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.
"probability" and "pointing to" are not an explanation, not evidence, not validation, and not proof.
It IS evidence and validation your position does not have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the discussion is not god, as this is the atheism and agnosticism forum. the discussion is belief in something for which is there is no evidence, validation, or proof.
What is atheism?
What has no evidence, validation, or proof?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
"reasons you believe" and "it has always been" and naming historic figures from 2,300 years ago are not a mechanism nor are they a scientific explanation. nor are vague catch-all phrases such as "natural forces" and "natural laws" and "it will always be"
Instead of making irrelevant comments about people not being their theories, and taking quotes out of context, try addressing what I actually wrote.
you have stated clearly that it is not known = unknown.
you have stated your belief, opinion, view, claim, about something unknown, not yet discovered, to be determined.
that is not knowledge. that is a claim. that is a faith claim. faith in the unknown.
I stated clearly that particular law (or combination of laws) responsible for emergence of awareness may or may not be known or to be determined. Yes.
So what's wrong with that?
Did I contradict myself by claiming knowledge of something that I simultaneously characterized as unknown?
If yes, show me when and where.
If you cannot show me when and where I contradicted myself then what you are saying is completely incoherent. Asinine. Just don't make any sense.
Whatever laws that describe how electrons operate, how chemistry functions, usw. Naturalism is a conclusion, and has been for over 2000 years, and not everyone needs to know the specifics
Another bald-faced assertion admitting Tzaph is right, NOT an answer.
Quote:
Through sight, sound, smell and taste in a brain that evolved over time to make internal models of the world. Eventually it evolved the power to include itself in that internal model, self awareness.
We know how cars work without knowing what specific physical laws are at work. This more than you have for your assertions / opinions / beliefs.
You should stop playing your word games, because when seen in a mirror, it is you who has the problem.
Another admission of ignorance yet again. Nothing but euphemistic apologetic garbage! You have never presented ANY reasonable or rational explanation (or even an educated guess) about WHAT the hell made "unaware processes of the gravitational aggregation of stardust" do anything remotely like become aware of anything let alone "itself" (whatever the hell that would mean)!!!
Quote:
Instead of your god of the gaps interrogations, perhaps it is about time you started providing evidence for all your assertions/opinions/beliefs.
YOU need to stop your presumptuous assertion that science has EVER even come close to explaining the things you assert about life or conscious awareness! Science has achieved a marvelous understanding of HOW much of our Reality seems to work at the macro and micro levels, but nothing remotely close to the kind of understanding you routinely assert as if it is unquestioned about life, consciousness, and what we would call God.
I stated clearly that particular law (or combination of laws) responsible for emergence of awareness may or may not be known or to be determined. Yes.
So what's wrong with that?
Did I contradict myself by claiming knowledge of something that I simultaneously characterized as unknown?
If yes, show me when and where.
If you cannot show me when and where I contradicted myself then what you are saying is completely incoherent. Asinine. Just don't make any sense.
You cannot use observation of something you euphemistically call an "emergence" about which you have no knowledge AS IF it somehow explains what you are trying to assert!!! THAT is asinine incoherent garbage!
This is a feature, not a bug. I willingly admit where / when I don't have knowledge or data to form a reasonable belief.
But that we don't know all the detailed mechanisms behind consciousness or emergent phenomena doesn't mean they are likely to ever be explained any differently than anything else we used to be ignorant about. It is highly unlikely in the end to be anything but natural processes, and the way we will verify that is by empirical observation and science. Just the way the cookie crumbles.
Your need to pounce on anyone being honest about what they don't know as about what they do know is just your way of protecting your various god-of-the-gaps arguments.
You cannot use observation of something you euphemistically call an "emergence" about which you have no knowledge AS IF it somehow explains what you are trying to assert!!! THAT is asinine incoherent garbage!
Emergence is a label applied by science on a observed phenomena, namely on ability of the larger system to have properties that its parts don't have. Basically, emergence is a name. It is how we call something.
Like tree, or thunder, or gravity.
I'm unaware of anybody using name (label) for anything as an explanation of the process, the mechanism of how anything actually works.
You are straw-manning as usual.
And, of course, your comment has nothing to do with my post your quoted. Looks like you simply wanted to spit whatever just to have a chance to end it with "THAT is asinine incoherent garbage!"
BTW, do you have an explanation for the rise of awareness?
YOU need to stop your presumptuous assertion that science has EVER even come close to explaining the things you assert about life or conscious awareness! Science has achieved a marvelous understanding of HOW much of our Reality seems to work at the macro and micro levels, but nothing remotely close to the kind of understanding you routinely assert as if it is unquestioned about life, consciousness, and what we would call God.
So basically you are saying that science has has achieved a marvelous understanding of how gravity (for example) works, but is not able to explain what is the fundamental, metaphysical reason for mutual attraction between all things with mass and energy.
Another words, you are saying that we don't know why forces and laws of nature are the way you are.
You are correct. Science does not know and does not claim to know that.
So what?
Do you know? Does anyone know? Is it knowable in principal? Do you know that?
Can you answer these questions?
If you can, I'm all ears!!!!
If you cannot, then in what way your frustrated rants are of any use for anybody?
Another bald-faced assertion admitting Tzaph is right, NOT an answer.
Another admission of ignorance yet again. Nothing but euphemistic apologetic garbage! You have never presented ANY reasonable or rational explanation (or even an educated guess) about WHAT the hell made "unaware processes of the gravitational aggregation of stardust" do anything remotely like become aware of anything let alone "itself" (whatever the hell that would mean)!!! YOU need to stop your presumptuous assertion that science has EVER even come close to explaining the things you assert about life or conscious awareness! Science has achieved a marvelous understanding of HOW much of our Reality seems to work at the macro and micro levels, but nothing remotely close to the kind of understanding you routinely assert as if it is unquestioned about life, consciousness, and what we would call God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof
Emergence is a label applied by science on a observed phenomena, namely on ability of the larger system to have properties that its parts don't have. Basically, emergence is a name. It is how we call something.
Like tree, or thunder, or gravity.
I'm unaware of anybody using name (label) for anything as an explanation of the process, the mechanism of how anything actually works.
You are straw-manning as usual.
And, of course, your comment has nothing to do with my post your quoted. Looks like you simply wanted to spit whatever just to have a chance to end it with "THAT is asinine incoherent garbage!"
Emergence is a euphemism. It is USED as you have tried to do in explanations as something given and accepted. There would be no such thing without awareness. It is our consciousness that provides the venue for the existence of such abstract conceptualizations of phenomena, period.
Quote:
BTW, do you have an explanation for the rise of awareness?
The bold is a question in the same presumptuous category as "Have you stopped beating your wife"? It requires that I accept that there has been a "rise" in life and consciousness. I do NOT! I assume they are endemic to our Reality. Our Reality is a living consciousness (aka God) of which we are simply a tiny reproductive part.
Another bald-faced assertion admitting Tzaph is right, NOT an answer.
Another admission of ignorance yet again. Nothing but euphemistic apologetic garbage! You have never presented ANY reasonable or rational explanation (or even an educated guess) about WHAT the hell made "unaware processes of the gravitational aggregation of stardust" do anything remotely like become aware of anything let alone "itself" (whatever the hell that would mean)!!! YOU need to stop your presumptuous assertion that science has EVER even come close to explaining the things you assert about life or conscious awareness! Science has achieved a marvelous understanding of HOW much of our Reality seems to work at the macro and micro levels, but nothing remotely close to the kind of understanding you routinely assert as if it is unquestioned about life, consciousness, and what we would call God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof
So basically you are saying that science has has achieved a marvelous understanding of how gravity (for example) works, but is not able to explain what is the fundamental, metaphysical reason for mutual attraction between all things with mass and energy.
Another words, you are saying that we don't know why forces and laws of nature are the way you are.
You are correct. Science does not know and does not claim to know that.
So what?
Do you know? Does anyone know? Is it knowable in principal? Do you know that?
Can you answer these questions?
If you can, I'm all ears!!!! If you cannot, then in what way your frustrated rants are of any use for anybody?
The purpose of my "rants" as you call them is "to pop the presumptuous conceptual balloon" you atheists have about YOUR preferred beliefs about the composition of our Reality and your "separate things" reliance on the Composition fallacy view. Life and our consciousness are too unique to the underlying discovered structure of our Reality.
The "gravitational aggregates of stardust via lifeless and unaware processes" cannot be the source of those attribues, IMO. Yet you presumptuously accept that they are DESPITE what you seem to accept as our ignorance (and probably unavoidable ignorance) about it.
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.
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.
