gleen information that I am "pursuing the same fallacious path that your argument is based on. Just as you are imagining only two possible answers". I mean seriously - give me a fucking break already. Its getting REALLY tiresome!"
Believe me I know.
My point was that you tried to constrain me to two possibilities that fit into your narrative, just as every point I raise you only seem to answer if you feel you can fit it into your narrative.
You did not respond to any of the comments I made about burden of proof and the parallel to the court system.
You did not respond to my points on what you believe atheism to believe and what self-labelled atheists actually say they believe.
You did not respond to my post that pointed out that your claim that the video you linked had nothing to do with conspiracy theorists actually contained several of them, including one quite famous for outlandish theories.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And since this has been such a profoundly repetitive pattern on your part (assuming that I am making assumptions everytime I aske a question) that it leads me to ask another question, which is: Couldnt all these accusations of me "assuming" things actually be you projecting your modus operandi onto me? "
If you look back on these posts, you will see people commenting that you repeatedly go back to the same arguments without actually addressing what has been said to you. So actually if anyone is projecting...
Now I am willing to discuss your concept without profanity or accusations, but are you willing to discuss it? Will you actually answer any of the points I, or anyone else has raised without falling back on the "we don't know everything" get out clause?
We know science doesn't know everything, particularly about T->0, but that is why scientists do not make unfounded claims to knowledge like the one that originated this thread.
First, apologies, I seem to have missed updates to this thread for a few weeks.Well it's good to know you weren't getting tired of the sole (apparently) believer here. I rarely get this opportunity. And there's a lot in your response, but I'm going to take it in parts because I have a couple of questions as well.
This is partly because of a 'failure' of language...
I absolutely agree with this, but probably for a different reason. I don't think our language is capable of explaining what God is, so when believers try to explain their beliefs, it comes across as inconsistent, uneducated, etc. Of course this leaves them open to attack, which adds to the frustration that is already there due to inability to accurately convey a belief.
Now I try not to assume anything on these threads for several reasons. 1. I don't personally know the people on the thread. 2. Tone is difficult in writing, especially when responses are quick. 3. I can't see the body language.
The discussion you, Ed, James and at one point, Libbie are having is scientific. I am not a scientist and if I even tried to enter into a scientific debate, my responses would continuously be, "I don't know enough about that to respond." For that reason, some will look down on me as unintelligent or not worthy of their time even when I am asking questions from an honest attempt to understand a different point of view. I'd give you two specific examples, but I really don't want to start a fight with anyone.
I want to debate someone who disagrees with me but not if they're going to be condescending.
Do you think most of today's non-believers truly want to discuss and debate with believers, even if they know minds will not be changed? Or do you think it depends on whether or not there is a perceived opportunity to shake the believer from his belief?
The reason I ask is because I use debate and discussion as yet another method of education; it doesn't have to be a matter of potential persuasion for me.
Yet from outside the faith it is a lot clearer that the extremist just extrapolates their faith to a logical conclusion, so as long as the faith remains the potential for extremism remains. Only when faith can be doubted and critiqued can such things be countered.
Isn't that just a personality issue though? The same person who is offended by a critique of his belief will also likely be offended by a critique of his choice of presidential candidate. Or fur. PETA even criticized Obama for killing a fly during an interview. That sounds a little extreme to me. And I am pretty sure PETA would be happy to make policy that affects everyone as well.
As for atheists yelling at you, you need to look at the big picture. Sure one or two atheists may be outspoken, some may be loud and disdainful, yet that is a drop in the ocean compared to the cacophony directed the other way...
Bad behavior doesn't condone bad behavior. I don't like it when believers do it either, and I say so. But someone has to stop yelling first and both sides want the other to be the first.
These were just a few initial things. I want to think about the other stuff you said a little more before I respond. But I do have another question out of curiosity.
Try going around for a few days imagining that you are not of a faith and see how relentless it is.
You said something somewhere earlier that actually made me think about this already.
You aren't in the states, right? I don't know how it is there so I guess I'll have to use here as an example for some of this. The whole 'In God We Trust' on the money, the 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance, when someone sneezes and it's practically an automatic response of 'bless you' which obviously infers 'God bless you.' Even in our dates, A.D. and B.C.
Does that bother you? Or does it all just kind of blend into the background now?
Christina wrote: "Well it's good to know you weren't getting tired of the sole (apparently) believer here." No that's fine :-)
Christina wrote: "I absolutely agree with this, but probably for a different reason. I don't think our language is capable of explaining what God is, so when believers try to explain their beliefs, it comes across as inconsistent, uneducated, etc. Of course this leaves them open to attack, which adds to the frustration that is already there due to inability to accurately convey a belief."
I feel you have touched upon an important subject there without quite getting to the core of it.
Yes our language may be incapable of transmitting a belief successfully, which ultimately is a severe problem if you hold that belief to be both true and accurate. Now I cannot speak to "special revelation" or any sources of information like that, but I think it is quite clear that faith is transmitted from generation to generation in a culture verbally by parents, teachers, peers etc. and by the written word of scripture.
So in essence, if a believer cannot effectively convey their beliefs to another person now, then how can we expect that belief to have stayed consistent from generation to generation? If concepts this important cannot be transmitted clearly from person to person even where they share the same language, then the faith ends up the result of imperfect 'Chinese whispers' across thousands of years.
This is why science has developed. In a way its a method of "packaging" ideas in a rigorous and consistent manner. With science ideas about reality can be passed from person to person consistently, even if they speak radically different languages.
Christina wrote: "I want to debate someone who disagrees with me but not if they're going to be condescending."
I can understand your point and I am sympathetic, but I think there are 2 important things to consider.
First is that some of us have spent a decade or more training to understand some extremely difficult concepts for a person to comprehend from human's limited viewpoint. To try to wrap all of that up in a way that is comprehensible to a non-scientist can actually be extremely difficult, and sometimes can sound condescending unintentionally.
Secondly, it sometimes seems perhaps as offensive the other way around, when after spending such a long difficult time learning somebody turns around and misquotes science at you in order to support their beliefs. Some of these misconceptions end up highly frustrating to repeatedly have to debunk.
By comparison if you spent 10 years learning Japanese and you read a document and told everyone what it meant, then I came along armed with a Japanese tourists phrasebook and claimed you had got it wrong, would that seem fair?
Strangely it's only in the sciences where people tend to do this a lot nowadays. Historians, economists, archaeologists, linguists, authors tend to be respected, but scientists regularly have non-scientists claim that their opinions have equal validity.
Christina wrote: "Do you think most of today's non-believers truly want to discuss and debate with believers, even if they know minds will not be changed?"
Many of today's non-believers don't actually discuss or debate with believers, and many follow the precept that everyone has the right to believe what they want.
(This of course is a paradox as this includes the concept that people have the right to believe that people don't have the right to believe what they want).
Those non-believers who do discuss with believers are often actually reacting to believers public claims, rather than actually seeking out believers to address. Quite often this isn't just non-believers reacting to statements of belief, but reacting to people who have voiced an opinion based on that belief. For example a person who has claimed that gay marriage is immoral, or a person who has claimed it's wrong to teach evolution as a fact.
A lot of the time the non-believer will want the claim to be changed rather than a faith to be shaken.
Certainly non-believers like I want the information to be available to believers in the hope they will find the path to non-belief a lot easier than I found it, but in my opinion no one can be 'converted' to non-belief, a believer has to choose to set aside belief or no persuasion or evidence will ever suffice.
Christina wrote: "The reason I ask is because I use debate and discussion as yet another method of education; it doesn't have to be a matter of potential persuasion for me."
I agree entirely. In my opinion if someone leaves faith as a life-choice that's just a bonus. In my experience most people who I help in this manner have already begun to doubt for their own reasons.
Christina wrote: "The same person who is offended by a critique of his belief will also likely be offended by a critique of his choice of presidential candidate. Or fur."
Indeed, but in each case those choices are subject to self-critique. One may choose a candidate and believe strongly in his cause, but in the end a person will be voted and facts will be known about them. Though a few like "birthers" may cling to certain beliefs, they are not condoned and supported in those beliefs by the moderates.
With religion the core belief structure is inaccessible, so the extremists beliefs can never be directly addressed. You may claim that "god doesn't condone violence" but you have no way of offering evidence to support that which cannot be refuted by the exact same methodology.
Christina wrote: "PETA even criticized Obama for killing a fly during an interview."
Important to note here that religions are not just about gods. Any ideology can imitate religion when the ideology is placed above evidence and reason. Communism repressed religion not because it was atheist, but because it was ideologically opposed to the entire concept. Political ideology replaced theocratic ideology. Ironically communism also tried to refute evolution based on the concept that it was "biological capitalism".
PETA has been compared to a cult many times, as in fact Apple enthusiasts have been.
Christina wrote: "Bad behavior doesn't condone bad behavior. I don't like it when believers do it either, and I say so. But someone has to stop yelling first and both sides want the other to be the first."
Well you guys have had millennia yelling (and killing and burning) so surely its our turn? :-)
(Sorry just a joke!) :-D
Seriously, the problem isn't just both sides are yelling the problem is in part because believers don't even tend to notice that actually they are 'shouting' throughout our entire culture, so when you think 'we' are shouting in actuality we might just be trying to be heard over the din. The other part of the issue is that by it's nature belief brooks no argument. Where non-believers will critique the ideas (because they don't believe in them) ultimately believers by their nature will not change said beliefs and are therefore not really engaging in the discussion.
In science and other equivalent fields there is always an arbitrator agreed on by consensus. That arbitrator being evidence, logic and reason. However, in a discussion between the extremes of true faith and no faith, only the ones without faith will agree to arbitration. Faith, by its nature, rejects it.
Christina wrote: "These were just a few initial things. I want to think about the other stuff you said a little more before I respond."
Please feel free, and please point out if you feel I am being condescending at any point, I endeavour to avoid it.
You said something somewhere earlier that actually made me think about this already.
Christina wrote: "You aren't in the states, right? I don't know how it is there so I guess I'll have to use here as an example for some of this. The whole 'In God We Trust' on the money, the 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance, when someone sneezes and it's practically an automatic response of 'bless you' which obviously infers 'God bless you.' Even in our dates, A.D. and B.C.
Does that bother you? Or does it all just kind of blend into the background now? "
Interesting question and a complex answer. Partly I'd say it blends into the background. Certain imagery and language is part of our inherited culture, as are some traditions. Not all of it Christian. I think that most of it is harmless and even worthwhile as long as it is recognised for what it is. Most western Christians happily ignore the pagan origins of the days of the week, and even the pagan origins of many Christianised festivals.
However there are some things that I do find sinister. If I was a US citizen I would be very concerned about the "In God We Trust" and "Under God" as it was originally introduced in the 1950's as a snub to the 'godless commies' and blatantly violates your constitution in word and spirit, yet the majority seems unconcerned. In a similar manner I find when people automatically equate religiosity with morality or cite the "good book" that I feel somehow they've not read history, or indeed read said "good book".
AD and BC is often referred to as CE and BCE (Common Era and Before Common Era) by authors who wish to be inclusive (lets face it referring to the date as AD "the year of our lord" to a Muslim or Jew seems somewhat inappropriate)
An aside that comes to mind there is the very term "Anno Domini". When you really think about it there are some horrible connotations there, especially for a country that has suffered a violent schism of emancipation and civil rights.
A comforting (probably English) veil of class concepts such as Lords and Servants separate us from the true import of these words, but the original Latin gives us a stark reminder.
The "Year of Our Lord" has its roots in the Latin "Dominus" or "Master" and the term "Servant" has its roots in the latin "Servi" or "Slave". Small wonder that the slaveowners vocally cited biblical precedent for the practice of owning slaves. Without being deliberately offensive, this is what comes to my mind every time a Christian talks to me about sin being the disobedience of god and redemption being accepting Jesus as Lord (or more correctly "Master")
gary wrote:Then ask a question honestly. You appeared to ask a question and present two possibilities for my answer, Go back and re-read the question. I actually presented an infinite amount of possible answers...
Actually, here. I'll cut and paste EXACTLY what I asked you:
Let me ask you something Gary. What is your religious background. Could you be expressing such a reluctance toward the possibility of a UNKNOWN conscious creator of the universe due to some kind of rebellion against a bad religious experience from your past? Or do you come from a family of atheists and you are accepting their influence? Or has your experience been something else?
I bolded that last part just now to emphasize that the question is open-ended. It has an infinite amount of possible answers. So how about you knock off this bullshit that I'm making assumptions and only giving you two choices. It. Is. Very. Tiresome...
As tiresome as having to repeatedly correct certain assumptions.Ed Wagemann wrote: "Could you be expressing such a reluctance toward the possibility of a UNKNOWN conscious creator of the universe"
That is an assumption. I have said repeatedly that I accept the possibility seeing as there is no way to disprove anything, however I view it as extremely unlikely, not because I am reluctant to accept the idea, but because for the many reasons I have detailed I find it highly unlikely and also logically unsound. I am not any more reluctant to accept the idea that I am to accept the idea that we are actually all characters in a Disney film painted by fairies. I accept the possibility of that but I don't think it's a particularly compelling idea.
Whether or not you gave a throwaway line at the end to try to make it better, you still suddenly decided to ask my motivations for the question, and highlighted two answers that fed your preferred narrative that I was close-minded to the idea.
Try to see it from my point of view please. Imagine that within a political discussion about the recent election somebody asked you a question along the lines of "Why would you vote for Obama, do you hate America? or do you want more state handouts? or is it something else?"
Can you see how that would be a leading question? Especially if you hadn't actually expressed which candidate you chose but you had offered critique of Romney's declared policies (or lack of same)?
Now you asked me a question that I felt held assumptions and fed a certain narrative, which prompted my own questions in kind but I also said;
"If you did not mean to do this deliberately, fair enough, but I have answered your question to be neither of the answers you have suggested."
So I don't really think there is call for the profanity and aggression is there?
Gary, I believe in being direct. Trying to have a normal converation with you is nearly impossible because nearly every word I say in every sentence has to be debated by you. We both speak English. You should be able to understand the words I'm saying. If you want to prescribe some alterior motive to every question I ask and every comment I make, well I can't stop you - but it really kills my enthusiasm for wanting to continue discourse with you. But here is one last go at it: No matter how you want to say it, phrase it, verbalize it (or whatever you want to call it) you have expressed a reluctance toward the possibility of a UNKNOWN conscious creator of the universe.
I asked you why. In an attempt to fish out a reply I referenced two possibile answers that would seem common in someone with such a belief, but I made absolutley NO assumption that these possibilities were in anyway true in regards to you. If you took it that way, then that's for you to deal with.
I then asked you if these posibilities are not the cause, then what is. It is an open-ended question.
Believe me Gary, if I have any opinions about you, I will let you know - I won't skirt them in assumptions.
Fair enough.Ed Wagemann wrote: "But here is one last go at it: No matter how you want to say it, phrase it, verbalize it (or whatever you want to call it) you have expressed a reluctance toward the possibility of a UNKNOWN conscious creator of the universe. "
From your point of view. Where you see a reluctance for that hypothesis on my part, I feel that I am being neutral while I see an abundance of enthusiasm for one particular hypothesis on your part.
My perception of it is that you see only two possibilities with equal validity and favour one (not an assumption, a deduction from your claim to have strong arguments for the existence of one primordial consciousness)
I see myriad possibilities for what the universe is, summarising (and woefully over simplifying;
* Pantheological origins - (i.e 2+ god-like consciousnesses)
* Theological origins - (a god-like consciousness)
* Metaphysical origins - (formless chaos etc. like many pre-monotheistic creation myths)
* Xeno-origins - (whether "aliens", or a matrix-style simulation)
* Encapsulated origins - (If time is within the universe then the existence of the universe can be self-contained, hard to explain but space-time is curved and directionless but our experience of space time is linear just like a road can look straight on the surface of a curved Earth, and our perception of times arrow is based on our formation of memories of experience due to the increasing entropy of the universe along that time dimension)
* M-Theory origins - (The universe is just a part of a greater 'universe' either timeless or having perpendicular time)
* Recursive universe - (Every particle in the universe is the same one meeting itself travelling backwards and forwards in time. Kind of weird but mathematically and physically valid)
* Evolving universe - (Each universe is a universe that branches from a black hole in the parent's universe with slightly different physical properties. Universes that inherit the ability to form black holes prosper, those that don't do not have offspring, and it is known that physical properties that favour black holes also favour life, and therefore consciousness, as a coincidental process)
* Quantum anthropic universe - (Infinite Potential universes all possible until consciousness emerges in one possibility then the waveform collapses eliminating all other possible universes in favour of the one with the first observers, us.)
* Quantum anthropic universe (personal variant) - there is only one god, me, and instead of "I think therefore I am" you get "I am, therefore I think".
* Infinite universe - (Any and all of the above are part of a multiverse of discreet universes with any or all of these properties)
* Veil universe - (The reality we experience and comprehend is a consensual hallucination covering an unimaginable reality)
* Instant universe - (The universe was created n seconds ago, with illusionary history intact)
* Oscillating universe - (Universe cycles through big bangs and big cruches)
* Stuttered universe - (universe has unknown number of expansion cycles with different vacuum energies, each drop in vacuum energy being seen as a discreet big bang to any inhabitants of that phase.
(Apologies for the paucity of detail on the above as some of those concepts are actually really difficult to explain without studying them fairly deeply)
Those are just a few I can recall/imagine off the top of my head. Arm me with a few years and I could really add to that list, and yet there would still be many many more possibilities yet to be imagined.
Personally I dislike the term "atheist" because it is so often misunderstood or assumed by theists to be something it's not.
However for me "atheism" is the true agnosticism, saying "well I'm not going to pick one of those possibilities to believe in, so I am not going to place any one of them above the others and instead stick to what we can observe and what we can deduce."
Of course I can also accept the "strong agnosticism" argument that perhaps it is unknowable, but like you say that is no reason not to keep looking. The difference to my eyes (and most atheists) is that we do not narrow the search to a particular small set of meta/monotheism which is in itself a small set of meta/theism. (Using meta to accept the idea of an unknown consciousness rather than an established religion).
Can you see where I am coming from?
Gary, I also see myriad possibilities for what the universe is. We are not disagreeing about that. What we are disagreeing about is that I say that thereis evidence and that it is possible that consciousness was present at the Big Bang. You have basically called that "logically impossible".
And this is what I consider to be the bi difference between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics say its possible, atheists say it is not possible.
I've stated that it is possible that consciousness was present at the Big Bang. No one has presented any evidence that it could not have been present.
No one has even provided a sound definition for consciousness.
No one has provided anything in terms of when or how consciousness came into existence.
No one has given any proof that consciousness could not exist beyond Earth.
No one has given any proof that consciousnes did not enter the universe alongside time and space.
No one has given any insight into how matter communicates with other matter. I mean, How is it that matter can react to other matter? Doesn't reaction involve some degree of consciousness? Some sense of awareness?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What we are disagreeing about is that I say that thereis evidence and that it is possible that consciousness was present at the Big Bang. You have basically called that "logically impossible"."I have called the logic presented impossible, but perhaps the problem is the definition of terms.
Big Bang is a big event, the entire sequence was about thirty times longer than all of recorded human history.
T->0 or the earliest possible moment of the universe is what I think you mean, is that correct?
T->0 isn't however "creation" for the logical reasons I have set out above. To be creation would have to address this logical issue.
You say there is evidence but if we accept your argument as evidence that consciousness is present then we have to either accept that absolutely anything else in the universe could be present by the same argument, or we accept special pleading that consciousness is a special case. To do that you first need evidence that consciousness is a special case, of which there is none.
All we know is that creation as commonly imagined has never been observed, and is logically impossible in context with time.
And we know that every form of potential consciousness we have ever observed requires complexity and degrees of freedom to function, while at T->0 degrees of freedom approaches none and simplicity approaches maximum. This would make it highly unlikely that any consciousness we can ratify could exist there.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And this is what I consider to be the bi difference between agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics say its possible, atheists say it is not possible. "
No.
Atheists (at least many of them) understand that technically it is possible that any imagined event could be true. What atheists say is that there is no evidence for that idea above any other idea imagined or yet to be imagined.
It is 'possible' that Santa Claus created the universe as the first xmas present, it doesn't mean that I am going to waste my time considering it until there is evidence for that specific possibility.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has presented any evidence that it could not have been present."
As you should well know it is impossible to prove a negative so this means nothing. There are infinite other ideas about the beginning of time you can't disprove either so why focus on this one?
I have however presented evidence against both creation and the concept of a consciousness at T->0, there is actually more evidence but I am having trouble making the basic stuff understood (which may be my failing in explaining it).
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has even provided a sound definition for consciousness."
Agreed. Which is why I would not accept any special pleading for the elevated status of consciousness until there is clear evidence that consciousness has special abilities.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has provided anything in terms of when or how consciousness came into existence."
When did your own consciousness come into existence? Do you remember being aware as a babe, a newborn, a fetus, an egg, pre-life?
Your argument is based on the idea that if something comes into existence then it must have existed in some pattern before. That is not something that has ever been observed to be true.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has given any proof that consciousness could not exist beyond Earth."
Proving a negative, and nobody is claiming it.
Your claim however is that consciousness can exist without the trappings of matter or energy, but there is no evidence whatsoever of this claim.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has given any proof that consciousnes did not enter the universe alongside time and space."
Proving a negative. Also there is no evidence it did.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has given any insight into how matter communicates with other matter."
Well I could but again you seem to have misunderstood or ignored much of what I have said. I can try to explain this to you, as it is quite well known in physics and has acres of proof.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I mean, How is it that matter can react to other matter? Doesn't reaction involve some degree of consciousness? Some sense of awareness? "
Why? Does a rock need a conscious decision to fall? If it did why would we get absolute consistency in the laws of motion and physics. Either the "consciousness" has decided to act as if it was a non-conscious set of forces, or there is no consciousness.
Matter communicates via the exchange of gauge bosons, these bosons carry the information from particle to particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard...
All of this is well understood.
You say there is evidence but if we accept your argument as evidence that consciousness is present then we have to either accept that absolutely anything else in the universe could be present by the same argument, or we accept special pleading that consciousness is a special case. To do that you first need evidence that consciousness is a special case, of which there is none.Consciousness is a special case, because without consciousness nothing else exists. That puts it on the same level as Time and Space. Without Space nothing exists and without Time nothing exists - or at least we cannot realize that anything exists. For existence you need all three: Time, Space AND Consciousness.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Consciousness is a special case, because without consciousness nothing else exists. That puts it on the same level as Time and Space. Without Space nothing exists and without Time nothing exists - or at least we cannot realize that anything exists. For existence you need all three: Time, Space AND Consciousness. "Please provide proof of this hypothesis.
Gary, you asked me how consciousness is different than anything else that exists in the universe. Now if you don't beleive ANYTHING exists in the universe then there is no point in me trying to prove my hypothesis to you - or any other hypothesis that anyone has. So in order to give proof of this hypothesis you have to believe in the existence of the universe.
Now you asked me what makes Consciousness special. What differentiates Consciousness from peanut butter, or anything else that exists in the universe.
The difference is that without Consciousness, Time and Space do not exist. Time and Space are manmade concepts for things that we consciously percieved as part of reality.
You can't say that about peanut butter. If peanut butter didn't exist, then so what? Time and Space would still exist.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So in order to give proof of this hypothesis you have to believe in the existence of the universe."Actually you don't need to believe, you just need to accept the axiom that the universe exists.
However, according to your thesis you appear to be saying that you do not believe that the universe has independent existence unless a consciousness is looking at it. (The famous "tree falling in a forest" question.) You seem to come down on the idea of "subjective idealism", the idea that things only exist that are perceived.
The problem with this view is it again falls down to the non-falsifiable assumption.
Imagine for a moment that the world is how I accept it is, that it exists whether I (or anyone else) is looking at it.
Meanwhile your idea is that the world exists only because you (or someone) observes it.
So how can you distinguish between these two or make a logical argument that would distinguish them?
The only one I can think of is "Occam's Razor". I accept that existence exists. That seems fairly straight forward. In subjective idealism where does existence go when it's not being perceived? Where does it come back from when it is needed? Do things exist backwards in time because we always see them in the past thanks to the finite speed of light? What kind of perception is needed to cause things to exist? Assuming a human mind seeing an object is enough, then what about if you video tape something and observe it later? What if the perceiver is an animal? How 'conscious' does a thing need to be to make things exist? Will a bacterium do if it can detect light? Will a rock suffice?
Of course all of these turn the 'logical proof' referred to in the thread entirely dependent on a particular perception of existence as you detail below.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The difference is that without Consciousness, Time and Space do not exist. Time and Space are manmade concepts for things that we consciously percieved as part of reality."
Time and space are certainly manmade labels, but does the reality of spacetime exist independently?
I'd say 'yes' because if they depended on our perceptions then our misconceptions on how time and space actually works wouldn't be misconceptions, and events too brief or too small to be perceived would not have a measurable effect on the universe. However it does and has.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "You can't say that about peanut butter. If peanut butter didn't exist, then so what? Time and Space would still exist. "
That seems to undermine your entire argument. If peanut butter is part of an existence that only exists because we perceive it then it's ephemeral status would be exactly the same as any other thing including spacetime. Again you provide no reference for why one is different to the other and in fact you now claim that space and time exist though a moment ago you claimed the exact opposite.
The only logical conclusion to your philosophical position is that existence depends on perception, and therefore to answer all of the bizarre questions this throws up, the simplest answer would be that there is only one consciousness to perceive and thereby cause existence. Leading to only two possibilities. There is a "god" and we are not actually consciousnesses but are just illusions of individuality within the mind of god, or that the person perceiving this (in my case me, in your case you) is the only consciousness and existence and its entire history and everyone you know are just illusions brought into existence by your perception with an apparent history and apparent independent life beyond yours like a background character in a film.
Needless to say, I do not subscribe to these philosophical meanderings and I accept the simple axiom that "existence exists".
Time and space are certainly manmade labels, but does the reality of spacetime exist independently?No, time and space do not exist independently of consciousness. As I said before, if consciousness did not exist, there would be no proof what so ever that time and space exist. None. Nada.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No, time and space do not exist independently of consciousness. As I said before, if consciousness did not exist, there would be no proof what so ever that time and space exist. None. Nada. "Again there is no way to prove that. Which means your proof is still resting on an unprovable assumption.
Compare;
(1) A world where consciousness is "special" and "causes existence".
(2) A world where consciousness is an emergent property of complexity within a universe that exists independently.
What test can you do to prove that 1 is right or 2 isn't. Both worlds would be identical to the one we see.
If we take your point and extend it we can also have;
(3) There is only one consciousness and your individuality is an illusion.
(4) I am the only consciousness and everyone else is illusion.
There is no way to distinguish 1, 2, 3 or 4.
I could go on but I hope you see my point.
In the end it comes down to whether you accept the axiom that the universe continues to exist without your consciousness (before you were born, while you sleep, after you die). Therefore there is no real reason (from your own equivalence argument) to assume that any other consciousness is different*.
Personally I find that assuming that consciousness is "special" is the height of hubris, to assume that the entire universe is for us rather than we are part of a universe.
(* Noting that if you go to the "special consciousness" argument of a god, then that undermines your equivalence argument and there are testable quantum limits to the ability for things to be observed which would mean that a consciousness capable of observing a universe at the very planc moment of T->0 would halt the universe from being able to develop, like a 'stone angel'. Unless you plead a further special case for this consciousness' ability to observe which would further undermine the equivalence argument.)
Personally I find that assuming that consciousness is "special" is the height of hubris, to assume that the entire universe is for us rather than we are part of a universe.I've never said the entire universe is FOR us. I've said that without consciousness there is no proof that time and space exist.
Why do you think it is impossible (or nearly impossible) that similar to how time and space are connected and reliant on one another, that consciousness cannot also be a part of the equation - that it is a part of time and space and that all three are reliant on each other?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I've never said the entire universe is FOR us. I've said that without consciousness there is no proof that time and space exist."Exactly. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that time and space do not exist without consciousness because without consciousness you can't observe it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Why do you think it is impossible (or nearly impossible) that similar to how time and space are connected and reliant on one another, that consciousness cannot also be a part of the equation - that it is a part of time and space and that all three are reliant on each other? "
Again time and space aren't "connected" they are properties of one "thing". Just like two sides of a metal bar. You bend the bar and one side "shrinks" while the other side "expands". The same happens with time and space when spacetime is distorted.
Second, again I have to say I am not going to say something is "impossible" because it is not possible to prove anything is "impossible". Try it. Name any absurd possibility you like (the more ludicrous the better) and then try to "prove" it's impossible.
This is why philosophy and science both tend to ignore the "can you say this is impossible argument" because it is intrinsically meaningless.
Yes it is "possible" that consciousness is part of spacetime, but it is also possible that candyfloss is part of spacetime. You cannot prove it isn't. This is no reason to believe it is.
What you need is evidence that consciousness is this intrinsic part of the universe, but there is none whatsoever. Therefore it is no more likely than candy floss, except that the candy floss idea does not support the god hypothesis, so can you see how one assumption feeds the other in a circular argument?
"Assuming consciousness is special, then the most special consciousness is 'god', since 'god' is special that shows us that consciousness is special"
(God in quotes to accept the distinction you made about it being any entity with the parameters you specified.)
Again this isn't evidence, it's an assumption.
Even in that video you linked the speaker said "we must assume that the universe is conscious" yet he never actually said how he came to that conclusion, and specifically stated it was an assumption.
Do you think consciousness means something more than simply being aware of time and space?Because basically that is all I am saying.
What you need is evidence that consciousness is this intrinsic part of the universe, but there is none whatsoever.
I disagree. In fact the evidence is everywhere. One piece of matter reacts to another piece of matter because it has some kind of awareness to that other matter. There has to be recognition on some level that the other piece of matter exists otherwise there would be no reaction.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Do you think consciousness means something more than simply being aware of time and space?Because basically that is all I am saying."
What do you mean by "being aware"?
The problem I think may be that you might be using the "New Age" concept of consciousness which is heavily borrowed from Buddhist and Eastern mystery religions. The problem with this is it is again belief based and though it is quite poetic it is in itself relatively meaningless. I know you've referenced several people who believe in this kind of consciousness and tried to define consciousness as a state before, though this makes no sense according to the evidence.
This may be at the core of the disconnect we are having.
Consciousness has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
In quick scientific terms what consciousness requires is;
1. The ability to think.
2. The ability to perceive/ be aware. (To give something to think about.)
3. The ability to conceptualise and thereby be aware of oneself, i.e. "self awareness".
Perception is a process. You start with perception, which requires first the process of receiving data from the environment and then comparing that data to mental constructs.
Thinking is a process. You perceive data, and then draw conclusions, record memories and make decisions.
These two processes together are the process of "awareness". You cannot be aware if you cannot perceive, you cannot be aware if you cannot think.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I disagree. In fact the evidence is everywhere. One piece of matter reacts to another piece of matter because it has some kind of awareness to that other matter. There has to be recognition on some level that the other piece of matter exists otherwise there would be no reaction. "
This is what we again term as anthropomorphising. Matter reacts to other matter yes, but why does that need to be a conscious awareness? There is certainly no evidence that a rock decides to fall to the ground because it is aware of the Earth.
From what you are saying your argument only works if you believe in pantheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism If you read through the link you may see why I think that.
Again though in the end, your "evidence" is nothing more than assuming that interaction is impossible without consciousness. The only way you could test the difference between the presence of consciousness and the same process carried out by what physicists call "gauge theory" where particles interact by the exchange of "gauge bosons", is if you could clearly demonstrate when those particles are making a "decision" other than reacting in the expected way.
Something does not need to 'think' or to have a brain to be aware of its surroundings - that is what I mean when I say there is evidence of a universal consciousness.Does a venus fly trap have a brain? Ofcourse not, but it does have awareness. When a fly lands inside its pedals it senses this and closes shut.
What about a flower? Does it have a brain? No, yet it opens its pedals to the warmth of the sun. It is aware of he environment around it.
How about magnets? Do magnets have brains? No, yet they react the matter in metal, steel, etc.
What about the ocean? Does the ocean have a brain? No? Yet it reacts to the pull of the moon.
And there are an infinite amount of other examples...
I know you've referenced several people who believe in this kind of consciousness and tried to define consciousness as a state before, though this makes no sense according to the evidence.What evidence?
---
Robb wrote: Why would you assume that?I assume that because if the particles and atoms and such in our universe did not recognize one another on some level then there would be no interactions between them. For instance, in 2 magnets, the positive side of one and the negative side of another stick together. These means that at the subatomic level they are interacting with each other based upon the properties of each other. If the positive side was not able to recognize the properties of the negative side, then there would be no interaction.
The same applies to any atoms, particles, etc that interact with one another.
Now the question becomes, "Is this recognition a form of consciousness?"
Just because humans do not recognize something as having consciousness (magnets, let's say) does this mean that thing is NOT conscious? Especially when it displays that it can recognize things outside of itself?Obviously something is at work here. Something is going on. Particles, chemicals, atoms are reacting to one another.
From our tiny perspecive as humans, with our limited abilities to percieve reality, we may not recognize these interactions as being acts of consciousness. But if we pull back some and look at this from a big picture, the possibility arrises that these reactions do stem from consciousness - some kind of universal consciousness that is much larger, yet shares many of the same characteristics that our own human consciousness has.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Just because humans do not recognize something as having consciousness (magnets, let's say) does this mean that thing is NOT conscious? Especially when it displays that it can recognize things outside of itself?"Ok, do you realise that a rock bouncing off another one only happens because the rock interacts with the rock via electromagnetic force just like a magnet?
The only thing that stops you falling through the floor is electrons repelling each other.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Obviously something is at work here. Something is going on. Particles, chemicals, atoms are reacting to one another."
Yes in completely comprehensible ways. However we tend to define consciousness as being like us and having a "choice" and being able to "think" about reacting, whereas simple physical laws govern the interactions of particles.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "From our tiny perspecive as humans, with our limited abilities to percieve reality, we may not recognize these interactions as being acts of consciousness."
Or they may not be acts of consciousness and by measuring statistically we can see which is the more likely scenario. All evidence would suggest that they are not acts of consciousness, so why suppose that such an unlikely scenario is true?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "But if we pull back some and look at this from a big picture, the possibility arrises that these reactions do stem from consciousness - some kind of universal consciousness that is much larger, yet shares many of the same characteristics that our own human consciousness has. "
The far far more likely possibility is there that it is not consciousness, that it is nothing like our human consciousness (as is easily demonstrated by the fact that human consciousness finds the realities of quantum interaction and relativity hard to comprehend).
Therefore the only reason to follow this extremely unlikely chain of 'logic' is if you have a preference to think that the universe is just like us at some level.
Consciousness is not just interaction, consciousness is the ability to perceive, comprehend and then make decisions based on comprehension. A rock does not "choose" to fall in a gravity field.
The difference though Robb, is that I'm not attributing the observable acts of the physical universe to pixies or unicorns or even God. I am simply stating that these observable acts are displaying the same characteristics of Consciousness. Physical matter is showing that it recognizes other physical matter OUTSIDE of itself. And isn't that basically the definition of Consciousness?---
Gary wrote; However we tend to define consciousness as being like us and having a "choice" and being able to "think" about reacting, whereas simple physical laws govern the interactions of particles.
Who is this "We" you are referring to? And what does what this "we tend to do" matter?
---
Gary wrote: The far far more likely possibility is there that it is not consciousness, that it is nothing like our human consciousness...
I have not seen any definitive proof to back up that assuertion. The universe created human consciousness. You have said that you beleive that there actually is no such thing as 'creation'. You have said that things simply take different forms, new forms, and that is what people label as creation. But then, doesn't it follow from that line of reasoning that the creation of human consciousness is the result of some other consciousness taking on a new form?
Robb wrote:Neurology suggests that consciousness is something that happens when various neurons, acting independently, put a bunch of information together, acting much like a bee colony.
How is that process any different from the process of the molecules in magnets reacting to each other? Or the molecules in a plant reacting to the molecules from sun light. Or the molecules of a venus fly trap reacting to the molecutes of a fly? Or the molecules of the ocean reacting to the moons gravitational pull on them?
Don't all these fundementally involve the same thing? One piece of matter recognizing something outside of itself?
I am not being combative; I truly want to know what it is I wrote that would lead you to believe that I am not listening.
I am actually happy that you, Gary and Ed have been so engaging. Unfortunately, another thing I encounter, that also discourages me from speaking up, asking questions and participating in discussions is that all too often, believers are simply ignored. In spite of that, I thought I'd give it a try.
You all, especially Gary, have given me a lot of things to look up, research, consider, etc. And has your friend considered that people like me will eventually discuss this interaction positively with other believers and that may have more of an impact than those who are yelling in believers' faces and calling them idiots?