Atheism: What Happened Before the Big Bang?

[moe darklight]

Why don't we start on the FORUM RULES here. Perhaps the part that states NO ad hominem. Before that however it may be Pertinent that you read my posts again, and show everyone where I stated I believed in anything? So we can add Strawman to the ad hominem can we?

If you can't debate like an Adult I guess Physics forums isn't really the place for you.

fair enough. I apologize and I deleted those types of comments I wrote them in the heat of the moment.

I don't know you personally or what your beliefs are, I was only making a counter-argument on the statements I've quoted because their logic is faulty. they are the types of arguments that I usually get form religious folk who are ignorant to the sciences so I assumed the same for you. it may or may not be true, i don't know you other than from those posts. sorry

 

[heusdens]

Well spotted, that is my argument. But I am not redefining any meaning.

You on the other hand are taking a jump of faith and saying you are sure of something, which you can't be sure of, which you can't even test with any scientific methodology. If I paint a picture on a Very large bit of paper, and I give you the bottom right hand corner, and ask you to tell me what did I paint on the rest of the paper. You can guess, you can take your logical reasoning and attempt to figure it out, but you can't know. So to say you are SURE you know is IMHO a leap of faith. Same goes for saying you are an Atheist, you are choosing to believe that there is no God, which is a belief system.

I don't reflect on myself as being an atheist, but as a materialist.

A materialist reasons that all what manifests itself in the world and can be known directly or indirectly by our sense organs, is a manifestation of matter in motion. Matter is itself indestructable and uncreatable ie. is eternal.

Your argument is this: since we can only see a part of nature, and nature itself has no bounds or limits, it is obvious we never see the whole of nature.

That is of course correct. And same for you and anyone else, we never see the hole picture.

But how does that conclude you that when supposedly we could see all of nature (which is impossible) this would lead us to believe or conclude there is a God?

Your case or argument is then rather absurd, as you then argue that a proof for God is by definition impossible, since we never can see the whole picture.

So, the question is then, what reason do we have then to believe that is the case?

I can only believe that something is the case, if there is a reason from which I can and must conclude that, and all your argument says then that it might be the case if we could be in the position to see the whole picture, which we never can. So if you already conclude we never can make conclusions, what necessity is there then to make the conclusion?

In any way, I do not have to proof something (ie. I am not placed in the position for having to proof a negative), but those who make positive existence claims, have the task to do that. They did not make their case convincingly.

The reason we do not conclude that there is a God is that this description of God can't be true.

You are for example erroneous in assuming that this "whole picture" could somehow resemble God, since it is already a false conclusion, since the description of God is not anything like the "whole picture".

Instead, you would have to argue for the painter of the picture, which is still absent, even if we can see the whole picture. The reasoning from religion is something like that the picture we do see and it's very existence requires there to be also a painter, with attributed properties.

The very reason that we don't believe there is a God, is that it takes us to believe that the material world was created from a mind (omnipotent and omniscient), which would have existed from all eternity and then at some point in time created the material world.

This belief system however is very much in contradiction with nature, since for example in the absence of matter, neither does time or space exist, and in the absence of matter there is very little room for mind to exist.

The position of this being would then be rather strange, since it would be the sole and unique being, which would not have it's nature outside of itself, and in the absence of anything outside this being, it's objective existence is something of doubtfull, since clearly the situation is absent of objective relations.

The only logical conclusion is that this artificial construct of human thought can not exist and it is very unreasonable to think it can. So, instead of thinking that God created the world, it is far more reasonable to suggest that God is created by man, as a fiction of thought. God is a product of human thinking and not the other way around.

 

[PIT2]

Everything we can call "fine tuned" and we may wonder about it.
Wether or not it is something rare or special, is dependent on our perception.

Yes it depends on our perception. Some people say that the universe is so well suited for life, because it was made for life. Others say that it is so well suited for life, because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to notice it, and that there exist infinite other universes without observers. How can either be sure of their view?

To me this is whole issue, invoking all kind of "special conditions" is just a matter of perception on this. As we know that our univere and our form of life is a possibility, and if during eternity all possibilities will show up one time, there is nothing mysterious abour our existence.

Then we agree that it is a matter of perception and 'if's'.

Mind is better described as a function of the brain. Like the heart is a pump for our blood, the digestion system for digesting food, and the liver to get rid of waste products, the lunges to deliver oxygen, etc.

What do u think is the function of our experiences. Plz read this eel example which has to do with ur comments about the heart as a pump:

In comparison, an electric eel has body organs which evolved to make use of something much more fundamental than a bird's wings. We might say the function of that organ is to kill prey or as a means of self defense. But the organ requires an electrical charge be generated in order to produce the phenomenon which it is known for so any equal function will not produce the phenomenon. For example, the eel could maintain the functions of killing or defending by biting but that doesn't utilize the same fundamental physical feature of nature. Note that here I'm suggesting that consciousness is analogous to an electric charge such that any functionally similar organ which doesn't use electric charge won't be able to produce the phenomenon of consciousness.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=112847&page=2

I don't understand the rest of your statement, what is your argument?

My argument is that atheism is a faith. If some person calls himself an aphysicalist, and says that he rules out any mechanistic, physical cause as the origin of the universe, then this person has a faith aswell. In atheism, in order to rule out mind involved in the origin of universe, one has to explain and get rid of our own minds first.

Could you unambiguously define "intelligent/purposeful cause"?

I can try: an experience being causally involved in the origin of the universe.

 

[Anttech]

In atheism, in order to rule out mind involved in the origin of universe, one has to explain and get rid of our own minds first.

Interesting, but are you not then saying that we are god, or rather the creator? How do you equate that one must get rid of our own *mind* to get rid of the *creator's* mind?

I agree that Atheism is a faith, but I am not sure I follow your reasoning.

 

[PIT2]

Interesting, but are you not then saying that we are god, or rather the creator? How do you equate that one must get rid of our own *mind* to get rid of the *creator's* mind?

I think any concept of god has similarities with our own minds. God is always seen as a conscious, intelligent being, he is a mind. If we were capable of explaining away those aspects, then all the rest of god would crumble as well - u can't have a god that punishes/loves/has purpose, without any mind.

 

[Moridin]

Interesting, but are you not then saying that we are god, or rather the creator? How do you equate that one must get rid of our own *mind* to get rid of the *creator's* mind?

I agree that Atheism is a faith, but I am not sure I follow your reasoning.

Atheism is hardly a so called 'faith'. Faith is based on believing something and can be defined as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"¹.

Let's define a system in which an idea is brought forth. In this system, there are people, who before this, had no idea whatsoever about the idea. The idea has no evidence for it and is shared with everyone in the system. Some of them choose to believe it, while some choose not to believe or choose not to concern themselves with the idea, because it lacks proof. The people that believe in the idea have faith in that it is correct, even without evidence. By not holding something that has no supporting evidence or even the ability to formulate a correct scientific hypothesis for a fact, people are applying the scientific method to some extent. They do not have any faith or belief, because both have just about the same definition as citied above.

As a result, atheists do not have any faith at all, at least not the ones who apply a scientific method, with is probably a significant portion of them.


¹ http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith
[/size]

 

[Hurkyl]

Some of them choose to believe it, while some choose not to believe or choose not to concern themselves with the idea, because it lacks proof.

Nobody is suggesting that the agnostic position is based in faith.

Some people choose to deny the idea. They believe the idea is wrong, even without evidence.

 

[heusdens]

Interesting, but are you not then saying that we are god, or rather the creator? How do you equate that one must get rid of our own *mind* to get rid of the *creator's* mind?

I agree that Atheism is a faith, but I am not sure I follow your reasoning.

In what way is atheism a faith? Perhaps you could explain that to us?

 

[Hurkyl]

In what way is atheism a faith? Perhaps you could explain that to us?

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.

 

[heusdens]

Yes it depends on our perception. Some people say that the universe is so well suited for life, because it was made for life. Others say that it is so well suited for life, because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to notice it, and that there exist infinite other universes without observers. How can either be sure of their view?

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.

My argument is that atheism is a faith. If some person calls himself an aphysicalist, and says that he rules out any mechanistic, physical cause as the origin of the universe, then this person has a faith aswell. In atheism, in order to rule out mind involved in the origin of universe, one has to explain and get rid of our own minds first.

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

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.

The basis proposition you have to take (which can be logically concluded) is that there is matter which is neither destructable nor createble (but can of course be transformed into different forms). Matter and motion are inseperatable, thus matter requires time and space (or perhaps better expressed: it creates space and time).

Now everything that can be exlained physically is just describing and observing the way matter changes, transforms, moves, etc.

For physics it is simply impossible not to assume there is something materially there that is in motion and therefore requires some formulation for space and time. This does not in any way mean that we require there something specifically materially there (for instance, the existence of matter in the form of particles - bosons, fermions, baryonic matter - but just that some form of matter exists) to be existent. A vacuum is still something in the sense that it contains fields, and is therefore material in essence (they come with a space and time description).

It is sometimes confusing (the least to say) that some cosmological or physical theories speak quite literally about material motions formed from or caused by "nothing" (since "nothing" is not a physical state, but the absence of any physical state), since on further inspection all these theories do in fact refer to a material state in which, although perhaps very little or very primitive forms of matter/motion takes place, but at least enough to be able to speak about space and time.

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.

Looking for causes of matter itself, is quite simply something absurd, because outside of matter, there isn't anything.

Now the logical conclusion for this is that - were we not assuming this - we would need to think that matter then somehow was created by something entirely different then matter. Which is then sometimes explained that mind formed matter.

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.

 

[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.