Atheism: What Happened Before the Big Bang?

[heusdens]

You have asserted that one cannot prove deities don't exist. Assuming that for the sake of argument, it follows that if one believes that deities do not exist, then that belief cannot have a rational or empirical basis.

In general one cannot proof a negative and as far as our knowledge concerns, about anything can exist. How am I to know that an entity X with property Y does not exist?
This does however not mean that the reasoning one uses to conclude that a deity would need to exist cannot be proven wrong, since this can be shown.

 

[Hurkyl]

In general one cannot proof a negative and as far as our knowledge concerns, about anything can exist. How am I to know that an entity X with property Y does not exist?

I repeat: I'm assuming that you are right about this for the sake of argument. There is no reason to try and justify it.

This does however not mean that the reasoning one uses to conclude that a deity would need to exist cannot be proven wrong, since this can be shown.

This is a red herring -- it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I stated.

If one cannot prove a negative, then one has no basis for believing in a negative. The rigor, or lack thereof, of people believing in a positive has nothing to do with it.

 

[verty]

Can't one prove that, for instance, it is not the case that snow is blue?

 

[heusdens]

Can't one prove that, for instance, it is not the case that snow is blue?

No. There could be planets out there that have a blue kind of "snow".

But perhaps some negative cases can be proven, but not in general.

 

[heusdens]

I repeat: I'm assuming that you are right about this for the sake of argument. There is no reason to try and justify it.

This is a red herring -- it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I stated.

If one cannot prove a negative, then one has no basis for believing in a negative. The rigor, or lack thereof, of people believing in a positive has nothing to do with it.

I don't believe in a negative. Just that the theist refers to a materialist worldview as a "negative" (denying the existence of God) does not mean that it is. In my opinion they believe in a "negative" which is the primacy of matter and indestructability and uncreatability of matter itself.

They pose the idea that matter itself was created by mind, they call God.
For that they don't have proof. They would have to proof that:
- mind can exist in the absence of matter
- consciousness can be defined in the absence of something apart and outside of conciousness (ie. how 'sensical' is a description of a mind which has no external world to reflect on or to be consciouss of?)
- matter can be created from nothing

As you can see, the theist who makes the positive existence claim of there being a mind that just did that, has not much to stand on.

For the materialist, the assumption that matter exists and as far as we know, can not be created or destructed (but transformation is of course possible, matter never stays the same cause it is in motion always, thus creating time and space) is without discussion, and we know that our mind can not function without a brain and neither did we see a mind without any material form.

For the theist then, the only way out of this, would lead him to reject the objective existence of matter. They have no place for their creator, except for their own minds. Which is not proof of there being a mind separate and outside their own mind, and thus puts them in the position their claim can only be true if they are solipsists (reflect on the world as only and enteirely existing within their own mind).

 

[PIT2]

Because the first statement makes an assumption (the universe was somehow 'made' and 'finetuned') which is baseless. It is in fact assuming there is a God.

The other one assumes that there are infinite universes. I could explain why 1 person is struck by a meteor everyday by assuming that there are infinite people who dont, but that doesn't make that explanation true. It could also be that someone is purposely targeting him. Take ur pick.

It doesn't take "faith" to be an atheist or materialist, just logical conclusion and reasoning.

Yes there is a logical basis for materialism, but so is there for the other options i mentioned. There can be a perfectly logical basis to believe in god too.

You are already making some basic improper reasonings by assuming there is somehow a physical cause for the existence of the universe.
Well, that is of course your error in thinking to just assume that.
The error is that all physical causes you can think of, are already part of the universe.

What is ur definition of universe? I was talking about it not in the sense of 'everything that exists', but the spacetimebubble. Does anyone know if strings are physical?

So in the strict sense, the universe has no cause and therefore no begin. In the philosophical sense the universe is there because there is matter, and there is matter because matter itself is indestructable and uncreatable.

Wasnt there some difference between physical and material? All matter is physical, but not all the physical is material. Btw i don't think many physicists agree that nothing caused the big bang. I know the whole 'time doesn't exist before the big bang' and 'there was no before' are tricky issues, but there are theories about dimensional membranes, black holes reproducing, bigcrunch, infinite other big bangs caused by something, etc. But we just don't know what happened and whether it has an origin or not doesn't argue against god. Religious people often say that god has no beginning.

This however can not be true, since the only minds in existence we know of require there to be matter. Our mind does not exist without a brain.

This is just an assumption, it could be true but its still faith to believe it. We don't know if mind requires matter, if it causes matter, if matter is mind, if mind is matter, or if both are really something else. All we know is that both interact. What we observe about conscious beings is that they are the most creative forces in the universe, so its not at all illogical to think that consciousness is also involved in the history of the universe.

 

[out of whack]

You can often prove a negative by contradiction. You can prove that god does not exist if you clarify what you mean by "god" and "exist" in a certain manner, along with a few other terms that most people don't usually bother to clarify. You can produce your own personal list of postulates and see if they work or not. If you find a contradiction among them then some of them must be false. For example, try this list:

God: creator of the universe.
Create: cause to exist.
Universe: all that exists.
Exist: to be part of the universe.

The definitions of "exist" and "universe" are circular here but it's hard to avoid and it may still be exactly what you mean. Using this example, testing the proposition "god exists" reveals that part of the universe caused the universe to exist. If you reject that something can be created by one of its own parts then something is wrong either with the list or with the proposition. And if what you wrote for "exist", "universe" and "cause" is really what you mean then either the "god exists" proposition is wrong or god cannot be defined as creator of the universe. Either way, this shows that a "creator of the universe" cannot exist and a negative has been proven, unless you are misusing your own words.

Note that no faith was involved, only a few definitions. But since we all use different definitions, we can all reach different personal conclusions. No wonder there is so much disagreement. Also most people never take the time to produce a clear description of the vague notions that can keep us awake at night. Many even prefer not to shine too bright a light on the subject because the findings can be disturbing. Once we've learned to live in peace with our set of beliefs, few dare to subject them to rigorous analysis. There is really little to gain from a day-to-day point of view but a lot of sleep to lose.

 

[heusdens]

The other one assumes that there are infinite universes. I could explain why 1 person is struck by a meteor everyday by assuming that there are infinite people who dont, but that doesn't make that explanation true. It could also be that someone is purposely targeting him. Take ur pick.

This does not compare.

It is not clear that a meteor MUST strike a person.

However it is clear that AT LEAST one planet in AT LEAST one universe (if there are more) exist which inhabits consciouss beings.

Yes there is a logical basis for materialism, but so is there for the other options i mentioned. There can be a perfectly logical basis to believe in god too.

There is no ontological basis for the existence of a god/creator.
(see for example the post of out of whack)

Other example:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

There is no answer you might think of to answer the question, since whatever you think of (say entity X) reraises the same question (why is there X instead of nothing).

To only way out is to say that the question assumes something absurd, namely the total seperatedness of being and non-being. Being and non-being can only be regarded as a unity of opposites, which have becoming as their truth.

What is ur definition of universe? I was talking about it not in the sense of 'everything that exists', but the spacetimebubble. Does anyone know if strings are physical?

Well the universe in it's broadest sense.

String are well beyond detectability, they reside at the Planck length.

So far they are only theoretical constructs.

String and M theory are still mathematical models, not physical models.

Wasnt there some difference between physical and material? All matter is physical, but not all the physical is material.

Physical matter and Philosophical matter are different in that philosophical matter covers anything material. So you can say that creation of physical matter is possible (E=mc² Energy can be converted into mass having particles), but in the philosophical sense, matter is indestructable and uncreatable. Energy and fields are just as material as particles.

The definition of philosophical matter is that what is external to and independend of consciousness, and which is primary.

Matter and motion can not be seperated, and the notion of motions implies there is time and space.

Btw i don't think many physicists agree that nothing caused the big bang. I know the whole 'time doesn't exist before the big bang' and 'there was no before' are tricky issues, but there are theories about dimensional membranes, black holes reproducing, bigcrunch, infinite other big bangs caused by something, etc. But we just don't know what happened and whether it has an origin or not doesn't argue against god. Religious people often say that god has no beginning.

Matter itself in the philosophical sense is indestructable and uncreatable, therefore there is no cause for matter outside of matter itself.

The singularity ideas (for example Penrose had that idea) that there was no 'before' the big bang, have been abandoned in favour of other realistic models like inflation.

A singularity is where the theory breaks down that predicts it, so you can't assume there was a singularity in the first place.

This is just an assumption, it could be true but its still faith to believe it. We don't know if mind requires matter, if it causes matter, if matter is mind, if mind is matter, or if both are really something else. All we know is that both interact. What we observe about conscious beings is that they are the most creative forces in the universe, so its not at all illogical to think that consciousness is also involved in the history of the universe.

Mind must out of necessity be material since it interacts with matter. If mind was something entirely different as matter, how could you speak or move?
There aren't minds without matter.

The error in the assumption that consciousness has something to do with the universe (although one needs to have consciouss to understand how the universe/material world works, but that is something different) is that it would force one to think of mind as something completely separate from matter to begin with.

If mind created matter, then what was this conscious mind consciouss about in the absence (prior) to matter? In absence of matter (an outside/external world) there is nothing to reflect upon or to be consciouss of.

(self consciousness neither does work since how can one distinguish between self and not-self, if there isn't anything in the first place).

 

[Hurkyl]

Just that the theist ...

Why are you talking about theists?

 

[PIT2]

However it is clear that AT LEAST one planet in AT LEAST one universe (if there are more) exist which inhabits consciouss beings.

The point i was trying to make was that invoking infinite universes is rather similar to invoking a god.

There is no ontological basis for the existence of a god/creator.
(see for example the post of out of whack)

Of course there is, we can see conscious beings create things all around us. It is only when u assume that these conscious beings came forth from complete nonconscious stuff, that the ontological basis vanishes.

Other example:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

To only way out is to say that the question assumes something absurd, namely the total seperatedness of being and non-being. Being and non-being can only be regarded as a unity of opposites, which have becoming as their truth.

I don't understand what this has to do with god.

Physical matter and Philosophical matter are different in that philosophical matter covers anything material. So you can say that creation of physical matter is possible (E=mc² Energy can be converted into mass having particles), but in the philosophical sense, matter is indestructable and uncreatable. Energy and fields are just as material as particles.

Those last things u mention are not considered matter, but i don't think this really matters to our discussion. In many of ur sentences u arent really talking about 'matter', but about 'brain'.

Mind must out of necessity be material since it interacts with matter. If mind was something entirely different as matter, how could you speak or move?
There aren't minds without matter.

If u type on ur keyboard, does that make u a computer? No, it just shows that u interact with the computer at some level. This interaction is all we have with matter and consciousness aswell. We can also say, if we wish to abandon dualism, that both are the same at the level where they interact(monism). But what is this level? Is it physical in any sense we know? If mind and matter are flipsides of the same coin, then this doesn't imply the coin is material.

 

[Curious3141]

Sorry for my late reply.


I don't know. I like to think of it as teaching a dog on how derivatives works, it simply won't happen. Our brains are not sophisticated enough to know that or to even comprehend that .

Actually my point was to direct the questions you were asking back at you. You asked "What came before the Big Bang/the Universe?" and I replied "What came before Allah?" If an atheist answers either "nothing" or "I don't know" to the first question, your answers will be no better for the second.

"Goddidit" is not an answer to anything. It is just as good (or bad) as saying "something just is, because it is". If you can say that about god, you can say it about the physical Universe too.

 

[heusdens]

The point i was trying to make was that invoking infinite universes is rather similar to invoking a god.

Quite the opposite.
A finite universe raises the question: why is it there, what was it caused by, etc.

The universe is infinite because matter is always in motion and matter is indestructable and uncreatable.

Of course there is, we can see conscious beings create things all around us. It is only when u assume that these conscious beings came forth from complete nonconscious stuff, that the ontological basis vanishes.

If you look deeper into it, even conscious beings don't create stuff, but we would rather have to call it development.
There wasn't an instantanious moment of creation of a car for instance, more like a development process of thousands of years.

Those last things u mention are not considered matter, but i don't think this really matters to our discussion. In many of ur sentences u arent really talking about 'matter', but about 'brain'.

In the philosophical sense also fields and energy is material.
In philosophy matter is just a abstract category.
Physics is more specialized about the different forms and interactions of matter, and distinghuishes particles, waves, fields, etc.
Materialism does not rely on a specific physical theory to explain matter.

If u type on ur keyboard, does that make u a computer? No, it just shows that u interact with the computer at some level. This interaction is all we have with matter and consciousness aswell. We can also say, if we wish to abandon dualism, that both are the same at the level where they interact(monism). But what is this level? Is it physical in any sense we know? If mind and matter are flipsides of the same coin, then this doesn't imply the coin is material.

Our brain is material. There isn't a need to invoke a different category of existence to explain mind, matter is already complex enough.

 

[PIT2]

Quite the opposite.
A finite universe raises the question: why is it there, what was it caused by, etc.

I don't know what view of the universe u have, but i do know that no one in science has much certainty about what really is the nature of the universe. I am sure u do not claim to know, but this knowledge is required in order to dismiss the idea of intelligence involved in the origin/evolution/whatever of the universe.

If you look deeper into it, even conscious beings don't create stuff, but we would rather have to call it development.
There wasn't an instantanious moment of creation of a car for instance, more like a development process of thousands of years.

But the key is that there was subjectivity involved, the process was guided by intelligence, and this demonstrates the ability of mind to influence physicalness.

 

[heusdens]

I don't know what view of the universe u have, but i do know that no one in science has much certainty about what really is the nature of the universe. I am sure u do not claim to know, but this knowledge is required in order to dismiss the idea of intelligence involved in the origin/evolution/whatever of the universe.

The view I have on the universe is no different then I have on matter, i.e that matter is eternal and in motion.

But the key is that there was subjectivity involved, the process was guided by intelligence, and this demonstrates the ability of mind to influence physicalness.

The mind is material, so this it not very surprising that we can interact with matter.
And the key is not that it involves subjectivity, but that things evolve, and that it is not something instantanious, but involving a complicated process of exchange with nature.

Like explained with the evolution of a car is that it is in fact evolved from a charot, which itself was evolved from a wheel. And neither was the wheel invented, but was merely an adapted form of natural objects that posses the property of roling.
Likewise the engine was neither an instantanious invention, but a stepwise refinement from previous machines, powered by some fuel, and ultimately derived from nature also in the form of fire.

So a more clarifying point of view is that all these "creations" are just forms of interactions of humans with nature, and utilizing nature for the benefit of survival.

 

[PIT2]

The view I have on the universe is no different then I have on matter, i.e that matter is eternal and in motion.

But u think that it justifies atheism without any faith involved, yet i know of no ideas in science that do.

The mind is material

What made u so sure that this is so? Is there any experiment that has demonstrated this?

Likewise the engine was neither an instantanious invention, but a stepwise refinement from previous machines, powered by some fuel, and ultimately derived from nature also in the form of fire.

So what is ur point? U just admitted that subjectivity can evolve matter over long periods of time, how does any of that argue for atheism?

 

[heusdens]

But u think that it justifies atheism without any faith involved, yet i know of no ideas in science that do.

I don't see it as a justification for atheism, but as a reasoned conclusion for materialism. And while it might be the case that not all practising scientists are devoted consciously to materialism, in practice they however must all formulate their ideas at the basis of matter. The very fact that in order to develop a theory and to test them, you in fact apply a materialist assumption about reality is sufficient proof of that.
Without that, all that science could provide were subjective truths.

What made u so sure that this is so? Is there any experiment that has demonstrated this?

Is there any experiment that does not demonstrate this? The very fact that one can do an experiment, already uses the assumption that there is a material world, isn't it?

So what is ur point? U just admitted that subjectivity can evolve matter over long periods of time, how does any of that argue for atheism?

How does that any of that conflict materialism in your opinion?
Is subjective mind somehow impossible if the world consists of matter?

Science has sufficiently provided ground that also the subjective experiences are in fact material. There is nothing that escapes the material world.

 

[PIT2]

I don't see it as a justification for atheism, but as a reasoned conclusion for materialism.

A reasoned conclusion for materialism is something different as a justification for atheism. There can be reasoned conclusions for all kinds of ideas, but until they are confirmed by experiment or some other way then we won't know if they are true. Science has many well reasoned theories, but only a minority turn out to be match observations. Also two ideas can be each others opposites, but both could still be supported by reasoning.

Is there any experiment that does not demonstrate this? The very fact that one can do an experiment, already uses the assumption that there is a material world, isn't it?

All experiments don't demonstrate it and the rules that science requires theories to conform to, don't make reality conform aswell.

How does that conflict materialism in your opinion?
Is subjective mind somehow impossible if the world consists of matter?

Materialism is a possibility and I am not excluding it.

Here is a video in which a neuroscientist talks about mind, brain and reality:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433 - fast forward it to 25.00 minutes (u can click on the timeline right away so no need for the whole thing to load)

Also, earlier u said this:

If mind created matter, then what was this conscious mind consciouss about in the absence (prior) to matter? In absence of matter (an outside/external world) there is nothing to reflect upon or to be consciouss of.

(self consciousness neither does work since how can one distinguish between self and not-self, if there isn't anything in the first place).

Compare it to these experiences that people actually have:
('baseline reality' is the everyday reality around us)

To simplify the issue somewhat, let us for the moment contrast the most extreme unitary state, what we have called Absolute Unitary Being (AUB), with baseline reality. AUB refers to the rare state in which there is a complete loss of the sense of self, loss of the sense of space and time, and everything becomes a infinite, undifferentiated oneness. Such a state usually occurs only after many years of meditation. In comparing AUB to baseline reality, there is no question that AUB wins out as being experienced as "more real." People who have experienced AUB, and this includes some very learned and previously materialistically oriented scientists, regard AUB as being more fundamentally real than baseline reality. Even the memory of it is, for them, more fundamentally real. Thus, if we use the criterion of the sense of certainty of the reality of a particular state, AUB wins hands down.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/newberg.html

 

[heusdens]

A reasoned conclusion for materialism is something different as a justification for atheism. There can be reasoned conclusions for all kinds of ideas, but until they are confirmed by experiment or some other way then we won't know if they are true. Science has many well reasoned theories, but only a minority turn out to be match observations. Also two ideas can be each others opposites, but both could still be supported by reasoning.

The point I want to make clear is that the framework of materialism is about the only plausible framework we have. In fact, our everyday experience conforms to that. We never doubt that our experiences are formed on the basis of our sensory perceptions are formed and caused by an independend external material world. Our consciousness does not 'create' the external material world, but rather the other way around.
By the way, it is good to mention that this fact of reality is in fact something which one has to learn, it does not come instinctly. At very young age we learn that we can not manipulate the external world directly with our thoughts, that our consciousness is some reflection of an outside material world, existing independend of our consciousness.
It might be that due to some complications or illneses or other circumstances, some people don't have this same sense of reality, or at least have some serious doubts about it.
For most people though, and most if not all practical considerations, there is no shed of doubt that materialism (a material world which exist primary, independend and external to our consciousness, which is reflected in our consciousness) is true.

All experiments don't demonstrate it and the rules that science requires theories to conform to, don't make reality conform aswell.

I don't exactly understand what you say.

What I was trying to argue is that for scientific tests and observations, and that they tell us something about external reality, the assumptions (sometimes unknowingly) is made that there is an independend material world, external to our consciousness.
If not, how could we do any experiment at all and establish some basic and objective facts about reality?

Materialism is a possibility and I am not excluding it.

You seem very unconvinced about materialism, although it is the best established fact of reality. But please provide me any sound argument why the basic assumptions of materialism would not be correct.

You would need to explain:
- Why it is we seem to observe an objective material world, on which we all can agree?
- Explain how mind could exist, independend of matter.
- Explain how matter (or at least the illusion of it) can be created by mind itself.

Unless you can give some sound proof of that, I am not ready to doubt materialism.

Compare it to these experiences that people actually have:
('baseline reality' is the everyday reality around us)

You want me to conclude that some shift of consciousness, in which one looses sight on the basic facts of reality (time, space, etc), under very special conditions (namely long time meditation)

Let me explain first that, since the brain is a material organ, of course the way we perceive of reality is influenced by all kind of physical things. For instance drugs, or other physical/medical factors.

That does not disproof materialism, on the contrary this fits materialism.

Secondly, what the meditation does is in fact bring the brain in some other state, in which the daily perception of time and space etc. gets lost.
That is perhaps a 'ground' state of the brain, when for quite some time the normal impulses that go into the brain, are not there.

Our perception then of normal reality gets lost. Just because the brain then does not receive the information to establish those facts.

So, also this is not some proof that materialism is incorrect. In fact one could observe the brain (the electric activity of the brain) to validate the fact that it has other a different perception of reality. Which just proofs the brain is material.

 

[heusdens]

Here is a video in which a neuroscientist talks about mind, brain and reality:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433 - fast forward it to 25.00 minutes (u can click on the timeline right away so no need for the whole thing to load)

I will comment this later. I'm not an expert on the brain but it appears to me that brain researchers have some evidence for some kind of brain function which - when stimulated - causes mysthical experiences.
That is of course something that fits the materialistic conception of our mind, we find a materialistic cause for this experiences!

Perhaps also see this video (D.C. Dennet)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486

 

[PIT2]

I will comment this later. I'm not an expert on the brain but it appears to me that brain researchers have some evidence for some kind of brain function which - when stimulated - causes mysthical experiences.
That is of course something that fits the materialistic conception of our mind, we find a materialistic cause for this experiences!

U will be glad to hear that the person speaking in the video is the very one that discovered these brain areas which are involved in mystical/god experiences.

U gave the wrong link btw, its the same one as mine.

 

[PIT2]

The point I want to make clear is that the framework of materialism is about the only plausible framework we have. In fact, our everyday experience conforms to that. We never doubt that our experiences are formed on the basis of our sensory perceptions are formed and caused by an independend external material world. Our consciousness does not 'create' the external material world, but rather the other way around.

Materialism would be perfectly plausible in a world without any observers. In a world with them, it becomes quite problematic.

If u hold that our consciousness doesn't create the external world, then u will have a hard time explaining how the human species has transformed the world around us in the past few hundred years, but that our brains haven't changed much.

What I was trying to argue is that for scientific tests and observations, and that they tell us something about external reality, the assumptions (sometimes unknowingly) is made that there is an independend material world, external to our consciousness.
If not, how could we do any experiment at all and establish some basic and objective facts about reality?

But what does this have to do with the topic? Noone is denying there is an external world. Its not an "either u are an atheist, or u deny there exists a material world" situation.

Unless you can give some sound proof of that, I am not ready to doubt materialism.

U seem to think that materialism is the default position, that we have to accept it until its proven wrong.

Suppose we see matter as 'blue' and consciousness as 'red'. Someone sits in a completely blue room. He thinks "hey, this is easy, everything is simply blue!". But as he inspects the room, he discovers a tiny red dot on a wall. This red dot conflicts with his notion that the entire room is blue. He cannot deny that the red dot is there, yet he cannot explain it with his theory "everything is simply blue".

This is the position we find ourselves in. Materialism should not be accepted as true until it is capable of explaining the clear contradictions of its tenets. The red dot on the wall may look small compared to the giant blue room, but its implications can be huge.

You want me to conclude that some shift of consciousness, in which one looses sight on the basic facts of reality (time, space, etc), under very special conditions (namely long time meditation)

U made some statements about which experiences would not be possible. Here we have a group of people who have such experiences. As far as metaphysical views can be supported by experience, this is it. And it doesn't point towards materialism.

 

[heusdens]

U will be glad to hear that the person speaking in the video is the very one that discovered these brain areas which are involved in mystical/god experiences.

U gave the wrong link btw, its the same one as mine.

Here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486

 

[heusdens]

Materialism would be perfectly plausible in a world without any observers. In a world with them, it becomes quite problematic.

If u hold that our consciousness doesn't create the external world, then u will have a hard time explaining how the human species has transformed the world around us in the past few hundred years, but that our brains haven't changed much.

What is 'creating'? We merely see an interchange between the natural world, and us human beings, and since human beings are part of the natural world, this is like saying that the natural worlds interacts with itself, which it always does.

The idea of matter in a world without consciouss beings would be absent.
Matter is an abstract categorie of thought. There is no distinction between matter and consciousness in a world without consciouss beings.

But what does this have to do with the topic? Noone is denying there is an external world. Its not an "either u are an atheist, or u deny there exists a material world" situation.

No, and I'm not talking about atheism but about materialism. Materialism does not state "there is no God", but states that the external world and also human consciousness can be explained on the basis of matter in motion which is infnite/eternal.
The issue is wether matter is primary or not, and not mind. I hold on to the idea that that is the case.

U seem to think that materialism is the default position, that we have to accept it until its proven wrong.

Suppose we see matter as 'blue' and consciousness as 'red'. Someone sits in a completely blue room. He thinks "hey, this is easy, everything is simply blue!". But as he inspects the room, he discovers a tiny red dot on a wall. This red dot conflicts with his notion that the entire room is blue. He cannot deny that the red dot is there, yet he cannot explain it with his theory "everything is simply blue".

This is the position we find ourselves in. Materialism should not be accepted as true until it is capable of explaining the clear contradictions of its tenets. The red dot on the wall may look small compared to the giant blue room, but its implications can be huge.

U made some statements about which experiences would not be possible. Here we have a group of people who have such experiences. As far as metaphysical views can be supported by experience, this is it. And it doesn't point towards materialism.

It sure does.

There is nothing in this experience that contradicts materialism. It would be like saying that the consciouss experience would provide evidence against materialism. I does not, it only proofs the existence of subjective feelings, experiences and knowledge.

I can show you why in this post, which explores such an experience (I show how one can 'create' such an experience in little over 10 minutes, without having to meditate for days).

 

[PIT2]

What is 'creating'? We merely see an interchange between the natural world, and us human beings, and since human beings are part of the natural world, this is like saying that the natural worlds interacts with itself, which it always does.

Creating, shaping, etc. it doesn't matter, the point is that subjectivity influences matter. Whether this subjectivity actually initiates completely new quantum events, or completely novel ideas, dreamworlds, etc. doesn't matter for now. U say its natural, and i agree, and this also demonstrates that the idea of a god is not in principle supernatural. If its natural when our own minds do it, why would it be supernatural when it happens at some other point in time, for instance at the moment of the big bang.

The idea of matter in a world without consciouss beings would be absent.
Matter is an abstract categorie of thought. There is no distinction between matter and consciousness in a world without consciouss beings.

I agree, matter as we know it is just the properties we have observed it to have. However, those properties which u hold to be fundamental, do not in any way describe the act of observing. Thats why materialism only tells half the story of what's going on.

The issue is wether matter is primary or not, and not mind. I hold on to the idea that that is the case.

But u think materialism justifies claiming that atheism does not require faith?

There is nothing in this experience that contradicts materialism. It would be like saying that the consciouss experience would provide evidence against materialism. I does not, it only proofs the existence of subjective feelings, experiences and knowledge.

Of course conscious experience is evidence against materialism. The red dot in the room is evidence that the room isn't all blue. U are using the basic assumption of materialism(brain produces consciousness), as an argument for materialism!

 

[PIT2]

Here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486

Always interesting these interviews. Its important to realize that Dennetts ideas are highly speculative. Not that other ideas arent, but this means it requires faith to believe in them, and thus atheism dependent on his ideas does too.

With my link i wanted to show u that the relation between brain and experience can be interpreted in other ways than the materialist one. The guy speaking in it describes (partly in the interview but also in his papers) how we ultimately decide whether something is 'real' or not.

 

[heusdens]

Creating, shaping, etc. it doesn't matter, the point is that subjectivity influences matter. Whether this subjectivity actually initiates completely new quantum events, or completely novel ideas, dreamworlds, etc. doesn't matter for now. U say its natural, and i agree, and this also demonstrates that the idea of a god is not in principle supernatural. If its natural when our own minds do it, why would it be supernatural when it happens at some other point in time, for instance at the moment of the big bang.

Neither our mindly experience nor the moment of the big bang are in any way mysterious or "special" events.

I agree, matter as we know it is just the properties we have observed it to have. However, those properties which u hold to be fundamental, do not in any way describe the act of observing. Thats why materialism only tells half the story of what's going on.

Partly there you are right here, since we need to think of matter in a dialectical way. The activity of life and conscioussness is what in fact causes this separation of consciousness and subjective minds and the outside, external material world (that what is reflected in our consciousness). They form in fact a dialectical unity of opposites, in which neither exists without the other, they have no separate meaning.

But u think materialism justifies claiming that atheism does not require faith?

Of course conscious experience is evidence against materialism. The red dot in the room is evidence that the room isn't all blue. U are using the basic assumption of materialism(brain produces consciousness), as an argument for materialism!

It is more drastic and radical then that. The red dot only exists because the rest of the room is blue and vice versa. You need to think of them (consciousness, versus matter) in a dialectical way as a unity of opposites.
The same is to say there is no objectivity without subjectivity, no light without dark, no positive without negative, etc. Both determine each other and can not exist without each other.

So in this way conscioussness does not disproof materialism (nor does materialism disproof consciousness), and both can be united as dialectical materialism.

 

[Marghk]

Well, I'm not going to make the obvious "What came before God" statement, cause I'm more than sure you have pondered this yourself.

Myself, as an atheist. I believe in it due to a larger quater of realism in the big bang theory. Personally, its just because I find it hard that a god existed/exist's. I'm more a man of science than religon.

I'm not asking something from 'God' like some atheists do. But I do find it a bit sceptical to put such enormous faith into a book, the main recognition of Jesus, God and beleived creation of man kind.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly wish I still beleived in a religon. Knowing that there is a God(s) looking over me and allowing me into an eternity of happiness is somewhat a good feeling, I wish I could go back to when I beleived in Christianity.

But for now, evidence will pile up... I don't think I'll ever be in another religous group than atheism.

 

[Raza]

Religion does not negate the big-bang theory, learning how the universe is made is not blasphemy. It's just like learning about mountains are made. I believe that the big-bang did happen BUT the power to make the universe was given by God. I was watching Brian Greene 2 days ago and he said that the big-bang happened thousand times faster than the speed of light, now that just doesn't happen randomly.

 

[ray b]

if there is a god why all the very different religions
and every religion split into many sub cults

if man made god it is normal for every man to make a different god
as every man has different ideas and ideals

no god cults are the same without contact between the cults
ie the one god cult moved from egypt to the so call holy land and then to
the saudi lands all close to each other both in time and distance
NO WHERE ELSE had a one god cult except imported versions of these
this clearly shows one man invented or revised the cults at a single time and place
king tuts dad to moses to paul/saul to mohamed and no hand of god
behind the cults beliefs just the teaching of a single man in each stage
and many splits into subcults following the teachings of other men over time

now if every or even a large number of tribes over the world
had independant home grown cults with beliefs that were near the same
I could see a god behind them who taught man a belief
BUT THAT NEVER HAPPEND
man taught man the beliefs only after contact
and never met a near same cult anywhere
that was a independant creation

SO MAN MADE GODS all types and never two the same

 

[Raza]

if there is a god why all the very different religions
and every religion split into many sub cults

if man made god it is normal for every man to make a different god
as every man has different ideas and ideals

no god cults are the same without contact between the cults
ie the one god cult moved from egypt to the so call holy land and then to
the saudi lands all close to each other both in time and distance
NO WHERE ELSE had a one god cult except imported versions of these
this clearly shows one man invented or revised the cults at a single time and place
king tuts dad to moses to paul/saul to mohamed and no hand of god
behind the cults beliefs just the teaching of a single man in each stage
and many splits into subcults following the teachings of other men over time

now if every or even a large number of tribes over the world
had independant home grown cults with beliefs that were near the same
I could see a god behind them who taught man a belief
BUT THAT NEVER HAPPEND
man taught man the beliefs only after contact
and never met a near same cult anywhere
that was a independant creation

SO MAN MADE GODS all types and never two the same

I believe your opinion is very valid but let me tell you something.

We as Muslims believe that Judaism WAS the right religion, until it was corrupted,(so all the True Jews between Judaism and Christianity went to the heaven) and Christianity WAS the right religion until it too was corrupted (so all the true Christian between Christianity and Islam went to the heaven).

And also, I sometimes take out my religion (so forgetting about Jesus, Moses etc..) and only think about life and ask myself, How can a universe be created without no one building it? I simply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

I somply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.

This boundary that you have constructed emerges out of your fundamental presuppositions and assumptions about reality. Until you transcend the notion that nature itself, requires a creator, our models of logic will remain incommeasurable.

This has no logical implications, merely speculation and intuivie rambles so don't treat this rigorously.

Let's consider the writing of Jean-Paul Sartre for a moment, which will be from memory so please correct any errors. If one is to forgo the concept of god for a moment, an interesting perspective about reality develops. Assuming the nonexistance of god, we shall proceed to an analogy.

If one chooses to construct a chair, one must first, initiate the concept of the chair so that one can physically design the chair. This is referred to as, 'essence.' After the concept of the chair has been considered, one must create the chair. This is referred to as, 'existence.'

In this particular analogy, 'essence precedes existence,' or the concept of the chair had to be created before the construction of the chair could begin. However, Sartre said that 'subjectivity is the starting point' and that in relation to man, 'existence precedes essence.'

What this means is that constructivist realities (things we create), are contigent upon our subjective conception of a particular property of a constructivist reality, in order for it to come into fruition. However, man is different. Man appears on the scene and then defines himself and everything around him.

We define ourselves as humans, we define a tree to be a tree, we axiomatically construct formal logic systems such as mathematics, etc. We project our own subjective perceptions of the universe, onto itself.

We decide that things require a beginning and we decide that it's impossible for the universe to exist independent of a creator. The notion that this universe existed prior to our inception into the universe, shouldn't be hard to grasp and the notion that we define the universe shouldn't be difficult either.

If that logic follows, then it doesn't seem like a leap to conclude that 'existence precedes essence,' as everything that hasn't naturally existed independent of human mind, is a subset of our existence. There is nothing to define us that we are cognizant of, other than ourselves.

Once you deconstruct your subjective projection of the requirement for a creator, new and alternate perspectives emerge. I personally can't imagine some dude chillen somewhere made the universe as depicted in many religions. I also have a hard time believing that the entire universe was created specifically for this island of a rock we call Earth.

I see no reason for a creator, other than our own projection of that requirement. I am a deterministic byproduct of nature, with absolutely no man made influence.

Now, if we wish to treat this discussion with rigorous logic, I am down for a discussion. Otherwise, we can keep it casual.

 

[out of whack]

How can a universe be created without no one building it? I simply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

How did I forget to throw that one in! :)

OCCAMS RAZOR!

 

[moe darklight]

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

that's what always gets to me

if the universe is "too complex" to create itself (which is kind of an over-simplified statement, but anyway..), then how could a god so much more infinitely complex than the universe (a conscious, feeling, thinking, all knowing, infinitely wise god) have created itself?

or if god can have always existed, why can't reality have always existed... or if god exists outside of time... etc...

the only logical explanation (following the religious logic that is: that everything must have a creator or a designer greater than itself), would be for God to have been designed by an even greater, wiser, all-knowinger, SuperGod! and that super god would have to have been created by an even more infinitely wiserer, all knowingerer super-supergod, and so on.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.

 

[Raza]

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

Who says I believe that God is made by himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.

 

[out of whack]

Who says I believe that God is made my himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.

Well, "made by something else" would pretty much disqualify god as creator...

 

[moe darklight]

Who says I believe that God is made my himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.

either way, it doesn't work out logically:
- if god created itself, then that negates your reason to need a god to create the universe in the first place (that is: things, including the universe, CAN create themselves or spontaneously occur).

- if God needed a creator, then God's creator also needed a creator, and so on... ad infinitum, and no god is the true god (in this way too, the universe could be created without the need of a god: multi-verse theories, etc.)

either way, God is redundant. ... and either way both god and no god are a possibility. what is left after that is look at all the available evidence and come to a conclusion.

it's no coincidence the vast majority of scientists are agnostic or atheists: all the evidence points towards God being highly improbable, not needed, and a man-made concept.

no one can say for sure that there is no god, but most scientists will agree that god is simply very unlikely (and even more unlikely is for god to not only exist, but for anyone to pick or be born into the religion that happened to have chosen the true identity of god! -- remember: just as much as you KNOW that islam is true and christianity is not, christians KNOW that christianity is true and islam is not, jews KNOW that judaism is true and christianity is not, scientologists KNOW that scientology is true... )

We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.

if only that were true... most religious people will admit that they obviously can't be 100% sure of god, and that it's simply what they chose as most probable/help them cope with life/model their values after and so on -- just as most atheists will admit that they can't be 100% sure that god does not exist.
but there are those who do believe beyond shadow of a doubt the word of their god. their mind has been taken over so badly by this belief system that they will shut down (and even punish themselves for) any thought that questions its existence: fanatics, martyrs, etc.

they are a minority, yes... but there's more than enough of them, in more than enough countries, of enough contradicting religions, near enough "red buttons" for it to be very dangerous.

 

[turbo]

We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.

Thank you. Theism and atheism are equally indefensible, for the same reasons. They both elevate the concept of god to the same level - the former in affirmation and the latter in negation. It is pure hubris to claim any certainty in this matter. The televangelist fiercely squinting his eyes as he "prays" on TV and the "rational" atheist who proclaims that there is no god are but two sides of the same coin.

Agnosticism is not an expression of doubt and uncertainty - it is the acknowledgment that some things cannot be known, and that questions in such matters are philosophical at heart, speculative in nature, and not answerable in practice. So many religions, so much certainty...if only MY belief is right, WHY is MY belief right, and all the others wrong? A question that might have saved millions of lives if answered honestly...