All living creatures that we observe are formed of non-living matter. This can be demonstrably observed because if the non-living matter is separated, the life ceases. Life, then, is dependent upon the construct of non-living matter.
Furthermore, all living creatures that we observe sustain their life by intake of non-living – or dead – matter. This can be demonstrably observed because removal of food sources causes the life to cease.
First conclusion: life is caused by various constructs of non-living matter.
If life is a construct of non-living matter, why does life need a living being to get it started?
If life needs a living being to get it started, then if God is living, God needs a living being to get Him started.
If life on earth is the combination of a spirit and non-living matter, then does this mean that all animals are not living because they lack a spirit?
If animals have spirits too then is it murder to kill them?
If animals do not have a spirit, then how is it that they are alive?
Ad infinitum…
Easy answer? Life is not kicked off by life, but by certain constructs of non-living matter running according to the patterns of the universe.
We may not know “where” (assuming space transcendent to the universe, which is irrational) the matter and patterns “come from” (assuming space transcendent to the universe, which is irrational), but we can be safe in saying that life could reasonably form itself from non-living matter under the right conditions.
And if this is possible, then is it inconceivable that the universe itself found its origin in an even simpler non-material source that does not fit any pattern or “laws”?
Shit, I think I might have proven the existence of a god of some sort.
The materiality of life consists mostly (or basically) of long strings of carbon (with hydrogen atoms clinging to them). This being said, explain self-consciousness or self-awareness. Or why long strings of carbon-atoms (called rabbits) don’t like being grafted into, or becoming part of, other long strings of carbon-atoms (called wolves).
As I said, I suffered from nervous depression. One of its side-effects is that it makes you think more “down to earth” than you did before… If before, atheism seemed like an opinion which I could respect without actually believing in it, now I can’t even believe it in the base sense of the word “to believe” (i.e., devoid of any religious connotations)
This being said, explain self-consciousness or self-awareness. Or why long strings of carbon-atoms (called rabbits) don’t like being grafted into, or becoming part of, other long strings of carbon-atoms (called wolves).
I actually deeply understand this sentiment.
But there is a problem I can’t personally escape: before men understood what fire was, they thought it was supernatural. Now we know there is nothing supernatural about it at all.
I’m afraid that someday men will look back and say: before men understood what consciousness was, they thought it was supernatural. Now we know there is nothing supernatural about it at all.
I don’t want to make an idol out of “creation” simply because I “do not know”.
Fair fear?
Are we able to admit I might actually be thinking pretty clearly yet?
What am I missing? Where am I making a mistake in rejecting the Biblical explanation of God?
I suppose we could just define God as: everything we can’t explain yet.
The problem is, that’s no different than saying “gee, what we don’t know is what we don’t know and it might want us to recognize it or else it will hurt us because if we were God we would want to be recognized or we might get angry and so we’d better worship the unknown so it doesn’t get angry.”
You’re not making any ‘mistakes’. And I also once took for granted, or understood, the things which You now take for granted, or understand (not agreeing with something does NOT mean not being able to actually understand it). But now I’m unable to return to my former philosophical self. It just seems all so “dull” now as far as such things are concerned…
You either predicate consciousness back unto materiality (in which case we’re BACK to “the demon haunted world”… or “conscience-filled Universe”); or we’re all pagans, and believe in “the Soul of the World”; or we’re all Christians, and believe in the holy and life-giving Spirit.
You’re not making any ‘mistakes’
I’m not sure how the word mistake can be put into quotes and still retain any meaning…
not agreeing with something does NOT mean not being able to actually understand it
If you can understand, show me why you do not accept. I think you do not accept it because it does not appear as valuable as a theistic worldview.
So I am curious, what value does a theistic worldview add that I do not already possess?
You either predicate consciousness back unto materiality (in which case we’re BACK to “the demon haunted world”… or “conscience-filled Universe”); or we’re all pagans, and believe in “the Soul of the World”; or we’re all Christians, and believe in the holy and life-giving Spirit.
Well, I’m not trying to get anywhere in particular, so I don’t mind whichever of those might be true.
This being said, explain self-consciousness or self-awareness
It simply is. Theories about it abound; many of them purely natural. I suppose that you’d want to explain it via an invisible, supernatural being, but that simply begs me to request, “Explain that being now.”
I don’t see a reason to hypothesize an imaginary being who defies all verifiability when I’ve got lots of testable material to work with.
Shit, I think I might have proven the existence of a god of some sort.
Well you left room for the Tao at any rate.
Hi Josh! I think it’s reasonable to be atheistic in regards to any specific god that corresponds to any human religion, while being agnostic in regards to a first force of the universe (that may or may not have intelligence from a human perspective). Just because a source may not be governed by the laws of the known universe doesn’t mean that it’s a god- just that there may be things outside the universe that are unknown to us.
Even if we could come to a conclusion that there are forces outside the universe, we needn’t conclude that they are anything more than forces governed by other laws.
*molly
Well you left room for the Tao at any rate.
Woo.
Even if we could come to a conclusion that there are forces outside the universe, we needn’t conclude that they are anything more than forces governed by other laws.
Yeah, I guess I know that, but it was a fun moment while it lasted…
BTW, Hi Molly!
It’s not about value, it’s about truth. I would wish to be an atheist (or at least a Sadducee), devoid of any hope of an afterlife, being put in impossible situations, trialed by countless gratuitous torments, suffering everything and gaining nothing, not even as Job did in this earthly life, — tell me: WHAT could be MORE valuable than THAT? And were it for an afterlife to exist, let it exist only for those that have not been able to stand up to the test. Let it be only for those that failed. And let it be eternal unspeakable pain. Despair without end and without margins and without any hope of escape. Is it not fair? For what man truly good and holy does such things with an eye directed towards future self-centered pleasure? Let the good do good only for its own intrinsical sake, and then let them perish forever, without even a tiny bit of reciprocation, not even in this transitory life. And if someone does even a tiny bit of evil, let him share in its bitter fruits forever and ever, world without end, Amen! — Tell me, WHAT could POSSIBLY be MORE noble than THAT?
And yet, these things, as noble as they are, are not truth. Truth is dull and stupid.
As far as ‘understanding’ is concerned, I understand various philosophies or religions, be they Greek, Hindu, atheistic, or even pertaining to various pseudo-Christian cults. I just beg to think differently, that’s all. I just understand people and their thoughts and feelings and actions… even of the extremely-mentally-deranged ones. (I just put myself in their shoes and think: “What if I’m in their place? What would I think/feel/do then?”).
The reason I put the word mistake between brackets is because You’re not doing any as far as reason or logic are concerned (at least not in THIS post…). Moses didn’t deduce God, he saw Him. And Christ did likewise (John 1:18). The same goes for St. Paul. And Adam walked with Him in Paradise. So why in Heaven’s name should I expect You to square better than these? Just who are You, anyway, to even dare think You’re better than them? :-\
“Explain that being now.”
My questions aren’t “philosophical”. They’re stupidly simple observations about the fascinating way in which the universe constantly manages to completely contradict itself with no end in sight. That’s all. Absurdity pilling up on absurdity. All of them taken for granted. End of story. Things don’t just pop out into existence.. except when they did. Life does not suddenly appear from inert matter.. except when it did. VERY long strings of carbon-atoms don’t think or feel or will or even live.. except when they do. Etc.
I think we’re in Taoism-land again. Yin isn’t/doesn’t yang, except for that black spot in the middle of the white, and that white spot in the middle of the black.
Why does inert matter magically rearranges itself in well-formed living matter, but not in well-fromed non-living matter? (i.e., why don’t mountains evolve into perfectly pyramidal mountains, for instance?). And why is an amalgam of otherwise-lifelees matter called alive, and so keen on preserving it’s so-called newly-found status of “life”? (Does it really matter to huge strings of hydro-carbures if they subsist in the form of a hare, or in the form of a fox digesting a hare?) And why do I “see” because of vision forming in my retina, but a lake on whose surface the sky is reflected does not “see”? — The list could just go on and on, but I think that at this point, it’s getting pretty redundant.
Why does inert matter magically rearranges itself in well-formed living matter, but not in well-formed non-living matter? (i.e., why don’t mountains evolve into perfectly pyramidal mountains, for instance?).
In a since the latter does happen. Long ago, today’s mountains were just hydrogen gas, or dust particles, or super-hot plasma. And in the end, it really does not matter if hydrocarbon composites are hares, wolves, zucchini, or trash. That sort of stuff only matters in a very local sense and for a very short time and only to a tiny collection of hydrocarbon molecules. And in a very short time, they will cease to care.
If Galileo would’ve thought the same thing as You do: “only seven lights in the whole sky going in the other direction”, “only seen locally”, etc. (Seriously, do You even hear/read Yourself reasoning?). — Heirs of the Enlightment, huh?
Moses didn’t deduce God, he saw Him. And Christ did likewise
And this is your mistake, from my perspective.
You trust your interpretation of what other men said these men saw or said. I’m not really big into second hand information, especially when it has spawned Joseph Smith and Mohammad as well and other men use the same argument you are using to defend those men.
Am I supposed to believe you when you say God revealed Himself to Jesus and Moses and not believe a Muslim who says God revealed Himself to Mohammad?
There has to be some way to determine which “inspired” men to believe. Can you provide a solid method for this?
Just who are You, anyway, to even dare think You’re better than them?
I don’t think I am better than them. I just don’t think that what a book says about them is a trustworthy source of information.
Lucian, just read your other comments. Man, I don’t really know “what” to say because I don’t want to get in an argument.
You can believe what you want to. I’m just trying to show that there is a better way to understand the universe, that’s all. So are you.
My way is the skeptic method, yours is the faith method wherein you interpret what cannot / is not known through a lens of interpretation which posits that a Being fills all the voids. That is fine, there is nothing inherently wrong with that interpretation, it just bothers me greatly because everyone has something different they cannot explain and allowing one person to insert God into their unknowns allows another person to insert God into their unknowns and before we know it people are not actually learning because God answers everything and it can potentially hamper learning – like the Christians who argue we should not study psychology because original sin and the existence of the soul explain pretty much everything.
Trust me. I’ve met people like this. They are scary. Scary to the point that they will dismiss what a book says about how colors affect a person’s mood because its “psychology” and psychology starts with the wrong “presuppositions” and therefore all of its results can be dismissed.
Yuck. I doubt you are like that, but think about it: the only difference between you guys is the amount you know before you start inserting God as the answer to all the test questions.
[BTW, I don't think that all of the results of Christian teaching can be dismissed because a presupposition is wrong, just those that are fully dependent upon another presupposition. Ugh, this is an entire separate conversation...]
What is gravity? The innate attraction between particles.
What is a molecule? A collection of atoms.
What holds molecules together? God. Oh wait, no it’s the strong and weak nuclear force…
What is the gluon? God (I had a Christian friend tell me this once). Oh wait, physicists just discovered its the blah blah blah…
This is the pattern I see: man sees unknown, declares God! Men starting with the presupposition that it is not God discover it is not God and discover a new unknown. Man sees new unknown, declares God!
Rinse and repeat.
If God does not exist, every emotion and feeling of fulfillment and subtle twinge of your conscious being that you have right now are possible without God. Have you ever thought about that?
Nothing changes except the interpretation. And it is my theory that consciousness is dependent upon what a person beliefs about the world around them (beliefs are dependent upon a whole host of factors), so once you understand that you can alter your entire experience of reality by gaining mastery over your consciousness and experience the world however you wish just by changing your perception of things.
Just as once men understood they could master fire – and not fear it, so when we understand that we can master beliefs, perception, and our experience of reality, we can eliminate our fear of the world and the unknown.
Oh, one question. You said you see the universe contradicting itself.
I’m honestly confused as to what you mean by that. Can you give me an example?
The fact that no religion claims to have ‘deduced’ God should give You some insight to the uselesness of what You’re trying to do.
If You choose to think that there’s a fully-material explanation for consciousness, will, emotion, reason, logic, and so on, I can’t stop You from believeing that. I just pointed out to what I perceive to be the absurdity of it.
I already gave You the examples: the Big Bang, which we don’t see happening again anywhere; the fact that atheist books speak of genes or memes almost as if being self-conscious entities and of evolution as if being some sort of a conscious directive process. (Just take a biology book, re-read stuff that You know: rabbits exist and exist and exist, and then a benefic mutation finally comes along, and they develop over time larger paws, which makes the ones who possess them survive better the attacks of their predators, and thus better spreading their genes, because their percentage increses among their population, bacause the others are more easily killed off — something like that. Now begin to think better or deeper about this whole process: You’ll see that it is inherently or umbilically tied to conscience: ‘feeling’ pain, ‘wanting’ to ‘live’ longer, making value judgments: ‘better’ ‘alive’ than ‘dead’, etc — and the same goes for bugs and mosquitos and amoebas. It’s really absurd in the end — kinda like the whole conscience-will-emotion thing, ultimately. I mean, … what do automatically [mechanically] self-replicating carbon-atom-strings have to do with conscience? Nothing. The reason life is based on carbon is because it’s the only thing out there capable of forming long strings of itself: nothing more)
The fact that no religion claims to have ‘deduced’ God should give You some insight to the uselesness of what You’re trying to do.
Lucian, I can just reverse this back on its head and say “The fact that no New Ager has claimed to deduce crystal healing…” etc.
Not to mention that they don’t claim to deduce it because there is always enough doubt about it that it can never be claimed to be a deduction.
If You choose to think that there’s a fully-material explanation for consciousness, will, emotion, reason, logic, and so on, I can’t stop You from believeing that.
It’s not a belief, it’s basically a deduction. Sure there is always the “possibility” that I could have missed something, but that is always the case with one’s claim to God. Why? Because God is by definition capable of “anything”.
There is always the “possibility” that Jesus was actually the devil, deceiving the nations into accepting a false Messiah after he staged the entire thing.
something like that. Now begin to think better or deeper about this whole process:
Alright, now I think we are getting somewhere. I hope you appreciate that my dismissal of Christianity is not based on a “something like that” understanding. I truly have thought deeper about the process, as I will take the time to show you.
You’ll see that it is inherently or umbilically tied to conscience
I think you mean consciousness.
There are two things here.
Yes, if evolution was inherently tying conscious action to unconscious material, this would be absurd. This is the fallacy of division: where the properties of the whole are attributed to its parts. Just because the whole is conscious does not mean the individual parts are.
On the other hand, humans use anthropomorphic terms to describe things all the time.
Alright, just for my sake today, go throughout your day and watch the things you say. Notice that you use terms that imply “will” or “fear”, etc. to objects which cannot have those properties.
An artist may say “this painting really speaks to me”. Or a programmer may say “this compiler is driving me nuts”. This does not mean that artists have a fundamental misunderstanding of art because they are attributing consciousness to a lifeless painting, nor does it mean that programmers have a fundamental misunderstanding of programming because they secretly have made the mistake of thinking compilers have a form of consciousness. These are metaphors used to describe how a non-living thing appears to be acting in a conscious way with its environment.
So a scientist can say that the environment “selects” the more dominant species, but this does not mean that the scientist thinks there is any conscious action on the part of the environment. It just means that this is an appropriate word to explain a natural process in a way that humans can understand.
I mean, I get what you are saying because I used to use a similar argument regularly. I remember as a kid we would watch evolution videos and laugh at the dumb evolutionists every time they used the word “design”. We thought this was evidence they were secretly confessing to a Designer. Somehow we thought we were smart to dismiss everything they said. Well, we dismissed everything they said that we did not like, anyway.
It never occurred to me, though, that “design” does not imply a conscious designer.
Take for example, say… I don’t know… cat hair. Cat hair tends to clump in corners into nice neat balls. [Note: I am not ascribing any conscious properties to cat hair by saying this.] It would be wrong for me to claim that there was a designer who designed cat hair to clump in the corners for easy cleanup. Just because the effects of a natural property of the universe are beneficial to me does not mean that there was any design for the purpose for which I use that property.
This would be the same fallacy as saying that penicillin was designed to kill bacteria. Because this would be the same as saying gravity was designed to kill our enemies, because when our enemies fall, they die.
This would be the same fallacy as picking up a rock, discovering it is a good weapon, and thanking God for designing rocks so that we could kill things with them and for distributing them over the face of the earth so that we are never without a weapon.
This would be the same fallacy as concluding that clouds were designed to give us shade, or that glass was designed just right so that we could make glass, or that tree leaves were designed to wipe our ass when we run out of toilet paper, or that cliffs were designed for hurling people to death, or that God designed lightning to give us a fireworks show, or that the penis was designed for oral sex because it fits so perfectly into the mouth, or that the Achilles heal was designed so that it could be easily cut so that you could subdue your enemies, or that the ear and nose were designed to fit glasses, or that our planet was designed to be hospitable for life.
Why not just say that life was designed to live on our planet, and that the unconscious designer was natural selection?
If we say this, then life could exist on any planet: it just has to be designed just right. Right? You see how backwards the reasoning of Intelligent Design is? It concludes our universe was fine-tuned for life, but if God is actually smart and powerful, He could fine-tune life to live on any planet – no matter how inhospitable it appears to us.
Because if we want to go down the design route, I am just going to ask why the venus fly trap was designed so perfectly to kill if there was no death before the fall.
Men see something beneficial and we want to thank someone because when something is beneficial to us, we naturally want to think there was some designer who made it that way.
The problem with this is that one person’s benefit is another person’s pain. The farmer may thank God for bringing the rainclouds, but the church picnickers might interpret it as devilish. This is the irony of Christian interpretation.
A Christian arrives home and gets terrified at the sight of a firetruck outside their home. They rush inside to discover that the firetruck was actually for their neighbor, who got caught in his rotary saw. What a relief! So should the Christian thank God that it was not them?
This is the same fallacy as arguing that because Christians are being targeted for persecution in an area, this somehow validates the Bible – because the Bible predicts that people would be persecuted.
This would be the same fallacy as a friend I used to have who was the most annoying guy you would ever meet. He was an absolute pain in the ass and would make people angry all the time because he was so annoying. Well, he would share the gospel, people would get pissed, and he would interpret it as persecution and be happy that God chose him to be persecuted. When, in reality, he was not being persecuted, he was just being a pain in the ass.
This is why it is so ironic that people of faith always want to conclude that something that is harming them “must be” designed for their good. I mean, a person is dying of cancer and rather than saying “crap, I am dying of cancer, let’s see if there is a way I can lick this thing” they say “[Insert deity here] must have a purpose in it.”
I mean, think about all the wars that have been fought. Both sides need deliverance from death. Then, when something happens that routes the enemy, the side that was spared immediately is overjoyed.
Who do they thank?
Never mind that their enemies were all just destroyed, they will thank whoever happens to be their God at that time – and they will attribute the victory to some sort of design on his part or some sort of appeal to him on their part.
The same thing goes for people who “interpret” history and “see” God’s plan throughout it all. They are just seeing the results of history, finding ways that they benefit Christians, and concluding that God designed the historical events to benefit Christians and bring glory to Christ.
I mean, just think of how inane it is to conclude that God had a “plan” to use the printing press.
After more than a 1000 years of men dying and going to hell all around the world because they did not have access to the gospel, Christians see the printing press as beneficial and conclude that God had a plan in it.
Seems to me like God is a little too patient, no?
Not to mention, why is God’s plan dependent in such a large extent on human discovery? I mean, why does God need a printing press anyway? Then Christian argue that God does not need anything, but He chooses to use things like the printing press.
And that, my friend, is the fatal flaw that you have so elegantly pointed out: ascribing conscious intention in an ad hoc fashion to something that is not conscious at all. Every time a person says “God chose”, they are simply reading God into the past out of thin air.
Because, after all, every person could claim God chose something in relation to their life: but there is no way to verify or debunk this. It is a mere assertion.
Lucian:
I do not understand your post of August 10, 2009 at 4:41 pm. Can you please elaborate what you mean?
My atheist professor, Mr. Barna, which I’ve mentioned (once) on Your de-conversion blog (not sure to whom), is one of the smartest men I’ve ever met: he can talk about anything, from computers, to the biology of the eye, to the history of the Byzantine Empire. Once he talked to us about Galileo. And the Inquisitors. Who were among the wisest men of their time, the elite, la creme de la creme. Anyway, they had good reasons: why insist so much on only those seven stars when the whole rest of the sky doesn’t follow that direction? If the Earth would truly be moving, why can’t/don’t we feel anything? Etc. The idea was that –as far as a fundamental advancement in science or knowledge is concerned– quality [of information] overtrumps quantity. Seven darn` blinkin’ spots on the apparently infinite sky, who followed totally other movement-rules than those seven lights, completely overturned [well, not quite] our whole world-view or mental image of reality, or of the Universe as “we” knew it. So whenever I see an atheist brush off with utter nonchalance a few wonders here, a few arguments there, I can’t help but think …
Lucian, you do realize that the argument you made justifies any person who wants to believe anything they want: even if it is to your harm.
And I wish your last sentence did not include “atheist”, because that doesn’t make any sense. You could insert anybody you want in there:
“So whenever I see a Christian brush off with utter nonchalance a few wonders here, a few arguments there, I can’t help but think …”
Because, my friend, you brush off wonders and arguments too. You pick the wonders you like and want to bet your life on and dismiss everyone else’s. I’m just curious, what right do you have to do this?
It’s not about “rights”. We have our own opinion about them. And our stance is not based on mental acrobatics.
It’s not about “rights”. We have our own opinion about them. And our stance is not based on mental acrobatics.
I am very aware you have an opinion and that you do not think it involves mental acrobatics.
Now I’m just a little weirded about by the “we”, the bizarre links, and the avoidance of my points about design. I took a lot of time to write that up for you in particular, Lucian.
My point about “rights” was simply this: if you have a right to your opinion about God, then so does everyone else, including people who would kill you in the name of their god – thus rendering your point of view morally bankrupt. You cannot judge others for the thing you are doing.
No man thinks their opinion involves mental acrobatics. If they did, they would change their opinion.
Well now that you’ve explained what you meant; what the heck do you mean?
I talk about matter rearranging and from there you somehow get to telling me that I don’t care about astrophysics or science or whatever. Huh?
Let’s try again. You wondered why non-living matter does not form itself into more highly organized non-living matter. I pointed out that it does.
As I see it, you could respond with:
1-An admission that you’d overlooked something.
OR
2-Something random with no relation to the issues.
Option 2 does not help in any way.
I took a lot of time to write that up for you in particular, Lucian.
Man, You sound just like a frustrated, neglected housewife. :-) [I also wrote entire e-mails to the young woman I loved in secret for the last four years trying to get her to give me a chance... all to no avail... ]
The ‘bizarre’ links are meant to show You that we don’t brush off stuff. We confront it. Head on. That’s our M.O.
‘Design’ wasn’t what (I think) I was talking about. It’s more like carbon-strings ‘getting up and walking’ … and feeling and sensing and evolving. Now, THAT’s what I’ld call `bizarre`!
Leo, I was reacting to the later part of Your comment (the one directly preceding mine), which went like this:
That sort of stuff only matters in a very local sense and for a very short time and only to a tiny collection of hydrocarbon molecules. And in a very short time, they will cease to care.
I also wrote entire e-mails to the young woman I loved in secret for the last four years trying to get her to give me a chance… all to no avail…
You know why she doesn’t respond to your advances? Because she doesn’t give a shit.
You know why you won’t respond to my advances? Because you don’t give a shit.
I love how you answered my question for me. Thanks. Now deal with what I write directly like a man or gtfo.
The ‘bizarre’ links are meant to show You that we don’t brush off stuff. We confront it. Head on. That’s our M.O.
Wow, I should post more links on my blog to show people I “confront stuff”. Dude, now you are being willfully stupid. Seriously, get off my site and stop wasting my time.
‘Design’ wasn’t what (I think) I was talking about.
You’re right, it was what I was talking about. Like I said, you are being willfully stupid at this point. Get lost.
It’s more like carbon-strings ‘getting up and walking’ … and feeling and sensing and evolving. Now, THAT’s what I’ld call `bizarre`!
You completely and intentionally ignored everything I said about consciousness. I am not wasting any more time writing anything to you. Please leave my blog. Thank you, asshole. I will moderate your comments from now on and refer anyone who questions it to this blog post and your rude behavior. Adios.
Man, You sound just like a frustrated, neglected housewife.
No, I’m just pissed off because you aren’t the first Christian to treat me with such arrogance, aloofness, and stupidity. I’m finally learning to just ignore people as soon as they show signs they are of the “retreat to higher ground as soon as things get specific and I might be shown to be wrong” attitude.
Watch the above video. If 1) you can reasonably explain to me – in your own words – what it is talking about, and demonstrate that you are able to apply the principle to your own life OR 2) demonstrate that you are able to understand the principle and show an example about how it is wrong, I will allow you to continue commenting.
Josh,
I’m sorry! (I had no idea You’ll react this way… that certainly wasn’t the kind of response I was hoping or waiting for…) Sorry for the stupid joke! My bad! (Didn’t mean it that way…) — And I obviously do `give a dam’`, otherwise I wouldn’t have stayed in this discussion for so long…
(I’m sorry if my answer to Your long comment falls beneath Your expectations, but it seems like we’re not on the same page there: it’s not because I didn’t read it, or because I didn’t care to answer it: I did, but we’re not on the same wave-length regarding it… which is fine, I guess).
And, again, my apologies for upsetting You: Lord knows that’s NOT what I intended. :-(
Watch the above video. If 1) you can reasonably explain to me – in your own words – what it is talking about, and demonstrate that you are able to apply the principle to your own life OR 2) demonstrate that you are able to understand the principle and show an example about how it is wrong, I will allow you to continue commenting.
It is in your best interest to show (2), btw :)
I watched the video (before You posted the last two comments). It’s about accepting truth or reality basically as it is, despite former preconceived ideas. (Though I had no problems with some things they said there: I’m a mathematician and programmer).
I guess my “post-conceived” idea is that I honestly just don’t ‘buy’ it anymore that consciousness can or might come through emergence, or that non-sentient carbon suddenly becomes intelligent when grouped together in very large strings. Sorry! — Call me stupid, call me ‘common-sensical’ (the bad sort), ban me if You like (that’s one thing me and the guy in my pic have in common: we do seem to get banned a lot).
If You want to predicate self-awareness back unto matter, -in one way or another-, feel free to do so: I’m not stopping You.
Oh, and you don’t need to capitalize pronouns about me either, although I personally think you are trying to make a subtle joke about me “putting myself in His rightful place”. Or you are just making silly mistakes. If its the latter, it might explain why our conversation is not going anywhere.
You still haven’t explained the video.
No, it’s not a ‘joke’. I capitalize the word ‘You’ when talking directly to someone because English has no ‘pronouns of courtesy’. [And sorry for the misplaced joke again].
What is it You think I don’t ‘get’ from the video? Or what part of it do You think needs further elaboration? Or in what respect is our discussion ‘not going anywhere’ ?
that’s one thing me and the guy in my pic have in common: we do seem to get banned a lot
Alright, wise guy. Both assholes and martyrs get banned.
How can I tell which one you are?
Explain the video.
I re-watched it. Again, it’s pretty self-evident. What do You want me to explain about it (besides what I already said) ?
If that is true, what is wrong with the video, because you don’t seem to apply its principle to your own thinking.
Well, … to what part of my thinking do You want me to apply it? (To the part which has a problem with a non-re-occuring Big Bang? Or to the one who doesn’t believe the roots of consciousness are to be found in otherwise non-living matter?)
Or to the one who doesn’t believe the roots of consciousness are to be found in otherwise non-living matter?
This one. You are committing a version of the the fallacy of Composition: in particular the Modo hoc Fallacy. By assuming that the properties of the parts cannot account for a property of the whole, you are asserting that a completely different “part” must be involved – the spirit or soul.
This is ridiculous.
Computers are made of silicon and metals. Silicon and metals do not have the ability to solve problems, therefore there must exist a “soul” in a computer that uses the metals and silicon to solve problems. I just do not see how a particular arrangement of metal and silicon can produce a piece of technology so complex and good at solving problems.
We know that computer’s have a maker, but to assume there is a metaphysical property endowed into a computer that exists after the computer is destroyed is just… ludicrous.
Why do you ascribe this to man by insinuating that consciousness exists after death – when, quite frankly, there would be nothing to be conscious about?
I mean, we know that a person’s memory can be erased in this lifetime by tweaking their neurons. So, after death, the neurons cease to function and the memory is gone. How can anyone be judged after death, then?
It just doesn’t make any sense dude.
I desire an explanation that is not begging the question.
Oh, and before you accuse me with the “that’s not what I was implying” argument, let me just say that I know where you are trying to go with your argument because your cards are already on the table :)
I’m just trying to show that your entire deck is being played in the wrong game and that another trumps yours.
First of all, please allow me to address a question back at You: what makes You think that both things can’t be simultaneously be true? Or, in case I’m not making myself clear enough: what exactly is a ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ ? Why can’t it be part of the ‘fabric’ of the Universe, even to a sense in which it would make it –if not indistinguishable, then– at least unseparated from matter, and so finely intermixed with it, that we might even consider it as included in the very meaning of the word? I mean, spirit isn’t matter, but `field` isn’t (technically speaking) matter either… and yet we somehow see it as a (necessary or constituent) part of it…
Secondly, mentioning computers is probably not the best way of reinforcing Your argument: I was thinking about them also (probably because of what I do), to use them as a counter-argument to Yours. Take vision, for instance: it’s formed on the retina in an analogous manner to how it’s formed in a camera (connected to a computer), and it’s stored in the soft tissues of our brain in a manner which is similar to it being stored on a hard-drive: yet we “see”, whereas machines don’t. Vision-forming isn’t quite the same as seeing. And the same goes for sound, and all the other senses as well. — “See” where I’m getting at?
[And there's also something which You are (to a certain extent, at least) missing: I was open before to the idea of, say, the emergence of consciousness (not to mention the apophatic character of my religion, which does not seek to over-define or pin-down things to the extreme -- even LeoPardus can confirm that)... but I became closed to such ideas... and -as I said- not on 'theological' grounds].
Why can’t it be part of the ‘fabric’ of the Universe
See, here’s the problem. You are confusing the ability for your mind to imagine alternatives with reality.
Why couldn’t there be a love force that flows through the universe like a liquid and whatever matter it touches produces sensations of love and eternal presence? Where it does not flow is found hate and suffering?
You don’t start with something in your imagination, apply it to the universe, and then say because it could be possible that it is a valid theory.
We conform our mind to reality, not reality to our imagination. Imagination can be used as a tool, yes, but just as in every aspect of life we have to restrict our imagination to tools we use to determine what is actually real.
For example, how can you tell that your experience of the world is not a dream?
There is a succinct simple proof that you are not :)
Hint: it is the same proof one can use to demonstrate that voices in their head are not real.
yet we “see”, whereas machines don’t.
Prove this.
Good luck. Without a definition of consciousness you won’t be able to do it, so you are commenting on things out of ignorance.
Your problem will be defining consciousness without the assumption of the existence of anything material.
And sure, all matter could be conscious. But so what? That doesn’t help us any at all, except to defeat Christianity, because then God cannot be conscious, because He is not material.
Prove this.
Sorry, I’m not in the mood of doing senseless things.
And sure, all matter could be conscious. But so what? That doesn’t help us any at all, except to defeat Christianity, because then God cannot be conscious, because He is not material.
So, if all cats are animals, dogs aren’t, because they’re not cats.
For example, how can you tell that your experience of the world is not a dream?
Don’t know. I’m genuinely curious about that.
[Off to sleep now. Nuff for one day].
Sorry, I’m not in the mood of doing senseless things.
I honestly don’t think the statement “yet we “see”, whereas machines don’t” makes any sense given our conversation.
Just because something cannot communicate that it cannot “see” does not mean that it cannot. Not only that, but if there is consciousness inherent in the universe, I don’t see how this would be a far-fetched theory.
Take for instance, a person in a coma. Or animals. How do we know that animals cannot “see” like we do? They can’t communicate anything about their conscious state so without some sort of a test for consciousness we don’t really know what is going on.
So I don’t think my question was senseless at all. I thought your assertion was, though :)
‘So, if all cats are animals, dogs aren’t, because they’re not cats. ”
Yeah, as a logical statement, that wouldn’t make sense. Nice catch… except we are talking about God. That does change things. Here’s why:
If the universe is conscious, saying God is conscious too is about as silly to me as saying “the universe is material, God is material too”. Comparing cats and dogs is not anything like comparing the universe and God, because the trick any theologian faces is providing a definition of God’s transcendence that does not make a God in the image of His creation – if that makes sense. Because if we do make a God in the image of creation, we are making an idol… and that will not do. No, sir, it will not.
If ones God is nothing different than elements of creation mashed together into a super-creation, then I think I am safe in concluding that it is an idol, and not a real God.
I hope that makes sense.
“Don’t know. I’m genuinely curious about that.”
Back when I was going through my epistemological crisis, here is what I discovered:
The only distinguishable difference between a dream and reality is that a dream, by definition, can only work with information provided from reality. Therefore, you cannot learn anything new about reality in a dream.
I learn new things. Therefore I am not in a dream.
Now then, if this entire life is a dream, then it means that everything we can learn in this dream we already know. If there is no perceivable limit to the things we can learn – except death, then it means we conceivably could know everything about everything. This would mean that I am omniscient.
If I am omniscient then at some point I will discover that I am in a dream.
Crap, I forgot the rest of the “proof”. Oh well, hope that helps. It’s a crazy mind-game but one I was super interested in because of a dream I had when I was little.
In my dream, I woke up and discovered that this life was not my real life, and instead I was a completely different person. Freaked the hell out of me. Except the weird things was that I had no more knowledge after waking up in my dream than I did in reality, so I knew it was not real.
Animals do see. But a lake on whose surface the sky is reflected does not. Nor does a surveillance-system.
We are not consubstantial with God as far as our spirit is concerned.
Interesting perspective. For me it’s the unclarity and rapidity of dreams (not that that helps though while I’m having them). And I did have dreams of discovery, in which one might say I did learn something new (but not real), like when I was helping Scooby Doo discover the culprit, or even had the illusion of seeing ‘with my own eyes’ a fourth spacial dimension. (Stupid, I know).
Animals do see. But a lake on whose surface the sky is reflected does not. Nor does a surveillance-system.
Okay, but why, my friend do you conclude this? There is some knowledge you possess that is informing you that this is a valid conclusion. What knowledge is this?
Well, if You choose to think otherwise, be my guest. (If You have reasons to, feel free to share them).
Ok.