Atheism: What Happened Before the Big Bang?

[PIT2]

It doesn't require me to have faith for me being an atheist. It's a false assumption to state that being an atheist requires faith. Despite your "personal feelings". If atheism requires one to have faith, then atheism would not be atheism (by definition), therefore your remark is self-contradictionary.

How have u defined atheism? Believing nothing?

See also my previous post why I argue that there isn't any reason one could assume that the existence of a deity is a necessary or reasonable explenation.

What if we drop the assumption that mind is an emergent property of matter, which is what separates origin of mind in a temporal sense from origin of universe?

 

[heusdens]

How have u defined atheism? Believing nothing?

I don't think that to believe in something contradicts atheism, since it is the case we don't have complete knowledge, so sometimes we make assumptions for which we don't have sufficient reason/knowledge. This assumption we may qualify as a belief.

[ For example, assume you forgot your key and you can't remember where you left it. For that reason you make for instance the assumption that you left it on your table, although you are not sure about it. ]

So, sometime we belief something is the case for which we don't have sufficient proof.
I think it is quite natural and part of our natural being to make sometimes decission on insufficient proof, and this may well relate to our evolutionary origin. If we would only take action in cases in which we have sufficient proof, maybe that would have caused negative outcomes for survival chances.

Atheism is a category of world outlooks which don't start out or are based on the idea that a supernatural being or deity created the world.

However, I don't consider myself to be an atheist (although my worldoutlook may certainly be classified as such) but as a materialist, which takes the stand that matter is primary, and consciousness is secundary.

What if we drop the assumption that mind is an emergent property of matter, which is what separates origin of mind in a temporal sense from origin of universe?

What is mind, if not dependend on properties of matter? We know our mind is material in essence, else this would mean that my mind could not effect the material and could not be aware of the material world, and I could not move, speak, or do anything with material effects.

Such a mind would then in principle be undetectable, which makes it non-sensical to assume.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't have to give a "proof" that deities don't exist as in general one can not proof a negative

If you can't "proof" a negative, then isn't your belief in said negative based on faith?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

What if we drop the assumption that mind is an emergent property of matter, which is what separates origin of mind in a temporal sense from origin of universe?

If you wish to postulate a duality between mind and body, you must address the long standing Problem of Interactionism.

How does an immaterial mind causally interact with a material body?

 

[heusdens]

If you can't "proof" a negative, then isn't your belief in said negative based on faith?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I said I don't have to proof the non-existence of a deity. It is not a requirement.

The reason for why not to believe in a deity is that there is no reason to assume it exists.

That is already satisfactory, since said deity has no reason to exist, unless necessary.

So a deity that exists despite it not being necessary the case is self contradictionary.

 

[heusdens]

How does an immaterial mind causally interact with a material body?

Because *mind* is material !

 

[PIT2]

Atheism is a category of world outlooks which don't start out or are based on the idea that a supernatural being or deity created the world.

Would u say that atheism implies believing that no intelligent/purposeful cause was involved in the origin of the universe?

What is mind, if not dependend on properties of matter? We know our mind is material in essence, else this would mean that my mind could not effect the material and could not be aware of the material world, and I could not move, speak, or do anything with material effects.

No that doesn't have to be so, it only demonstrates interaction between mind and matter. It doesn't say that matter is primal, or mind is primal, or how deep mind extends into the physical even if it does emerge from it, or whether both are flipsides of the same coin no matter what configuration the physical takes and so have existed equally long, or they both come from some 'neutral substance' which is neither objective nor subjective but something different/inbetween/both.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Because *mind* is material !

I share your position, I am simply posing the question to PIT2.

No that doesn't have to be so, it only demonstrates interaction between mind and matter. It doesn't say that matter is primal, or mind is primal, or how deep mind extends into the physical even if it does emerge from it, or whether both are flipsides of the same coin no matter what configuration the physical takes and so have existed equally long, or they both come from some 'neutral substance' which is neither objective nor subjective but something different/inbetween/both.

Of course this argument is based on assumptions, however, it seems logical to use the least amount of unverified assumptions as possible.

Perhaps this analogy might make better sense:

When one considers water, one can determine various properties of the water. One significant emergent property of water is it's wetness. When discussing the property of wetness, it does not make logical sense to separate this property from water and treat it as an independent and tangible object. Instead, we discuss wetness as a property of the chemical structure of the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Consciousness can be considered an emergent property of the brain and in this sense is inextricably, interconnected to the architecture of the brain. When considering consciousness as a property of the physical brain in the same regard one considers wetness as a property of water, one can see a dilemma.

Matter alone does not posses consciousness, however, when arranged in a specific physical pattern or structure, consciousness emerges.

This dilemma arises out of the etymology of the word 'consciousness' as 'ness' implies a substance or that consciousness is some tangible object separate from the brain. However, it doesn't make sense to separate these two as consciousness is an emergent property of the brain's architecture.

Hydrogen and oxygen alone, do not possesses wetness (as far as I know), however, through their synthesis, wetness arises. Wetness is dependent upon the chemical structure.

In this sense, it doesn't make much sense to assume consciousness merely emerges out of matter, instead, it is more appropriate to consider consciousness as a unique property of the brain's architecture. We know if we alter the electro biochemical properties of the brain or it's physical structure, we can drastically effect consciousness.

In this respect, we eliminate the Problem of Interactionism because we do not postulate consciousness as something seperate.

When you discuss consciousness, you treat it as though it is an object. You are your consciousness. As you expore what consciousness is, it is in fact your consciousness (you) that is trying to understand itself.

There is a flaw in language which separates these things into separate substances.

 

[heusdens]

Would u say that atheism implies believing that no intelligent/purposeful cause was involved in the origin of the universe?

No, not necessarily, I think.

But that is some far fetched and infers some specific cosmologic theory (cosmological inflation) which, acc. to the founder of that theory, Andrei Linde, would make it in principle possible to "create" a universe in a laboratory .

This however would not imply a "begin" of the cosmos at large, but just creating a baby universe.

Personally I think it is a bit far fetched to make that assumption, I think Andrei Linde brought that idea up to ridicule religion.

No that doesn't have to be so, it only demonstrates interaction between mind and matter. It doesn't say that matter is primal, or mind is primal, or how deep mind extends into the physical even if it does emerge from it, or whether both are flipsides of the same coin no matter what configuration the physical takes and so have existed equally long, or they both come from some 'neutral substance' which is neither objective nor subjective but something different/inbetween/both.

Sorry, I don't follow this.

My argument is that mind is inconceivable without matter and must be material in essence. Unless mind itself is material in essence, it *can't* interact with matter.
The only mind we know of are minds of humans (and perhaps to a lesser extend of other living organisms). We know matter is much older then any mind we know of or can think of.

A mind which would not be based on matter is something inconceivable.

 

[heusdens]

I share your position, I am simply posing the question to PIT2.

I acknowledge that!

 

[PIT2]

Hydrogen and oxygen alone, do not possesses wetness (as far as I know), however, through their synthesis, wetness arises. Wetness is dependent upon the chemical structure.

But there is no 'wetness'. Each property of 'wetness' is reducible to the hydrogen and oxygen and further down to the electrons and protons, etc(in the end wetness is still just motion). The reason we think of wetness as something different from motion, is because of our minds. To a retard incapable of any reductionist reasoning, the whole world can seem full of fundamentally different parts. To an omniscient genius, the world would look like one single blurry substance from which he understands how all else derives. U can see that the difference is only in their minds abilities to reduce. But how can that mind itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?

Im not saying that mind is not emergent from matter, just that this is a metaphysical question, and it is just as problematic as the other options. It takes faith to think of that one as truth, and judge the other ones (which could logically lead to the idea that subjectivity was involved in the origin of the universe) as nontrue.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

But there is no 'wetness'. Each property of 'wetness' is reducible to the hydrogen and oxygen and further down to the electrons and protons, etc(in the end wetness is still just motion). The reason we think of wetness as something different from motion, is because of our minds. To a retard incapable of any reductionist reasoning, the whole world can seem full of fundamentally different parts. To an omniscient genius, the world would look like one single blurry substance from which he understands how all else derives. U can see that the difference is only in their minds abilities to reduce. But how can that mind itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?

Im not saying that mind is not emergent from matter, just that this is a metaphysical question, and it is just as problematic as the other options. It takes faith to think of that one as truth, and judge the other ones (which could logically lead to the idea that subjectivity was involved in the origin of the universe) as nontrue.

You essentially just deconstructed the whole of macrocosmic reality down into a simple component of motion, ignoring the physical phenomena and properties that emerge. Using your logic, nothing exists except for quantum entities zipping around in endless patterns and combinations.

You are denying the existence of complexity and organization as real components and consider them to be essentially illusions.

I have no idea where you are going with this but I would be glad to help develop your argument, it might have some logical foundation. I haven't heard anyone critique my view of consciousness in such a way so this should be interesting.

 

[PIT2]

But that is some far fetched and infers some specific cosmologic theory (cosmological inflation) which, acc. to the founder of that theory, Andrei Linde, would make it in principle possible to "create" a universe in a laboratory .

This however would not imply a "begin" of the cosmos at large, but just creating a baby universe.

Thats one possibility. Another one was mentioned by Paul Davies when he talked about retrocausality. He suggested that human beings right now might have some retrocausal effect even on the big bang, and that this could be why the universe was so finely tuned for life. But there are also other options. It depends on what u define as supernatural or deity.

My argument is that mind is inconceivable without matter and must be material in essence. Unless mind itself is material in essence, it *can't* interact with matter.

Even if so, and even if mind is the result of computation, brains arent the only material structures in the universe, or the only places where computation takes place. Depending on how deep mind originates in the complexity matter can also have an influence on where it is to be found.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Also, it is only a metaphysical concern when one assumes that consciousness is something more than physical.

I would like you to demonstrate one immaterial substance which would give you a logical reason to assume an extra component of reality.

My contention is that the immaterial emerges through the expression of language and is not present in reality. I welcome your rebuttal.

 

[heusdens]

But there is no 'wetness'. Each property of 'wetness' is reducible to the hydrogen and oxygen and further down to the electrons and protons, etc(in the end wetness is still just motion). The reason we think of wetness as something different from motion, is because of our minds.

Wetness is a sensory perception, which we catagorize in our mind as such. Wetness is not just the property of water, but how it acts on our skin and causes this sensory perceptions.

To a retard incapable of any reductionist reasoning, the whole world can seem full of fundamentally different parts. To an omniscient genius, the world would look like one single blurry substance from which he understands how all else derives. U can see that the difference is only in their minds abilities to reduce. But how can that mind itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?

I'm not following this.

For instance, an omniscient genius, to which the world is a single blurry, for that same reason that he perceives it as such, can not understand how "all else" derives, since there is no "all else" in his/her/it's perception. So this "omniscient genius" would in fact have little, or no knowledge at all about the world, since all would be a indeferiantated single blurr, from which nothing at all could be infered.

So, this makes no sense to me at all.

The last sentence really surpasses my ability to comprehend what you mean: "How can that mind itself itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?"

Don't know what you mean by that. Minds are not results of 'minds ability to reduce', but instead minds are results of very long lasting evolutionary and biological processes. Any mind we know of this far at least.

Im not saying that mind is not emergent from matter, just that this is a metaphysical question, and it is just as problematic as the other options. It takes faith to think of that one as truth, and judge the other ones (which could logically lead to the idea that subjectivity was involved in the origin of the universe) as nontrue.

What "other options". I don't get it. What is problematic about the understanding that mind can not be separate and not something entirely different as matter, but just requires some very specific material configuration?

So far we don't see any problems with that, the only problems we face here is that we can not comprehend you!

 

[PIT2]

You essentially just deconstructed the whole of macrocosmic reality down into a simple component of motion, ignoring the physical phenomena and properties that emerge. Using your logic, nothing exists except for quantum entities zipping around in endless patterns and combinations.

I didnt say the properties arent real, i said that the properties emerge from it, and that the more powerful minds we have, the better we would be able to reduce properties into lower level properties. Physicalism holds that only one substance exists, but what this actually is when fully reduced i couldn't guess.

You are denying the existence of complexity and organization as real components and consider them to be essentially illusions.

I don't neccesarily hold that view myself. I have tried reasoning if a single property-less substance makes any sense, whether it is even a substance at all, but i didnt get far enough to have a view on this.

 

[heusdens]

Thats one possibility. Another one was mentioned by Paul Davies when he talked about retrocausality. He suggested that human beings right now might have some retrocausal effect even on the big bang, and that this could be why the universe was so finely tuned for life. But there are also other options. It depends on what u define as supernatural or deity.

I don't see any reason to assume any fine tuning. We simply exist under the conditions which makes our form of life possible. It would therefore be an impossibility for the universe (the part we can know about) to exist in any other form (for instance in a form not allowing stellar formation or atoms to exist, or stable planetary orbits, etc. etc.), because then we would not be what we are, or not exist at all.

There is no fine tuning. We are a possibility and therefore we do exist.
In an infinite universe (eternal in time and unlimited/unbounded in extend) that sometimes happens... It is not something unusual.

It becomes only unusual or very unlikely, when you make weird assumptions about the universe, but that is merely a deception.

Even if so, and even if mind is the result of computation, brains arent the only material structures in the universe, or the only places where computation takes place. Depending on how deep mind originates in the complexity matter can also have an influence on where it is to be found.

I don't follow this.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

While I am a materialist, I do not embrace the notion of computationalism as the sole engineer of consciousness. However, regardless of 'how' consciousness emerges out of the brain's architecture, the general conclusion that consciousness is physical, still remains.

However, let's return back to the discussion of consciousness as material or immaterial.

 

[PIT2]

Wetness is a sensory perception, which we catagorize in our mind as such. Wetness is not just the property of water, but how it acts on our skin and causes this sensory perceptions.

Yes that's my point, its just the same lower level properties, just our minds which view it as something 'new'.

For instance, an omniscient genius, to which the world is a single blurry, for that same reason that he perceives it as such, can not understand how "all else" derives, since there is no "all else" in his/her/it's perception. So this "omniscient genius" would in fact have little, or no knowledge at all about the world, since all would be a indeferiantated single blurr, from which nothing at all could be infered.

So, this makes no sense to me at all.

Ok forget the omniscient part and consider normal human beings. We are capable of reducing things to lower level properties. But if we were halfway evolved between our apelike ancestors and homo sapiens, then our reductionistic reasoning would be less powerful. We would see fire, and think it is a fundamental property. Same with water, earth, etc. Isnt it the view of physicalists that everything can be reduced to the physical and its fundamental properties, but that our minds are simply holding us back from seeing it?

The last sentence really surpasses my ability to comprehend what you mean: "How can that mind itself itself be the result of the minds ability to reduce?"

Don't know what you mean by that.

It applies to the example of wetness as something 'new' (which was used as an analogy for our minds). Wetness as 'something new' is a result of our minds viewing it as such (when we look at wetness closer with our human intellect, we see that wetness is just the same lower level properties at work). And this can't be the case with our minds as 'something new'.

What "other options". I don't get it. What is problematic about the understanding that mind can not be separate and not something entirely different as matter, but just requires some very specific material configuration?

Besides materialism/physicalism(which u think is true) and dualism, there also exist subjective idealism, panpsychism, panexperientalism, neutral monism, and i don't know what else.

 

[PIT2]

I don't see any reason to assume any fine tuning. We simply exist under the conditions which makes our form of life possible. It would therefore be an impossibility for the universe (the part we can know about) to exist in any other form (for instance in a form not allowing stellar formation or atoms to exist, or stable planetary orbits, etc. etc.), because then we would not be what we are, or not exist at all.

Many scientists agree that the universe appears finetuned for life. One of the explanations for this is the one u mention (anthropic principle i think). In string theory it is claimed there are something like 500 trillion billion etc, possible universes, and that the laws in each or most of those would render life impossible, except for ours (i don't agree that they could know what is required for life). String theory is criticised for this, because it doesn't explain why our universe is the way it is, it simple states that there exist almost infinite other universes that are different. It explains as much about a universe without any matter, as it does about ours.

I don't follow this.

U said that mind emerges from the brain. And i say brain is the same matter and forces that exist in the rest of the universe. So even if u say mind emerges from matter, that leaves the rest of the universe open for it to exist. The moon is made of matter...

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Ok forget the omniscient part and consider normal human beings. We are capable of reducing things to lower level properties. But if we were halfway evolved between our apelike ancestors and homo sapiens, then our reductionistic reasoning would be less powerful. We would see fire, and think it is a fundamental property. Same with water, earth, etc. Isnt it the view of physicalists that everything can be reduced to the physical and its fundamental properties, but that our minds are simply holding us back from seeing it?

I don't see how establishing an argument for the evolution of consciousness supports your contention. If we were to consider the perspective of a transition organism between 'ape' and 'homosapien' we would be confronted with very limited cognitive abilities.

The fact that as we have evolved and our consciousness has evolved, seems like direct evidence in support of consciousness as a property of the brain. Had consciousness been seperate, it would not rely on the brains evolution to dynamically expand itself, would it?

You posit that during a transitional stage, humanoids would have lacked the cognitive foresight and conscious awareness to reduce reality. As we evolve and our consciousness evolves, we gain better reductive skills. If the process continues exponentially, wouldn't it imply that we will in time, reduce consciousness fully?

I fail to see how demonstrating the evolution of consciousness in direct relation to the evolution of our species, proves an immaterial consciousness?

Is my perception severely distorted?

 

[PIT2]

Also, it is only a metaphysical concern when one assumes that consciousness is something more than physical.

I would like you to demonstrate one immaterial substance which would give you a logical reason to assume an extra component of reality.

Well, seriously, the burden of proof is on the ones claiming that it is physical. We can see/feel that there is an enormous difference between 'pain' and a rock, so I don't have to prove that they are different beyond comparison. Just ask urself how heavy the number 9 weighs. Its a meaningless question.

If matter is red, and experiences are blue, and we can all see the difference, then the ones claiming they are both red should demonstrate this. (it may be impossible though)

I do claim that experiences are not physical, and with physical i mean physical in the sense of what science currently thinks constitutes 'physical'. The comparison between that and experiences is still as meaningless as ever.

 

[Anttech]

I am happy with saying that time and space did not exist before the big bang, at least that is a starting point, god on the other hand, by the very definition of the concept, has no begining, this is a bit hard for me to swallow.

Hard to swallow like a dog getting taught derivative, like our muslim friend said

To you is religion, and to me is reason.

Atheism is not a religion... by its very definition Atheism is the complete opposite of religion... that atheism is just another religion is something that religious thinkers tell themselves and each other as a way of dismissing Atheism. Atheists don't have a belief system... i guess our only rule would be to lean towards whatever 'makes sense'.

Personally I think it is a belief system, where one doesn't believe in a deity. However I have seen it quoted as a state where one doesn't have theistic beliefs. Either way its core seems to be belief system, not so far removed in its structure to any other belief system. One cannot prove their is not deity, in the same way one cannot prove their is one, so it all come down to what you believe, or have faith in. So where does that leave your reasoning? If one is to reason about this logically to its end, one has to say: "I don't know"

So to say your reasoning lead you to be Atheist has to have included in it some acts of faith, unless of course you can now prove their isn't a God? Of course this leave what you said as a fallacy, (Ie To you is religion, and to me is reason) IMHO.

 

[PIT2]

You posit that during a transitional stage, humanoids would have lacked the cognitive foresight and conscious awareness to reduce reality. As we evolve and our consciousness evolves, we gain better reductive skills. If the process continues exponentially, wouldn't it imply that we will in time, reduce consciousness fully?

Look at my topic in this section about microbial consciousness. The scientists looking at those seem to be able to recognise a very primitive form of behaviour that is often considered unique to conscious beings. In other words its not clear how far mind goes back in evolution, and there is also no guarantee that it will be fully reduced when going back to the very first organism, or even before that. Of course if earlier animals have a very primitive form of consciousness, then the more complex they get, the more advanced their mental capacities will get.

Please if u reply about this, do it in that topic. Or else we go to far offtopic here.
Lets get back to what options atheism rules out.

 

[heusdens]

Yes that's my point, its just the same lower level properties, just our minds which view it as something 'new'.

Ok forget the omniscient part and consider normal human beings. We are capable of reducing things to lower level properties. But if we were halfway evolved between our apelike ancestors and homo sapiens, then our reductionistic reasoning would be less powerful. We would see fire, and think it is a fundamental property. Same with water, earth, etc. Isnt it the view of physicalists that everything can be reduced to the physical and its fundamental properties, but that our minds are simply holding us back from seeing it?

What is "physicalist"? I don't see myself as a physicalist but as a materialist.

A different mind (brain) sees the world different, and also a being with different sense organs, sees the world different.

That is true of course.

But how does that not concede with materialism?

I don't get it.

It applies to the example of wetness as something 'new' (which was used as an analogy for our minds). Wetness as 'something new' is a result of our minds viewing it as such (when we look at wetness closer with our human intellect, we see that wetness is just the same lower level properties at work). And this can't be the case with our minds as 'something new'.

It is not just the mind, but also the sense organs.

I don't understand your arguments, sorry.

Besides materialism/physicalism(which u think is true) and dualism, there also exist subjective idealism, panpsychism, panexperientalism, neutral monism, and i don't know what else.

And you didn't mention: the various religions, etc.
And solipsism (which is subjective idealism, I guess).

So?

 

[heusdens]

Many scientists agree that the universe appears finetuned for life. One of the explanations for this is the one u mention (anthropic principle i think). In string theory it is claimed there are something like 500 trillion billion etc, possible universes, and that the laws in each or most of those would render life impossible, except for ours (i don't agree that they could know what is required for life). String theory is criticised for this, because it doesn't explain why our universe is the way it is, it simple states that there exist almost infinite other universes that are different. It explains as much about a universe without any matter, as it does about ours.

What is "finetuning"?

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.

If you take any organism, you might wonder about how all the molecules in this organism fit together exactly so, and if only some things were different, this organism would not be living. So the amazing thing is, why at all is that living organism there, since it has a slight chance of occurring. However, the process of evolution sheads some light on how this can happen, but outside of that, this is not something one can comprehend.Anthropic principle is something used as a tool to get rid of all kind of options naturally emerging in cosmological theories, since they lead to different kind of universes.

I don't think anthropic principle is something of a principle of nature, just a way of reflecting on our existence and as a tool to describe or select from a number of possible cosmological theories.

If we can think of the universe as existing eternally, it is of course the case we are not that much interested what could have gone on during eternity, since infinite possibilities exist, we focus on those circumstances leading directly to our existence.

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.

U said that mind emerges from the brain. And i say brain is the same matter and forces that exist in the rest of the universe. So even if u say mind emerges from matter, that leaves the rest of the universe open for it to exist. The moon is made of matter...

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.

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

 

[heusdens]

Hard to swallow like a dog getting taught derivative, like our muslim friend said
Personally I think it is a belief system, where one doesn't believe in a deity. However I have seen it quoted as a state where one doesn't have theistic beliefs. Either way its core seems to be belief system, not so far removed in its structure to any other belief system. One cannot prove their is not deity, in the same way one cannot prove their is one, so it all come down to what you believe, or have faith in. So where does that leave your reasoning? If one is to reason about this logically to its end, one has to say: "I don't know"

pblackblack...

Isn't it simply a matter of definition?
Atheism is not a belief system, neither is science, and religion is.

That is how it is defined.

Or do you say - in your meaning of words - that somehow a scientist is someone that believes in the methods of science, and therefore science is a belief system?

In any case, we don't reflect on science as involving faith or believe.

Religion does however involve just that.

If you redefine words and meaning of things, then of course you can have it your way.
If you want to, you can define bald as a hair colour, or things like that.

If you make up your own definitions, then anything might yield true, isn't it?

 

[heusdens]

So to say your reasoning lead you to be Atheist has to have included in it some acts of faith, unless of course you can now prove their isn't a God?

Why do you want me to "proof" there isn't a God?

If you could just provide me one good reason to think there is, I might reflect on that, but to me there is no reason to think there is a God, and that pretty much suffices to me.

 

[Anttech]

pblackblack...

Back off, and stop being emotional, why is it that you feel you have to defend your belief system with such an emotional reaction?

First of Atheism is not science, the two are NOT THE SAME THING.

Or do you say - in your meaning of words - that somehow a scientist is someone that believes in the methods of science, and therefore science is a belief system?

No even if you want me to say that I dont, EVEN if it makes your argument easier to swallow .

I said, that you are acting in faith that their is no deity, because you cannot be sure there isnt. Atheism isn't a methodology, a means to conclude something. Its an Ideal, Science is a methodology, don't try and lump the two together.

If you redefine words and meaning of things, then of course you can have it your way.
If you want to, you can define bald as a hair colour, or things like that.

I am not redefine anything, what gives you that idea? You seem to think, correct me if I am wrong, that science and athiesm is one and the same thing. If this is what you think, then of course the correct definition of Atheism would to you seem like a redefinition.

This may help you conclude what Atheism really is:
http://www.google.be/search?q=defin...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[Anttech]

Why do you want me to "proof" there isn't a God?

If you could just provide me one good reason to think there is, I might reflect on that, but to me there is no reason to think there is a God, and that pretty much suffices to me.

I don't care if you don't prove there is or isn't a god. But until it is proven either way, we just don't know. So to be an Atheist or a Devote Deity follower of any variety would need that person to take a leap of faith to conclude either way. So both are belief systems, one the opposite of the other.

 

[heusdens]

Back off, and stop being emotional, why is it that you feel you have to defend your belief system with such an emotional reaction?

First of Atheism is not science, the two are NOT THE SAME THING.
No even if you want me to say that I dont, EVEN if it makes your argument easier to swallow .

Agree and I didn't state that.

I said, that you are acting in faith that their is no deity, because you cannot be sure there isnt.

How do you think I can not be sure about that?

I know I am sure of it.

Atheism isn't a methodology, a means to conclude something. Its an Ideal, Science is a methodology, don't try and lump the two together.

I am not redefine anything, what gives you that idea? You seem to think, correct me if I am wrong, that science and athiesm is one and the same thing. If this is what you think, then of course the correct definition of Atheism would to you seem like a redefinition.

This may help you conclude what Atheism really is:
http://www.google.be/search?q=defin...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

To argue that atheism is a religion or belief system is redefining meaning.

Your whole argument is that we can not be sure wether or not there exists a deity and any case it requires faith.

I don't agree with that.

To belief in a deity requires faith and a belief system.

 

[moe darklight]

hahaha this is like watching a dog chase it's own tail.

you just can't convince some religious people; they BELIEVE, and that is enough for them. they assume that atheism works the same way because they don't know any better, religion has affected their brain so badly that they can't see any way of reason outside of religion... religion is truly the HIV of the meme world.

the "prove there is not god" argument is, well, just plain dumb, because the concept of god was created to be impossible to disprove in its nature (like an invisible, mass-less, donkey... prove there isn't such a thing!).
what we CAN prove, is that god is a man-made concept, that the concept of god is inconsistent and has changed through time (even christianity, one of the newer religions)... we can prove that humans seem inclined to believe anything wrapped in a neat, religious package.

new religions emerge all the time: scientology... many christians laugh at scientology and how ridiculous it is... but the only difference between the two is 2000 years! remember: if you are a christian, you believe that there was a magical man who was god and the son of god at the same time, he created the heavens and the Earth (the Earth first... it's all in this book he wrote so that we all know how awesome-cool he is). he created humans so that he can send the good ones to heaven with him and the bad ones to a horrible place to suffer: because, how dare they give into the strong temptations he designed them to feel!
he impregnated his own mother so that she could give birth to him in human form, but without having sex! because sex is yucky!
knew he was going to die and be tortured ever since he was born but had it happen anyways so you can go to heaven, and then he came back to life and died again and is going to come back again some day to tell us how bad we've been while he was gone.
he also loves us all. and sometimes if you pray to him he makes your life wonderful, and sometimes he doesn't, because he's awesome tricky like that. he made sure britney spears got a grammy, and that poor kids have food on their table. sometimes he gives little black boys in africa AIDS, but it's all part of this plan he has so don't worry. some of those AIDS infected little boys don't believe he exists, so it doesn't matter anyways. no credible scientist would ever tell you to "have faith" in any theory. even when you have just enough evidence to show that something is probable, the scientific community demands EVEN MORE evidence... the scientific community is made up of incredibly skeptic people! they are very hard to please lol. there are no "leaders" who decide what is true and what is not like many religious people might tell you to make it seem like a conspiracy of some sort; scientists are constantly trying to verify other scientists' theories and results to make sure they are accurate... this is about as far away form faith as you can get!

 

[heusdens]

I don't care if you don't prove there is or isn't a god. But until it is proven either way, we just don't know. So to be an Atheist or a Devote Deity follower of any variety would need that person to take a leap of faith to conclude either way. So both are belief systems, one the opposite of the other.

To argue for the existence of a deity requires proof or at least an argument that makes it plausible for why one should belief that.

I don't have seen a proof nor an argument that makes it credible or reasonable to belief in a deity, since most arguments are simply based on wrong assumptions.

If I recall correctly, the most important reason why such a thing as a deity is introduced is that it would provide a cause for the existence of the world.
So, the very first assumption is that the world needs a cause for it to be existent, and that cause is then referred to as this deity.

If this is somehow incorrect, then please reply to this.

For a materialist however, the reason of existence of the world is already sufficiently provided by the existence of matter, which is itself indestructable and uncreatable. This makes any need for there being a deity obsolete.
So the world, everything that manifests itself in the world, has a material cause, and matter itself does not need a cause.

 

[Anttech]

To argue that atheism is a religion or belief system is redefining meaning.

Your whole argument is that we can not be sure wether or not there exists a deity and any case it requires faith.

I don't agree with that.

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.

 

[Anttech]

To argue for the existence of a deity requires proof or at least an argument that makes it plausible for why one should belief that.

This is the exact reason why you are grasping to keep your weak definition of Atheism. It allows you to compile an argument where you can move the burden of proof onto the opposite side.

 

[Anttech]

what we CAN prove, is that god is a man-made concept, that the concept of god is inconsistent and has changed through time (even christianity, one of the newer religions)... we can prove that humans seem inclined to believe anything wrapped in a neat, religious package.

Go on then prove that God is a man-made concept. Religion and God arent the same thing. Religion is man-made, God is something else all together. God is as much a man-made concept as the universe is.

 

[moe darklight]

This is the exact reason why you are grasping to keep your weak definition of Atheism. It allows you to compile an argument where you can move the burden of proof onto the opposite side.

that's because the burden of proof DOES lie on whoever is making the claim!

if your belief in god is based on the fact that you can't disprove god, then you should believe just as much in invisible mass-less unicorns, in magical fairies and peter pan, I could go on... why don't you believe in those things?
by your logic they exist simply because I can imagine them existing them and you can't disprove them!

ugh

 

[moe darklight]

Go on then prove that God is a man-made concept. Religion and God arent the same thing. Religion is man-made, God is something else all together. God is as much a man-made concept as the universe is.

there are plenty of books out there on the history of religion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Would u say that atheism implies believing that no intelligent/purposeful cause was involved in the origin of the universe?

Could you unambiguously define "intelligent/purposeful cause"?

 

[Anttech]

if your belief in god is based on the fact that you can't disprove god, then you should believe just as much in invisible mass-less unicorns, in magical fairies and peter pan, I could go on

there are plenty of books out there on the history of religion. you should read them. based on your opinions I would say you should read a lot of things...

after you've read on evolution, the big bang, physics, biology, history of religion, etc.* we can have a normal discussion. I'm not going to look for that information myself for you, I've already read on those subjects (and continue to).

* edit: I should also add to the list philosophy and logic...

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.

 

[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.