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.
However, I am open to new information, and would ask if anyone has any direct evidence, please present it.
Two basic standards apply:
1. It has to be verifiable true
2. It has to have direct evidentiary value. IOW, it has to speak directly and substantively to the premise that there is, in fact, a god.
BTW, no dogma-as-evidence or anecdotal submissions - only real "stuff" that can be verified.
There is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a god.
The god hypothesis, is a really lousy hypothesis if you think about it.
There is no more extraordinary claim, that there is a divine, infinitely powerful intelligence, that exists, that created the universe, and then largely disappears, except maybe in a few places…making itself manifest to Bronze Age peasants, before anything else could record the evidence.
Geez I wonder what the fellow who just walked away after trying to peddle his Christian Ministry on me while I was outside just now getting ready for my bike ride. I told him exactly what I thought about religion..it felt great telling him.
I merely pointed out that the evidence used for them is "real"`
So did I. As I said I think at this point it is merely a language issue. An impression that is only strengthened by the number of people coming forward to say they have noticed the exact same issue. But I have read your post multiple times. My post multiple times. And EVERY understanding I have of the English language tells me we are essentially saying the same thing, but you do not realize it.
YOU are an ENTITY at your level of existence and you are unconscious and conscious and everything else that comprises your "entityness." Our reality is an ENTITY at its level of existence (of which we are only a tiny part). But like us, it is conscious and unconscious and everything else that comprises it.
I don't hate emergence I just expose it as NOT an explanation for anything. It is just an observation, no different than "God poofed it into existence."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Now you are no longer talking about the universe being defined by the attributes of things within it; you are just saying that every thing ... be it a person, a planet or a universe, has various attributes and parts that comprise it. Which I have no problem with. But I can understand why you want to distance yourself from the composition fallacy now that it's been pointed out that you're engaging in it.
Wrong again. Your composition fallacy requires there be separateness to existence. The separateness is the illusion!
Quote:
It is the concept that unexpected complexity can self-assemble from a particular configuration of things interacting with their environment, that could not be predicted from the individual parts. So it describes various phenomenon. To the extent we sometimes don't understand how the emergence works (strong emergence), it doesn't serve as a detailed step by step explanation that's amenable to simulation. I am of the opinion that all instances of strong emergence can in principle with enough computing power eventually be understood sufficiently to simulate them. In other words in principle, all emergence is likely weak emergence. But regardless, it is clearly a property of complex systems and we aren't going to understand complex systems without it. Chaos theory, neural networks, and many other concepts rely on it. So I think it's a little something more than a hand-waving observation.
The "separateness" and the very idea that anything simply "emerges" or "self- anythings" is the kind of nonsense that peppers your understanding and so-called explanations of reality. It is the trap of the naturalism/materialism perspective. If you were a "theorist" living as a single neural cell within your own body, from that inside perspective you would be observing many things just "emerging" and "self-whatevering" but they would all be a singular entity simply existing.
The "separateness" and the very idea that anything simply "emerges" or "self- anythings" is the kind of nonsense that peppers your understanding and so-called explanations of reality. It is the trap of the naturalism/materialism perspective. If you were a "theorist" living as a single neural cell within your own body, from that inside perspective you would be observing many things just "emerging" and "self-whatevering" but they would all be a singular entity simply existing.
But to extrapolate on the analogy....the emergent creature, which the neural cell is a part of, doesn't have any conscious awareness of the cell. And the cell has no conscious (or otherwise) awareness of the creature it is a part of....as best we can tell.
So even if it were a perfect analogy in every other way....what good would it serve the cell to even acknowledge the creature as it's god (which it isn't even aware of)?
But to extrapolate on the analogy....the emergent creature, which the neural cell is a part of, doesn't have any conscious awareness of the cell. And the cell has no conscious (or otherwise) awareness of the creature it is a part of....as best we can tell.
So even if it were a perfect analogy in every other way....what good would it serve the cell to even acknowledge the creature as it's god (which it isn't even aware of)?
And of course, we are not educating the cell to become an increasingly moral cell by sending it a string of contradictory religions, the latest of which is one of the worst. But the "Analogy" can't be pressed too hard.
Perhaps if you were aware that your posting habits are exactly as Wallflahs, myself, Nozz, Transponder and others have pointed, then perhaps there would not be as much confusion or arguing on your part for the sake of simply arguing and calling people unripe bananas. This behavior is not conducive for discussion when you have to resort to this type of name calling.
Now back to the topic.
There is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a god.
The god hypothesis, is a really lousy hypothesis if you think about it.
There is no more extraordinary claim, that there is a divine, infinitely powerful intelligence, that exists, that created the universe, and then largely disappears, except maybe in a few places…making itself manifest to Bronze Age peasants, before anything else could record the evidence.
That describes the Religious Deities...not "GOD".
"GOD" exists...and the evidence is fully objective.
Wrong again. Your composition fallacy requires there be separateness to existence. The separateness is the illusion! The "separateness" and the very idea that anything simply "emerges" or "self- anythings" is the kind of nonsense that peppers your understanding and so-called explanations of reality. It is the trap of the naturalism/materialism perspective. If you were a "theorist" living as a single neural cell within your own body, from that inside perspective you would be observing many things just "emerging" and "self-whatevering" but they would all be a singular entity simply existing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
But to extrapolate on the analogy....the emergent creature, which the neural cell is a part of, doesn't have any conscious awareness of the cell. And the cell has no conscious (or otherwise) awareness of the creature it is a part of....as best we can tell.
So even if it were a perfect analogy in every other way....what good would it serve the cell to even acknowledge the creature as it's god (which it isn't even aware of)?
I chose a neural cell for a reason. It is what produces our consciousness, just as we produce God's consciousness.
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.
