Ask An Atheist! (preach, vain, sinners, communion)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I just woke up from several minutes ago in which I was swarmed by naked ladies was reality. It seemed real. I wish it was real. But in the end, it wasn't.

My sympathies.

Here's the problem, though. You keep trying to define nature and 'God' as a tangible force that are on the same level. Yet, it seems to me that you are forgetting that which we experience is the natural world. When you reach out and touch something, every particle in your body and the body of mass that you touch has a cause and effect relationship. When you rustle a tree limb, the resulting motions of that may or may not cause leaves to fall to the ground. That's all natural interactions.

::sigh:: Let me try rephrasing your words and see if that has any penetration:
"Yet, it seems to me that you are forgetting that which we experience is God. When you reach out and touch something, every particle in your body and the body of God that you touch has a cause and effect relationship. When you rustle a tree limb of God, the resulting motions of that may or may not cause God leaves to fall to the ground. That's all Godly interactions."

When we say "God" is nature in the capacity that you are saying it, you make it sound as if there is a deliberate process going on. Because, if one studies the laws of large numbers, statistics if you will, very little on this Earth or in this universe really seems deliberate, it is statistically probable and usually on a large scale. However, to imply that there is an outside entity deliberately interacting with the world in the same capacity that I am talking about you shaking the leaves of a tree, then I think we're forced to examine the laws of large numbers to try and give us a good analysis of what can be conjectured and what can't. You're right. You can't say that "God" (your God) is any less a mover than "nature" so what we are left with is to examine the probable and improbable.

I was wondering when you were going to fall back to that epitome of ignorance posing as an explanation . . . the "law of large numbers." Just as the randomness underlying your probabilities is an artificial mathematical formulation of ignorance . . . so is the law of large numbers that is based on that ignorance (randomness). It is inescapable . . . when you develop an artificial rubric on the premise of ignorance . . . everything derived from it is based on ignorance no matter how elegant or mathematically precise (and scientific) it is made to appear. While our mathematics (rules and logic) is capable of fantastic feats of prediction and understanding of real world outcomes . . . the rules and logic are NOT coequal with the real world processes they purport to emulate. The world is NOT mathematical and does not follow the rules employed or actually have the artificial constructs (like random probability distributions) created in our minds to represent the outcomes for the measured elements and entities modeled.

The more I think about, the more your argument appears to resemble Paley's Watch Argument only on a different level. Thus far, I have really found nothing in the natural world that can be statistically examined as being completely improbable and thus reverted to and attributed to a conscientious entity. If you are familiar with evolution, you know what a horribly wasteful process it can be but it does not really defy any statistical improbability. In fact, it narrows the statistical probability to a level that would seem impossible NOT to happen.

Sorry . . . but proving the existence of numerical certainty in a rigidly bounded and defined artificial mathematical rubric created by our consciousness proves NOTHING about such a concept in the real world. The law of large numbers is a last resort "Hail Mary" explanation for the inexplicable and unknowable.

So, what I am trying to get at is that you keep wanting to assert the "natural" world as some sort of hand shaking the tree limb and perhaps I keep thinking of the way you describe God as the hand that overtly shakes the tree limb. But, the difference is that I am asking what physical interactions happened to cause the tree limb to shake whereas I feel like you're saying that "God" is causing whatever physical interactions to happen in shaking the tree limb.

Do you not yet see that your concept of agency is a straw man to distract from engaging the issue directly. You want to deny that your faith that nature "just is" . . . is not faith at all . . . but knowledge that differs from faith in a God establishing the "just is" status to begin with.

The difference is that you are reverting to a "next higher assembly". At least, the way I understand it. Thus, that is part of the reason why I was so feisty when you try to commit "my God" on the same level as yours. Because the two really don't fit on the same level.

Yes they are on the same level . . . it is you who keeps adding to the descriptions of God (based on various religious nonsense) and going beyond what is ascertainable scientifically. I do not . . . except for my personal knowledge of a loving consciousness and oneness with all life at the heart of this "nature" of ours. For example, given the design of this universe (God) the ONLY way I believe God could shake a tree limb would be to influence a consciousness in one of us to physically do so.

Well, this is all fine and great but I find it interesting that you say "except where absurdities conflict with science". Well, if you understand the scientific method enough, you might very well say that to assert something without proof is, to the scientific community, an absurdity. How else should it be 'shot down'? Why should the scientific community even give a polite thank you to the Intelligent Design community when they have single-handedly tried to mar the very face of science itself? I think that calls for equal disparaging and quick condemnation.

You are justified in denigrating the proponents of ID who mischaracterize the concept and the evidence from science to conform to religious nonsense . . . but you are not justified in rejecting the underlying concept of design by a Creator . . . AS IF you have scientific reasons for it. You don't.

Sure there is a way. If we are to look at the laws of statistics we could very easily determine whether something is probable or improbable. Sure, you could keep reducing the argument back to your unfalsifiable favor, but that sounds much like the same argument Spinoza cried out against 300 years ago.

Spinoza is only one of many who influenced my philosophy . . . but not completely . . . the simple fact is you are ignoring the artificiality of the statistical rubric and WHO created the "laws of statistics" . . . there is no statistic God or lawgiver . . . is there?

No, you are implying a conscientious effort. That's the difference! You seem to be implying that God is causing all of these "perturbations" and tweaking the natural order. Do you not see the contradiction?

I am simply pointing out that we are completely IGNORANT of the source of these perturbations . . . and we do not erase that ignorance by mathematically modeling them in our artificial mathematics. That wouldn't be possible if there were not some consistent underlying structure (design) to their occurrence that we remain ignorant of.

Again, you're trying to put this into some sort of hierarchy.

No I am not.

Science explains the interactions of nature, not nature as some sort of God or separate entity with conscious effort to do something.

What is this nature then whose interactions science describes?

God, in the classical and colloquial sense, is a deliberate mover with a conscientious effort behind it to organize and develop things.

Again with the descriptions of humans with their preferences and biases about what God MUST be and do.

The problem is that you are trying to assert that "nature as a God" is doing this in the same capacity that an "Intelligent Designer" is doing it which there is no evidence for simply because the laws of randomness show nothing by which the bounds of the ordinary could be perceived as anything other than random.

The laws of randomness (ignorance) . . . come on,Troop . . . get with the program. We have no idea in what capacity nature or the intelligent designer is doing anything . . . except for what we discover scientifically . . . which is evidence you exclusively wish to retain for your nature God while rejecting it for my conscious God. You have NO BASIS upon which to do that . . . none.

I am ridiculing the absurd descriptions and explanations that conflict with scientific knowledge.

And you are welcome to do so . . . but none of mine fit that description.

It's ironic how you just have to imply faith on my behalf. Just because someone makes a claim without evidence does not mean that I have faith to the contrary. It simply means I choose not to believe what they say. This, again, is no different than saying that you have faith that Santa Claus does not deliver presents through a chimney. It really is. Merely making an assertion about the existence of something does not default the objector to believe the opposite on faith.

I have said nothing about your rejection of my beliefs in the areas we cannot prove scientifically. I have not said because you reject my views you must have faith to the contrary. I have simply tried to get you to recognize the simple truth . . . that the things you accept about nature as "they just are" (not those verified by science) . . . are faith-based . . . and identical to faith in an unknowable God . . . my God, in fact, since I accept all the same evidence about your nature that you do and attribute it to my God. The only difference is in the "just is" areas . . .because I accept the evidence of my personal experiences and you don't.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have not said because you reject my views you must have faith to the contrary. I have simply tried to get you to recognize the simple truth . . . that the things you accept about nature as "they just are" (not those verified by science) . . . are faith-based . . . and identical to faith in an unknowable God . . . my God, in fact, since I accept all the same evidence about your nature that you do and attribute it to my God. The only difference is in the "just is" areas . . .because I accept the evidence of my personal experiences and you don't.

I don't have an extraordinary amount of time so here's my final stance on the topic at hand. You're welcome to reply in kind. I quoted only this particular part of your post because it is the part I most genuinely want to reply to but I will try to say what I'm saying as briefly but concisely as possible.

To start with, I still am not completely sure where you are coming from or what you are trying to describe. I honestly feel like we are debating the semantics of the word "nature" as opposed to "God". If you want to call nature "God" than I have already told you that I can suitably accept that but I do not adhere to additional realms within that to ascribe a certain sense of conscious elements to it. That is where and what I am having a hard time with. You have, in the past, elucidated upon this conjecture that there is a conscientious force responsible for perturbations, changes in the natural world, etc... Or, at least, from what I can discern that everything is "God". As I said before, you can call it "God" you can call it "nature" you can call it "Styrofoam Cups" for all I care but it seems that we are really splitting hairs to define an abject sense of the things we perceive and interact with.

Ultimately, this conversation stemmed from me asking Tic for evidences of Intelligent Design in the same capacity that I provided evidences for evolution. I cited a lengthy and robust list of different scientific analyses, reports, studies, books, and articles dealing with the constructs of evolution. What I expected in return was the same sort of reply to posit an accurate scientific analysis or at least debatable conjecture in regards to how and what we know to be accurate - in the scientific sense.

Your approach, which I think is centered around saying that there could be a "Designer" causing the fluctuational perturbations is, to me, nothing short of implying a conscientious and determined effort at making stars shine, particles interact, species evolve, and so on and so forth. In the same sense, you are saying that what I attribute to "nature" or the interactions thereof can be said for the same in your 'God'.

My point, with the law of large numbers, is that where many see intent, I see nothing more than probabilistic occurences. Again, the whole notion of "Designer" vs. "Nature" in the context of this argument as I see it is "Intent" vs. "Non-Intent". All ramblings and askewed perversions of the word "God" or "Nature" aside, it ultimately boils down to the implication of intent or non-intent.

With that being said, we could certainly say that nature does take on the appearance of sometimes casting a shadow of intent. Yet, I often feel that this is in large part due to our human effort to try and ascribe intercausal relationships as affecting us directly and I would attribute that to our very own and hugely large egos. Humans being humans, we often tend to ascribe that which we don't understand or events which seem strange or unlikely to us as having a direct, concerted effort focused on specifically us. This, I think, is part of the reason why religion (in the sense you and I seem to agreeably disagree with?) seems to have taken a foothold in the world. Everything "seems" created for us, everything "seems" to fit so nicely into place, everything seems to have a grandiose sense of profound lucidity and it's all for US.

Yet, because we did evolve (again you seem to agree with me on this?) in a world of trials and errors, we would only perceive the world which we lived in as suitable for us. In essence, what we perceive as direct concerted effort could only be "just so" simply because we did evolve in the world in which we currently live.

Now, in so much as the intricacies of what we don't know - the driving force, if you will - that you seem to make an affinity for calling 'God' and what I call 'Nature' is what you seem to ascribe that I have faith in. At least, if I am truly understanding your argument. But, my sole problem is the implication of "Intent" vs. "Non-intent". I do not think that nature has any sort of intent whatsoever and, in all reality, if it did have some sort of intent, it would seem to severely prohibit free will from the particle level to the grandiose level.

All that aside, I see no reason why we should implicitly state that there is some sort of "intent" or conscientious effort in describing things if we can not prove that a conscientious effort is being made. In other words, we should not err on the side of positive existence if it cannot be made or to perhaps put it a little better - Why should we posit that they are anything but statistical conformities? Because when you take conscientious effort out of the equation we are left with nothing but randomness.

Whether or not you want to attribute nature as the force that drives and call it God does not really play as big a part to me in the argument as to whether or not you want to deterministically point out that there is a conscious force making a conceived (as well as perceived) effort to assemble the structure of the universe. In fact, as I mentioned before, the perpetually wasteful process of evolution is enough for me to wonder how something so conscientious (not to mention loving and caring) could hold such a perpetual force on the world while making so many obvious mistakes.

The fact is that upwards of 98% of the world's species that ever existed are extinct. We fall in that 2% range of non-extinct species - for now. Yet, I think it is far too egotistical and scientifically errant to presuppose that simply because we have a collective conscious as well as wonderfully endowed perceptual abilities that this insinuates a conscientious effort within the universe.

Now, I am perfectly open to scientific and empirical studies attributing to a sort of "conscious particle" such as what Mozart described in her post. I really am. I think it would be a fascinating endeavor for science to take on and it may lead us down pathways we never thought to examine in a million years. But, until we can prove it, until we can examine it with some sort of scientific label, I simply do not believe in it in the same sense that I don't believe in the graviton. And, if you know about the graviton, you will also know that it makes a lot of sense - perfect sense, really - but it's not been proven and it's not been able to be seen or tested for. Thus, it remains in the realm of strict hypothetical science with a big fat "Plausible" stamped on it.

Nevertheless, even if there were a consciousness particle that human beings were able to attribute to their sense of enlightenment whereas, such as Moazrt stated the worm may have less of that, it would still be a construct of the universe (in the sense of 'All of Space and Time') and would simply be that. It still, in my mind, would not implicate a Creator that has an overt methodology of tinkering with the world to produce things for our own egotistic sensibilities. It would simply imply that perhaps we as humans beings evolved to make use of this consciousness particle (or energy if you prefer) in a way that we can sit here and talk about it.

Yet, there are other elements of science that we have yet to discover or fully grasp as well. The Higgs field (a collection of Higgs particles like a collection of electrons making an electromagnetic field) is hopefully going to be discovered at the new LHC in CERN if they can ever get the thing up and running. This would, I think, be a fantastic discovery to finding out what gives matter its mass and may also clue us into a wide variety of other cosmic interactions. It's often been quoted as being the "God Particle" and rightfully so. But, it does not imply a conscious effort.

Again, that is the main disconnect that I am finding in all of this bickering you and I seem to be having. It boils down to Intent vs. Non-Intent. Where you see intent, I see large numbers and randomness in a probabilistic sense. It appears to me that our egos are inherently responsible for trying to assign this "intent" as being causally related to ourselves and therefore we try to assign it with constructs such as calling it "God".

Furthermore, I have to say that simply because you feel like you have an enlightened superior complex of right and left brain activity (whatever the hell that means), it doesn't give you the right to try and hold it over everyone's head like you are some sort of prophet of the new modern spirituality movement. I am well aware of people claiming wonderful things with meditation and deep thought and by and large I think it's probably a good thing for many people but just because people experience a certain sense of "spiritual" enlightenment does not mean that they have to gloat about it to others because it then makes them sound no better than any person talking about how sad they feel for an atheist who has no relationship with God.

I'm very content in my life. I'm very happy in it. I know many atheists who are very happy with their life. I don't see why it's so necessary for people to try and force their realities on us as if it were a task-laden assignment handed down to them from the heavens. You have your beliefs that 'God' is in some way a conscientious sorter of the cosmos and I have my belief (if you want to call it faith than go ahead because I'm simply tired of arguing it at this point) that there is no sort of collective conscious effort at all - that it's simply a construct of our own egotistical minds to put a sense of coherence and implicit tasking to ourselves.

Ultimately, I don't think there is a defined purpose for us, I don't think there is anything more to our lives than what we live them as. Existential, if you will. I don't think I should have to live my life feeling like there is some sort of manifest and nagging purveyance assigned to me so that I have to live my life a certain way or I have to become something or perceive something for some sort of happiness.

Finally, I do believe that we are in the truest sense of the word, in the freest of "free will states". Just as any particle may travel in a wave, take all routes simultaneously, it isn't until it is observed that it becomes a finite direct path of action. I think that these laws of quantum physics should be interestingly and tangibly coherent enough for us to make at the very least an analogous relationship to. If there is a conscientious and concerted effort at something, it would seem to defy those laws and it would place us in a world of having only the illusion of free will without having any whatsoever. In other words, the wave function is being collapsed upon us whether we like it or not.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I don't have an extraordinary amount of time so here's my final stance on the topic at hand. You're welcome to reply in kind. I quoted only this particular part of your post because it is the part I most genuinely want to reply to but I will try to say what I'm saying as briefly but concisely as possible.

He,he . . . you are kidding, right? That's what I enjoy about these discussions with you Troop . . . your intellect is wide-ranging and well-informed . . . but not remotely concise. Of course, your spiritual development needs some help . . . but far be it from me to try to force that on you. Wthout intending to irritate or offend I will leave you with my final take on it.

. . . If individuals do all of their thinking on the physical plane and make little effort on the nonphysical plane --- cultivating intuition, gaining instinctive knowledge of the workings of the universe, and developing the insight to evolve both themselves and their society --- then those lives have no real meaning or significance in terms of the physical reality. This is so because work done on the nonphysical plane is more aligned with the purpose of the universe, and therefore, it has a more powerful effect upon our physical reality. Our inner work influences and evolves the universe, which in turn, evolves our reality.

To start with, I still am not completely sure where you are coming from or what you are trying to describe. I honestly feel like we are debating the semantics of the word "nature" as opposed to "God". If you want to call nature "God" than I have already told you that I can suitably accept that but I do not adhere to additional realms within that to ascribe a certain sense of conscious elements to it. That is where and what I am having a hard time with. You have, in the past, elucidated upon this conjecture that there is a conscientious force responsible for perturbations, changes in the natural world, etc... Or, at least, from what I can discern that everything is "God". As I said before, you can call it "God" you can call it "nature" you can call it "Styrofoam Cups" for all I care but it seems that we are really splitting hairs to define an abject sense of the things we perceive and interact with.

This consciousness and intent business realy does seem to stick in your craw. I'm a big fan of analogy . . . as imprecise as they can often be . . . because they can convey the overarching view of the forest that seems so difficult to get when we are in amongst the trees. Try this on.

I am convinced that our consciousness, like all consciousness, is a cellular component of the total human consciousness in existence. But, more importantly perhaps, that consciousness is potentially a cellular component of the consciousness of God. In other words, each one of us potentially represents one cell of God's "Cosmic Consciousness."

Our consciousness as a potential part of God's consciousness is designed to serve in the same role that each cell of your own body serves to reproduce you. Our confusion and misdirection is the result of our experiencing our cellular conscious lifetime as if it were all that we are. (I will quote scripture during this analogy because it helps reinforce it . . . so don't get your shorts in a bunch, Troop.)

Try to visualize what your life would be like as a single (aware) cell of your own body. Every day billions of cells in your body 'die' and new ones replace them. The constantly changing cellular conditions create the experience of birth and death sequences for various cellular lifetimes. The passage of such cellular lifetimes would have special meaning to you as one of the aware cellular lifeforms.

At the cellular level of existence, you would experience the time flow for that level of becoming and not your current one. You would be unaware that the transience of your cellular existence was illusory. That illusion of transience is the problem our cellular consciousness faces at our current level of becoming.

Your body (as your God) fully requires (without involving intent at all) that a cell in its eye develop differently from a cell in its ear. Similarly, a cell in one part of the Cosmic consciousness need not be concerned that other cells do not think as it does. In fact, the striving for homogeneity in beliefs and thought is clearly wrong. Corinthians 12:14

. . . For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body?. . . If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were hearing, where would be the smelling?

When you think about it, if we were not diverse of mind, a pretty monotonous eternity would be unavoidable! Our goal is to produce a consciousness that has the appropriate characteristics of the consciousness of God (the basic pattern), all other characteristics can be expected to vary. I Corinthians 12:4,

. . .There is a variety of gifts but always the same Spirit; there are all sorts of service to be done, but always the same Lord; working in all sorts of different ways in different people, it is the same God who is working in all of them.

Therefore, differences among us are nothing to be concerned about. We needn't all agree. People believing, thinking, and developing differently poses no problem for the achievement of humankind's purpose, IMO.

Your approach, which I think is centered around saying that there could be a "Designer" causing the fluctuational perturbations is, to me, nothing short of implying a conscientious and determined effort at making stars shine, particles interact, species evolve, and so on and so forth. In the same sense, you are saying that what I attribute to "nature" or the interactions thereof can be said for the same in your 'God'.

My point, with the law of large numbers, is that where many see intent, I see nothing more than probabilistic occurences. Again, the whole notion of "Designer" vs. "Nature" in the context of this argument as I see it is "Intent" vs. "Non-Intent". All ramblings and askewed perversions of the word "God" or "Nature" aside, it ultimately boils down to the implication of intent or non-intent.

As to intent and intervention and deliberateness, etc . . . that seems to vex you so . . . how often do you pay attention to the individual cells or parts of your body, Troop . . . probably only whenever they catch your attention . . . usually when something is wrong and your body signals you with pain, right? Otherwise, they're pretty much on their own . . . but would you be less of a God to them because of it?

With that being said, we could certainly say that nature does take on the appearance of sometimes casting a shadow of intent. Yet, I often feel that this is in large part due to our human effort to try and ascribe intercausal relationships as affecting us directly and I would attribute that to our very own and hugely large egos. Humans being humans, we often tend to ascribe that which we don't understand or events which seem strange or unlikely to us as having a direct, concerted effort focused on specifically us. This, I think, is part of the reason why religion (in the sense you and I seem to agreeably disagree with?) seems to have taken a foothold in the world. Everything "seems" created for us, everything "seems" to fit so nicely into place, everything seems to have a grandiose sense of profound lucidity and it's all for US.

Yet, because we did evolve (again you seem to agree with me on this?) in a world of trials and errors, we would only perceive the world which we lived in as suitable for us. In essence, what we perceive as direct concerted effort could only be "just so" simply because we did evolve in the world in which we currently live.

You keep ignoring the fact that out of chaos (let's face it a Big Bang would not exactly produce a hospitable nor constant nor consistent nor reliable environment for anything) . . . the world we evolved in already had just the right and necessary "perfections" for life.

Now, in so much as the intricacies of what we don't know - the driving force, if you will - that you seem to make an affinity for calling 'God' and what I call 'Nature' is what you seem to ascribe that I have faith in. At least, if I am truly understanding your argument. But, my sole problem is the implication of "Intent" vs. "Non-intent". I do not think that nature has any sort of intent whatsoever and, in all reality, if it did have some sort of intent, it would seem to severely prohibit free will from the particle level to the grandiose level.

See above. Do you limit the free will of your cells, Troop?

All that aside, I see no reason why we should implicitly state that there is some sort of "intent" or conscientious effort in describing things if we can not prove that a conscientious effort is being made.

I see no reason why you should implicitly state that there isn't either . . . overtly proclaim your ignorance or stay mute.

In other words, we should not err on the side of positive existence if it cannot be made or to perhaps put it a little better - Why should we posit that they are anything but statistical conformities? Because when you take conscientious effort out of the equation we are left with nothing but randomness.

Because most people do NOT understand that "statistical conformities and randomness" simply means "we have no idea" what's is going on . . . and is NOT scientifically explaining anything . . . so it is misleading and deceptive not to make the ignorance perfectly clear.

Whether or not you want to attribute nature as the force that drives and call it God does not really play as big a part to me in the argument as to whether or not you want to deterministically point out that there is a conscious force making a conceived (as well as perceived) effort to assemble the structure of the universe. In fact, as I mentioned before, the perpetually wasteful process of evolution is enough for me to wonder how something so conscientious (not to mention loving and caring) could hold such a perpetual force on the world while making so many obvious mistakes.

If that is the way that God's life force operates to produce and maintain consciousness . . . then that is the way it operates. All life is energy transformation from form to form (with the ultimate transformation into consciousness,IMO) . . . it is not easy for me to accept that part of the life process involves such things as the "red in tooth and claw" barbarity . . . but it is what it is.

The fact is that upwards of 98% of the world's species that ever existed are extinct. We fall in that 2% range of non-extinct species - for now. Yet, I think it is far too egotistical and scientifically errant to presuppose that simply because we have a collective conscious as well as wonderfully endowed perceptual abilities that this insinuates a conscientious effort within the universe.

Since we DO have consciousness it is definitely in the universe . . . so God clearly does . . . since God is everything including us. I think it would be far more egotistical and presumptuous to believe that we are the first or only consciousness producers in the universe.

Now, I am perfectly open to scientific and empirical studies attributing to a sort of "conscious particle" such as what Mozart described in her post. I really am. I think it would be a fascinating endeavor for science to take on and it may lead us down pathways we never thought to examine in a million years. But, until we can prove it, until we can examine it with some sort of scientific label, I simply do not believe in it in the same sense that I don't believe in the graviton. And, if you know about the graviton, you will also know that it makes a lot of sense - perfect sense, really - but it's not been proven and it's not been able to be seen or tested for. Thus, it remains in the realm of strict hypothetical science with a big fat "Plausible" stamped on it.

Nevertheless, even if there were a consciousness particle that human beings were able to attribute to their sense of enlightenment whereas, such as Moazrt stated the worm may have less of that, it would still be a construct of the universe (in the sense of 'All of Space and Time') and would simply be that. It still, in my mind, would not implicate a Creator that has an overt methodology of tinkering with the world to produce things for our own egotistic sensibilities. It would simply imply that perhaps we as humans beings evolved to make use of this consciousness particle (or energy if you prefer) in a way that we can sit here and talk about it.

What about a Creator that "just is" and we "just are" part of the transformation cycle designed to produce (along with unknown other species) the consciousness of God that "just is." Since all life we know about has a cycle . . . how is God's life cycle exempt?

Yet, there are other elements of science that we have yet to discover or fully grasp as well. The Higgs field (a collection of Higgs particles like a collection of electrons making an electromagnetic field) is hopefully going to be discovered at the new LHC in CERN if they can ever get the thing up and running. This would, I think, be a fantastic discovery to finding out what gives matter its mass and may also clue us into a wide variety of other cosmic interactions. It's often been quoted as being the "God Particle" and rightfully so. But, it does not imply a conscious effort.

There are no such things as "particles" . . . just energy events . . . so I doubt they will find the Higgs Boson they are searching for with the LHC at Cern. At the very least . . . you cannot ignore OUR consciousness as part of the universe . . . so to completely doubt the possibility of its existence does seem silly . . . I mean there are and have been so many of us producing it.

Furthermore, I have to say that simply because you feel like you have an enlightened superior complex of right and left brain activity (whatever the hell that means), it doesn't give you the right to try and hold it over everyone's head like you are some sort of prophet of the new modern spirituality movement. I am well aware of people claiming wonderful things with meditation and deep thought and by and large I think it's probably a good thing for many people but just because people experience a certain sense of "spiritual" enlightenment does not mean that they have to gloat about it to others because it then makes them sound no better than any person talking about how sad they feel for an atheist who has no relationship with God.

Whoa . . . where did that come from? Gloat? Superior? Prophet? . . . ratchet back down there Troop. We are having a discussion and I am explaining how a believer's view can be consistent with your non-believer's view . . . and not be irrational at all. That's it.

I'm very content in my life. I'm very happy in it. I know many atheists who are very happy with their life. I don't see why it's so necessary for people to try and force their realities on us as if it were a task-laden assignment handed down to them from the heavens. You have your beliefs that 'God' is in some way a conscientious sorter of the cosmos and I have my belief (if you want to call it faith than go ahead because I'm simply tired of arguing it at this point) that there is no sort of collective conscious effort at all - that it's simply a construct of our own egotistical minds to put a sense of coherence and implicit tasking to ourselves.

I certainly am NOT trying to "force my reality on you," Troop . . . I'm explaining it. That's what these kinds of discussions are for. I am not part of any crusade to convert you or anyone else.

Ultimately, I don't think there is a defined purpose for us, I don't think there is anything more to our lives than what we live them as. Existential, if you will. I don't think I should have to live my life feeling like there is some sort of manifest and nagging purveyance assigned to me so that I have to live my life a certain way or I have to become something or perceive something for some sort of happiness.

Well . . . I'm pretty sure that self-determination is essential to our purpose . . . so i see nothing inconsistent in your attitude.

[Mozart271]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

There are no such things as "particles" . . . just energy events . . . so I doubt they will find the Higgs Boson they are searching for with the LHC at Cern.

Not to single out one of your points out of many, but why will they not likely find it, since they have found so many others? Even though particles are something we "discover" when we look for them, and they seem to only exist in probabilities, etc, it all depends on measurement. If whatever it is we measure are only manifestations of the ONE energy field, I see no reason why, due to the methods we use to measure it, the Higgs boson might not be found.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Mozart271

Not to single out one of your points out of many, but why will they not likely find it, since they have found so many others? Even though particles are something we "discover" when we look for them, and they seem to only exist in probabilities, etc, it all depends on measurement. If whatever it is we measure are only manifestations of the ONE energy field, I see no reason why, due to the methods we use to measure it, the Higgs boson might not be found.

Because of the scale of the energy event . . . they are looking for the basic particle that comprises the mass of all others . . . except there is none. The most recent evidence we have indicates a "perfect fluid" exists at that scale (like the abandoned ether concept).Besides . . . I have always thought it silly to smash "car parts" against the wall at high speed and name all the sparks and spinning reactions different kinds of "particles" . . . up, down, spin, different "flavors", etc. JMHO

[Mozart271]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Because of the scale of the energy event . . . they are looking for the basic particle that comprises the mass of all others . . . except there is none. The most recent evidence we have indicates a "perfect fluid" exists at that scale (like the abandoned ether concept).Besides . . . I have always thought it silly to smash "car parts" against the wall at high speed and name all the sparks and spinning reactions different kinds of "particles" . . . up, down, spin, different "flavors", etc. JMHO

At the risk of delving into stuff I know very VERY little about, I looked up the Higgs Boson. It seems to me that whether or not this boson exists is an important aspect of quantum theory, and even if they don't find it, that may prove valuable information.

It may be ostensibly silly to smash atoms in ridiculously expensive accelerators and look at the "particles", but it does tell us something about the way energy and mass are related. And quantum theory describes phenomena to an extent that, even if quarks do not really have charm, the theory works for some practical purposes--just as we used electricity before we postulated electrons.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Mozart271

At the risk of delving into stuff I know very VERY little about, I looked up the Higgs Boson. It seems to me that whether or not this boson exists is an important aspect of quantum theory, and even if they don't find it, that may prove valuable information.

It may be ostensibly silly to smash atoms in ridiculously expensive accelerators and look at the "particles", but it does tell us something about the way energy and mass are related. And quantum theory describes phenomena to an extent that, even if quarks do not really have charm, the theory works for some practical purposes--just as we used electricity before we postulated electrons.

We are in complete agreement, Mozart . . . the practical applications and addition to knowledge that are achieved are wonderful. But as with mathematical predictions in general . . . when we start to confuse the practical value of the measures and models with what comprises ACTUAL reality . . . we exceed that value and wreak confusion.

[Mozart271]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

We are in complete agreement, Mozart . . . the practical applications and addition to knowledge that are achieved are wonderful. But as with mathematical predictions in general . . . when we start to confuse the practical value of the measures and models with what comprises ACTUAL reality . . . we exceed that value and wreak confusion.

Yep...as Feynman said, nobody understands quantum mechanics. Since he obviously understood how to do the math, he must have been referring to the metaphysics. We have certain human ways of viewing/measuring phenomena, and not only do we perturb the phenomena by doing so, we seem to be able to see only probabilities, weird dualities that can't coexist but do, and distant events influencing each other simultaneously. We can't map our experience/concepts onto the glimpses of "reality" we are getting. We're essentially like the little square in Flatland who can't figure out how he can be seeing a circle appearing out of nowhere, getting bigger, and then shrinking until it vanishes again. And of course it's a sphere existing in 3 dimensions.

[MeatLoaf_Enchilada]

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

I'm open to any quesitons you have.

Favorite breakfast?

[Mona Mee]

When did you decide to be an atheist? and why??

Did you read books which led you to this way??

Or did you have an accident made you feel there is no God??

I am pretty sure there are some reasons to be an atheist....right!!