U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-11-2012, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Dix Hills, NY
120 posts, read 98,719 times
Reputation: 48

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Well it has been pretty de rigueur for our species probably since the earliest inception of consciousness. But it certainly isn't mandatory I guess. What would YOU call it?
Quantum Fluctuation? The result of a collision between two membranes?

When I think of "God", I think of an intelligent first cause... that is, a being that deliberately created the universe. This only rules out non-intelligent, random "first causes", such as the two I listed above, from being "God". It is the very definition of the God Hypothesis, in fact (the hypothesis is that the universe was created by an intelligent being as a deliberate act), This includes all postulated god concepts, from Pandeism all the way to Yahweh.

When I say I am an atheist, I am, in effect, saying that I don't believe there was an intelligent first cause to the universe, and, by extension, I don't understand the mentality that says "because we haven't yet figured out what, exactly, caused the inflation event known colloquially as 'the Big Bang', then it must be God." It seems to me that the God Hypothesis is an argument from ignorance, or otherwise known as "God of the Gaps". "We don't understand it, therefore God." I reject this idea, and find myself perfectly content with the fact that there currently is no answer to the question of why all of this, including us, exists in the first place. And I am content with it because I know there are people out there working to answer that question.

And if they find an answer in my lifetime, and it does, in fact, turn out to be an intelligent higher power, I will admit that I was wrong and accept it. Of course, if it turns out to be Yahweh and the fanatical, Young-Earth Creationist Christians were right all along, I will tell Yahweh to stick his salvation where the sun don't shine, because I want no part of it. But I will still admit that I was wrong and they were right... it just won't be a happy or particularly... erm... "saving" admittance.

Personally, I'd rather Deists be right. Or, if it absolutely must be personal gods, let it be goddesses of sex. Now that would be awesome...

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
That's not a new suggestion, Mystic, mate. And certainly the main reason for the New Atheist militancy is the all - pervasive influence of religion in all our lives. But then that does go all the way to the idea of institutionalized beliefs in particular personal gods and even the attempts to teach belief in a creation, organized religion or not.

And that said, we disbelieve in personal gods and don't find ourselves convinced by the case for any sorta god, so a- thei- ism' (in the sense of without god - belief) is actually what we are and the anti - religion thing is a sub - set of that worldview.
You are absolutely correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2012, 12:13 AM
 
37,383 posts, read 25,174,606 times
Reputation: 5844
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateHevens View Post
Quantum Fluctuation? The result of a collision between two membranes?

When I think of "God", I think of an intelligent first cause... that is, a being that deliberately created the universe. This only rules out non-intelligent, random "first causes", such as the two I listed above, from being "God". It is the very definition of the God Hypothesis, in fact (the hypothesis is that the universe was created by an intelligent being as a deliberate act), This includes all postulated god concepts, from Pandeism all the way to Yahweh.
OK . . . I will leave you to explain how those quantum fluctuations acquired the ability to know about quantum fluctuations . . . since you insist that they were non-intelligent quantum fluctuations. Just so you know . . . none of the euphemisms for our ignorance . . .like "emergence," "self-organizing," "self-replicating," etc. are scientific explanations (or philosophical ones either). There is NOTHING to point to in the purely material, quantum world that can aggregate to possess ANYTHING remotely resembling our consciousness or any precursor for it. It is entirely alien to the materialistic world of "particles," atoms and such.
Quote:
When I say I am an atheist, I am, in effect, saying that I don't believe there was an intelligent first cause to the universe, and, by extension, I don't understand the mentality that says "because we haven't yet figured out what, exactly, caused the inflation event known colloquially as 'the Big Bang', then it must be God." It seems to me that the God Hypothesis is an argument from ignorance, or otherwise known as "God of the Gaps".
I tire of this straw man. I am concerned with what we DO KNOW . . . NOT what we do not know. Your non-intelligent, non-conscious quantum fluctuations are directly contradicted by what we do know exists . . . our consciousness and our intelligence. Establishing a default on a hypothesis that is directly contradicted by what we DO KNOW is absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 03:02 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 5,050,322 times
Reputation: 2972
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There is NOTHING to point to in the purely material, quantum world that can aggregate to possess ANYTHING remotely resembling our consciousness or any precursor for it.
Not true at all. What IS true is that we do not fully understand the processes by which the physical and electrical processes in the "wet stuff" in our heads produces consciousness. However THAT it does is very clear because we can perturb it, map it, alter it, stop it, start it and more.

It might make us uncomfortable that... to date... we are not fully aware of how it works. But it certainly does not help the path to that understanding to start making up baseless and unsubstantiated metaphysical woo to explain it away.

You should not be so keen to crumple and retreat into fantasy every time complexity gets the better of you. Somethings are massively complex to the subjective human mind. Looking at a string of DNA in a lion and saying "This string of seeming nonsense here actually codes for the lions paw" is massively non-intuitive to humans. Yet we can demonstrate the steps that the "letters in the DNA takes on the path to expressing a "lions paw" in the world.

It is hard for us to imagine that these "letters" in DNA express a paw in reality with all its beauty, flexibility, power and utility. But it does. We do not have to put demons in the machines to imagine them designing and building the paw by magic.

All you are engaged in on these fora is essentially the same thing with relation to consciousness. You see the simple patterns of material and electrical flow in the brain and are over whelmed in trying to work up from there to the expression of those patters which are consciousness and intelligence. So rather than wait for the explanations like the analogous ones in DNA above, you start to make up metaphysical fantasy to stopper the gaps in human ignorance, to the point you have to even make up false science in order to support your new explanations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2012, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Dix Hills, NY
120 posts, read 98,719 times
Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
OK . . . I will leave you to explain how those quantum fluctuations acquired the ability to know about quantum fluctuations . . . since you insist that they were non-intelligent quantum fluctuations. Just so you know . . . none of the euphemisms for our ignorance . . .like "emergence," "self-organizing," "self-replicating," etc. are scientific explanations (or philosophical ones either). There is NOTHING to point to in the purely material, quantum world that can aggregate to possess ANYTHING remotely resembling our consciousness or any precursor for it. It is entirely alien to the materialistic world of "particles," atoms and such.
I tire of this straw man. I am concerned with what we DO KNOW . . . NOT what we do not know. Your non-intelligent, non-conscious quantum fluctuations are directly contradicted by what we do know exists . . . our consciousness and our intelligence. Establishing a default on a hypothesis that is directly contradicted by what we DO KNOW is absurd.
And I'm personally very tired of this straw man, too. The molecules that make up water are not wet, yet water is wet.

Just because an emergent property of the molecules that make up our brains is consciousness does not in any way, shape, or form mean that those molecules themselves have to be conscious.

That's why consciousness is an emergent property.

Also, please explain to me why quantum fluctuations have to know what they themselves are in order to occur. Intelligence is not required for an event to occur. Indeed... according to the understanding of Quantum Mechanics, causes aren't even required for events to occur.

A quantum fluctuation is, quite simply, temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

That's it. Nothing more. It is a causeless, unintelligent event that occurs all the time.

Last edited by NateHevens; 03-12-2012 at 07:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 12:07 AM
 
37,383 posts, read 25,174,606 times
Reputation: 5844
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateHevens View Post
And I'm personally very tired of this straw man, too. The molecules that make up water are not wet, yet water is wet.
Wet is a subjective interpretation of the tactile signals interpreted by our brain and does not inhere in water. It inheres in consciousness. The other effects that accompany its interactions with other substance are physical and can be described as such using entirely physical descriptors etc. without the term "wet."
Quote:
Just because an emergent property of the molecules that make up our brains is consciousness does not in any way, shape, or form mean that those molecules themselves have to be conscious.
That's why consciousness is an emergent property.
Yes they do because there is no such thing as consciousness in a purely material quantum fluctuation of energy. The property of KNOWING is entirely unique. Consciousness has no physical counterpart in reality. There is nothing that it is like to KNOW except for our consciousness and nothing that can be aggregated sufficiently to have the consciousness property of KNOWING. Emergence is a complete non-explanation. To say that something emerges is to state a mere observation that explains nothing.
Quote:
Also, please explain to me why quantum fluctuations have to know what they themselves are in order to occur. Intelligence is not required for an event to occur.
You have a narrow understanding of intelligence. It is the root of intelligible and that is what our reality is . . . intelligible.
Quote:
Indeed... according to the understanding of Quantum Mechanics, causes aren't even required for events to occur.
But KNOWING is an alien property to quantum fluctuations and material reality, period. It cannot be accounted for materialistically. It can only reside in a consciousness that inheres in the very fabric of our reality. Only a consciousness has the quality of creation that does not "require a cause" for events to occur within it (imagination).
Quote:
A quantum fluctuation is, quite simply, temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
That's it. Nothing more. It is a causeless, unintelligent event that occurs all the time.
As far as we can determine or know . . . but that is a function of our limitations and ignorance. That is why probabilities are expressions of our ignorance . . . not our knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 02:01 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 5,050,322 times
Reputation: 2972
All you are doing in the above post is showing that there are things that still require explanation. We already know that.

The issue is you are presenting other peoples lack of explanation as if, in and of itself, constitutes evidence for the "explanations" you have simply made up. You do not get to play this game of "You do not know how consciousness works, therefore my fantasy that the entire universe is conscious, is god, and it imparts consciousness to you... is the answer".

Many, but not all, of the functions and explanations of consciousness are a gap in our knowledge. Keep your "god of the gaps" out of those gaps in our knowledge until we have substantiated reasons for placing it there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Dix Hills, NY
120 posts, read 98,719 times
Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wet is a subjective interpretation of the tactile signals interpreted by our brain and does not inhere in water. It inheres in consciousness. The other effects that accompany its interactions with other substance are physical and can be described as such using entirely physical descriptors etc. without the term "wet."
What?!?

"Wet" is an emergent property of liquids like water. Everybody experiences water as wet, it is known as wet, it is felt as wet, it is described as wet...

Wet is not your average human's experience of water. Wet is an emergent property of water.

Quote:
Yes they do because there is no such thing as consciousness in a purely material quantum fluctuation of energy. The property of KNOWING is entirely unique. Consciousness has no physical counterpart in reality. There is nothing that it is like to KNOW except for our consciousness and nothing that can be aggregated sufficiently to have the consciousness property of KNOWING. Emergence is a complete non-explanation. To say that something emerges is to state a mere observation that explains nothing.
But you're not explaining anything, either! Emergence is the best explanation we have right now. That you personally find it incredulous does not make it wrong... it makes you incredulous.

Quote:
You have a narrow understanding of intelligence. It is the root of intelligible and that is what our reality is . . . intelligible.
Which... really doesn't say all that much...

Quote:
But KNOWING is an alien property to quantum fluctuations and material reality, period. It cannot be accounted for materialistically. It can only reside in a consciousness that inheres in the very fabric of our reality.
Why?

Quote:
Only a consciousness has the quality of creation that does not "require a cause" for events to occur within it (imagination).
But do you have evidence for this? Because in Quantum Mechanics, we have evidence of so many non-conscious events that have no cause, and they don't require any consciousness as far as anyone can tell.

So what makes you more knowledgeable on the subject than a physicist?

Quote:
As far as we can determine or know . . . but that is a function of our limitations and ignorance. That is why probabilities are expressions of our ignorance . . . not our knowledge.
In other words, "we don't know, therefore God."

Your entire argument boils down to "God of the Gaps".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 07:58 PM
 
37,383 posts, read 25,174,606 times
Reputation: 5844
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateHevens View Post
What?!?
"Wet" is an emergent property of liquids like water. Everybody experiences water as wet, it is known as wet, it is felt as wet, it is described as wet...
Wet is not your average human's experience of water. Wet is an emergent property of water.
There is something that it is like to feel wet or wetness and that ONLY exists in a consciousness. The actual physical interactions at the molecular level are just reactions that can be described . . . but they do not embody "wet." A sequence of notes can be a melody to a consciousness able to experience the sequence as a composite . . . but materialistically it is just a sequence of individual notes that can be described materialistically but they do not embody melody. It is not a melody unless experienced by a consciousness . . . as wet is not wet unless experienced by a consciousness. Emergent means observed to appear, period. It is a nonsense euphemism for our ignorance.
Quote:
[
But you're not explaining anything, either! Emergence is the best explanation we have right now. That you personally find it incredulous does not make it wrong... it makes you incredulous.
It is NOT an explanation. It is an unexplained observation, period!
Quote:
But do you have evidence for this? Because in Quantum Mechanics, we have evidence of so many non-conscious events that have no cause, and they don't require any consciousness as far as anyone can tell.
"As far as anyone can tell" is another statement of our ignorance . . . not evidence of non-causality. It is a preferred belief.
Quote:
So what makes you more knowledgeable on the subject than a physicist?
Nothing . . . but I am as knowledgeable as a physicist and probably more philosophically savvy than most.. . . that is the point.
Quote:
In other words, "we don't know, therefore God."
Your entire argument boils down to "God of the Gaps".
::Sigh:: No it does not . . . YOU are arguing for the absence of an existential property of our reality that we personally each KNOW exists. You want to claim that it "emerges" from non-existence to existence. All the emergent phenomena arise from known precursors. This means it must exist in some unrecognizable proto-conscious form that embodies consciousness but does not manifest recognizably until it is aggregated sufficiently. Ergo . . . our reality is conscious just not recognizably so until a brain aggregates it sufficiently. That is called God of the KNOWN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 09:12 PM
 
16,301 posts, read 24,202,053 times
Reputation: 8260
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
The laws are still on the books in Texas. And, Cecil Bothwell was challenged in 2009, not 1961. The laws are Unconstitutional, but the states still try to uphold them.
And Cecil Bothwell is still on city council here. These bloviating idiots quickly faded in their protest of him taking office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:26 AM.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top