|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Celt
still thinking
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:44 pm Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
What would be an atheist's argument against euthanasia? Is there one?
Since life isn't "sacred", what's the point in keeping a child who is severely mentally handicapped alive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:52 pm Post subject: 42 |
|
|
| Aarondalf wrote: |
| Chuck said something about not being able to choose what you believe, but I think thats wrong. |
I also agree that you can choose what to believe, but only if there is no evidence to the contrary. A person can choose, for instance, to believe that their spouse is faithful. Second-guessing is counter-productive. We are programmed to be able to accept things as fact subconsciously based purely on the fact that it "feels" right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aarondalf
the original GL stud
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:00 am Post subject: 43 |
|
|
| I see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:08 am Post subject: 44 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then your definitions are entirely societal? You do not think there are any absolutes? No reason a person shouldn't act "immoral" if he can get away with it as far as his interaction with society is concerned? |
Well, yes and no. Morals are individual not societal. It is merely the fact that we tend to agree in groups on what is acceptable that makes them moral. But even just taking the subject of abortion it should be obvious that societies as a whole don't agree completely.
For the latter two questions...I'll go into more detail later, I have people waiting for me online. 
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The membranes theory postulates that when various dimensions intersect a universe may be created. The membranes are effectively infinite and eternal. I would hardly call them God. |
Neither would I. I would consider the branes as being "in the image of God" in much the same way as our observable universe. |
I don't find that to be a very useful definition of God. I mean, if true, so what?
| Quote: |
What would be an atheist's argument against euthanasia? Is there one?
Since life isn't "sacred", what's the point in keeping a child who is severely mentally handicapped alive? |
It would depend on the atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:33 am Post subject: 45 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Celt wrote: |
| I would consider the branes as being "in the image of God" in much the same way as our observable universe. |
I don't find that to be a very useful definition of God. I mean, if true, so what? |
It's not a definition of God. It's a definition of God's shadow. By examining God's "shadow" we gain insight into the true nature of God.
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Celt wrote: |
| What would be an atheist's argument against euthanasia? Is there one? Since life isn't "sacred", what's the point in keeping a child who is severely mentally handicapped alive? |
It would depend on the atheist. |
Then may I hear your arguments for/against? It is not my intention to argue for or against any of these, so a brief outline will suffice. I am just interested in the arguments you might pose in the absense of being able to say "life is sacred". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aarondalf
the original GL stud
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:59 am Post subject: 46 |
|
|
| Life need not be sacred for one human being to respect another's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:07 am Post subject: 47 |
|
|
Celt, then the only problem is that I find your definition of God nonsensical, seeing as it pretty much tells me the Big Bang is God, which really conflicts me, what with it not being an entity, not to mention it not being sentient at all.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:41 am Post subject: 48 |
|
|
Celt
| Quote: |
| It's not a definition of God. It's a definition of God's shadow. By examining God's "shadow" we gain insight into the true nature of God. |
Aren't you now changing your definition of God? If God is defined as the first cause, then now you are defining the first cause as the shadow of God.
But why not regard the first cause (if there is such a thing) as an entity in it's own right? Why should we regard it as the shadow of anything else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:42 am Post subject: 49 |
|
|
In trying to simplify things I may have caused confusion.
The big bang isn't God, the first event isn't God, the branes aren't God. They are a manifestation of God. You are also a manifestation of God. In order to get "closer to God" however, you need to get closer to the source.
What also might be causing confusion, is that I do not have a precise definition of God but rather a scope which I feel encompasses God. For this reason, I am prepared to accept that the universe is God made manifest while I also accept the possibility that it is only a manifestation of God.
I do not believe that God intervenes or that God is sentient in any human sense. Although we may both believe in the likelihood of the Big Bang, I make that extra step in believing there is more to this than meets the eye and that there is some greater "plan".
You might accuse me of not having the courage of my convictions and sitting on the fence, but this would not be the case. I reject many scenarios which I feel are too convoluted or just not "beautiful" enough. What I'm left with is a set of belief systems that, to me, circumscribe God. What makes me a non-practising agnostic is that I firmly believe that somewhere within lies God.
Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread. I hope this clears things up for you to some acceptable degree. If I ever get a block of free time, then perhaps I will start my own, called "Confessions of a non-practising agnostic" or something similar. Until then let's talk atheism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:57 am Post subject: 50 |
|
|
Celt
In your first post, you said:
| Quote: |
Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.
There cannot be an infinite series of causes of things that come into existence.
Therefore, there must be a first cause that did not come into existence but has always existed.
Therefore, God exists. |
Even if we accept your first three points, the last does not follow unless you take the "extra step" which you have confessed to taking. You believe there is more than meets the eye, which is fair enough, but then you must admit that your conclusion to the above argument does not necessarilly follow from the three points above it.
You have quite clearly retreated from your earlier statement: "God is the first event." Now you claim that the first event is merely a partial manafestation of God and also that it has some kind of sentience that includes some greater "plan".
As athiests, we might concede that there was some kind of first event but we are not oblidged to concede that there is anything godly or even sentient about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:20 pm Post subject: 51 |
|
|
I'm confused. You come to prove the existence of God. Then you use a logical argument (albeit from a premise that is not accepted on everyone) to prove there's a first event in the time stream, so to speak. Then you say that event is the manifestation of God. Can you prove that last leap, which is required for your argument? Because I'm very comfortable with believing a big explosion is what started time and space, an explosion that happened for no reason, was caused by nothing, and is the manifestation of nothing.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject: 52 |
|
|
First of all, the argument that I described is an old one, called the Cosmological Argument. There are many sites on the internet that argue for and against it. I directly copied these words from some site and asked for an opinion from an atheist perspective. Having said that, I do understand the argument and so I am willing to defend it. I do not believe that it conclusively proves the existence of God but it does raise an interesting paradox. I was interested in seeing how an atheist would resolve this paradox. In essence the argument states that there must exist something beyond our physical world and that this must be God since it could be nothing else.
When I say "the first event" I mean that God set the ball rolling. I would not consider "the big bang" to be the first event or the colision of branes for that matter, these are only manifestations. Eventually, no matter how far you go back you have to accept that something that was not created was responsible for the creation of everything. I find it extremely difficult to accept that nothing created the Big Bang. For me, the only way I can resolve this paradox is to accept that something supernatural exists. Something being created from nothing for no reason seems to me to be a cop out and is not "beautiful" enough for me to accept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:22 pm Post subject: 53 |
|
|
Celt
| Quote: |
| I do not believe that it conclusively proves the existence of God but it does raise an interesting paradox. I was interested in seeing how an atheist would resolve this paradox. In essence the argument states that there must exist something beyond our physical world and that this must be God since it could be nothing else. |
If there is a "supernatural" (metaphysical) cause of the physical universe, why must it be God...unless you define anything metaphysical as being God?
| Quote: |
| When I say "the first event" I mean that God set the ball rolling. I would not consider "the big bang" to be the first event or the colision of branes for that matter, these are only manifestations. |
But it does raise the question: How can anything metaphysical in nature have physical manifestations?
| Quote: |
| Eventually, no matter how far you go back you have to accept that something that was not created was responsible for the creation of everything. |
Unless you believe that the physical universe has always existed. Then there is no first cause.
| Quote: |
| I find it extremely difficult to accept that nothing created the Big Bang. For me, the only way I can resolve this paradox is to accept that something supernatural exists. |
Then you merely defer the question of creation. If you say that our "lower" order dimension was created by an entity in a "higher" order dimension, then we are left with the question: What was the first cause in the higher order dimension? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:38 pm Post subject: 54 |
|
|
Have you ever heard of matter and antimatter randomly and constantly appearing and immediately disappearing in the void of space?
It's true. This stuff appears and disappears without cause, purpose, or reason. In fact, it makes itself exist. Since when matter and antimatter meet, they both cease to exist. Therefor, the opposite must be true, that out of non-existance matter and antimatter come to exist.
Many, many of your arguements have died.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:56 pm Post subject: 55 |
|
|
Mudbuck
| Quote: |
Have you ever heard of matter and antimatter randomly and constantly appearing and immediately disappearing in the void of space?
It's true. This stuff appears and disappears without cause, purpose, or reason. In fact, it makes itself exist. Since when matter and antimatter meet, they both cease to exist. Therefor, the opposite must be true, that out of non-existance matter and antimatter come to exist.
Many, many of your arguements have died. |
This is true, but Celt would undoubtedly claim that these phenomena are cause by something supernatural, AKA God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doormouse11
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:13 pm Post subject: 56 |
|
|
| Quote: |
What happens when we die?
Poof. Na, na, na, na. Na, na, na, na. Hey, hey, hey. Goodbye. |
haha, that made me laugh.
What is the purpose of life? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:19 pm Post subject: 57 |
|
|
| The purpose of life is to product the next generation, help them to survive while they're young, and then get out of their way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:28 pm Post subject: 58 |
|
|
| Plato a long time ago wrote: |
Imagine some people living in an underground cave. They sit with their backs to the mouth of the cave with their hands and feet bound in such a way that they can only look at the back wall of the cave. Behind them is a high wall, and behind that wall pass human-like creatures, holding up various figures, they cast flickering shadows on the back wall of the cave. So the only thing the cave dwellers can see is this shadow play. They have been sitting in this position since they were born, so they think these shadows are all there are.
Imagine now that one of the cave dwellers manages to free himself from his bonds. The first thing he asks himself is where all these shadows on the cave wall come from. What do you think happens when he turns around and sees the figures being held up above the wall? To begin with he is dazzled by the sharp sunlight. He is also dazzled by the clarity of the figures because until now he has only seen their shadow. If he manages to climb over the wall and get past the fire into the world outside, he will be struck by the beauty of everything. For the first time he will see colours and clear shapes. He will see the real animals and flowers that the cave shadows were only poor reflections of. But even now he will ask himself where all the animals and flowers come from. Then he will see the sun in the sky, and realize that this is what gives life to these flowers and animals, just as the fire made the shadows visible.
The joyful cave dweller could now have gone skipping into the countryside, delighting in his new-found freedom. But instead he thinks of all the others who are still down in the cave. He goes back. Once there, he tries to convince the cave dwellers that the shadows on the cave wall are but flickering reflections of "real" things. But they don't believe him. They point to the cave wall and say that what they see is all there is. Finally they kill him. |
Talk of +matter+energy/-matter-energy oscillating in a pseudo-random fashion is still only shadows on the wall.
| Fried Egg wrote: |
| Then you merely defer the question of creation. If you say that our "lower" order dimension was created by an entity in a "higher" order dimension, then we are left with the question: What was the first cause in the higher order dimension? |
Which if you followed the link I posted is known to be one of the key flaws of this argument. How I resolve this paradox is by accepting that "something supernatural is at play". I know it's lame, but it beats the "something from nothing" hands down. Do you feel that there is a paradox or are you happy to accept the something from nothing argument? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject: 59 |
|
|
| Fried Egg wrote: |
| If there is a "supernatural" (metaphysical) cause of the physical universe, why must it be God...unless you define anything metaphysical as being God? |
I don't know what God is. I just feel that there is order to this universe and rules that can be ascertained and a direction to be followed. I see these things and assume that I am getting glimpses into the nature of God. When I make this assumption, the rest of the pieces fall into place. An atheist would not make this assumption so they are left with the paradox of the first cause. Like I said previously, I was not trying to prove the existence of God but rather examine this apparent paradox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil_The_Rodent
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:12 pm Post subject: 60 |
|
|
| The link you posted also seems to, strangely, also infer that God is not a thing. It also states determinism is false in Premise 2 (if determinism is true, there is no chance that those things which exist cannot exist), then it rests everything else on the idea that everything has a cause "i.e. is determined"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:49 pm Post subject: 61 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What is the purpose of life? |
Perhaps you should have first asked if there is a purpose. There isn't.
Following up on CP's questions:
Are there any absolutes? Sure. If society considers it moral to kill everyone around you and then yourself, that wouldn't be a very healthy society, and in fact if everyone is moral then it is doomed to die off. Any moral system that has a negative impact on society is bound to change or that society will die.
I'm not a subjectivist. I believe some morals are better than others. But only because they work better for society not because they are more "moral."
Is there any reason a person shouldn't act "immoral" if he can get away with it?
No. Is there with religious people?
| Quote: |
| Then may I hear your arguments for/against? It is not my intention to argue for or against any of these, so a brief outline will suffice. I am just interested in the arguments you might pose in the absense of being able to say "life is sacred". |
Just because life isn't "sacred" doesn't mean it's not valuable. In my opinion being an atheist makes life MORE valuable. After all, this is all you've got! However, I believe that euthanasia, in some cases, could be merciful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:05 pm Post subject: 62 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In essence the argument states that there must exist something beyond our physical world and that this must be God since it could be nothing else. |
I hadn't realised the big bang was something metaphysical.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agamemnon
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:33 pm Post subject: 63 |
|
|
| Quote: |
I believe the four noble truths and try to follow the eight fold path. In my mind that is sufficient for me to consider myself a Buddhist.
|
What you follow is only just the tip of the essentials of Buddhism. I myself believe that to class Oneself as at least a 'minor' Buddhist, One would have to follow the bhramaviharas(sp), paramis and skandhas. Why do you think you should be classed as different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:24 pm Post subject: 64 |
|
|
| Sorry I gave you the wrong impression. I merely did not mention the paramis, brahmaviharas, & skandhas. The only portion I believe that might conflict with atheism is samskara since it deals with karma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cloudRunner
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:06 pm Post subject: 65 |
|
|
| Do all atheists have to believe in science as an alternative to religion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:17 pm Post subject: 66 |
|
|
I believe in reason because I feel it's true, very strongly. It doesn't replace anything. Science is just reason being used, so naturally I think it's correct.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:26 pm Post subject: 67 |
|
|
| cloudRunner wrote: |
| Do all atheists have to believe in science as an alternative to religion? |
What Antrax said.
I notice that a lot of questions are begging the question.
Aga: Supposing I did only believe in the 4 noble truths and follow the 8 fold path. What would you call me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:39 pm Post subject: 68 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
Have you ever heard of matter and antimatter randomly and constantly appearing and immediately disappearing in the void of space?
It's true. This stuff appears and disappears without cause, purpose, or reason. In fact, it makes itself exist. Since when matter and antimatter meet, they both cease to exist. Therefor, the opposite must be true, that out of non-existance matter and antimatter come to exist.
Many, many of your arguements have died. |
Why is it not also true that out of non-existance unicorns and anti-unicorns come to exist (since when they meet, they both cease to exist - find me a case where they've met and did not cease to exist).
The point, I think, is that no rational theory of the origin of the universe starts with nothing. (I went on about that here) You have to start with some initial laws, at the least, and that's very definitely something. How did those laws come to be the ones in effect? I don't think of that initial something as necessarily being God, but it is in a sense supernatural. I suppose the word "supernatural" deserves a definition for the purposes of this discussion (not just one plucked from a dictionary), but I don't know that it would equate with there being a God.
I think the obvious fact of the existence of consciousness (obvious to things who have it - invisible and undetectable to things that don't) is proof of something supernatural - something totally beyond scientific or other rational explanation. It doesn't prove there's a God, but it proves there's the stuff of a God (i.e. God would have consciousness). The flip-side of conciousness would be free will. But while we (I and other conscious entities) know consciousness to be a fact, I'm not as certain about free will. In any case, by any scientific explanation of the universe that is conceivable, the universe would be no different were there no consciousness in it. There could be sun, moon, stars, galaxies, and Earth with human beings - complex machines that wander about, processing information, input, output, complex behavior, gathering information about the universe and writing books with complex theories about it's origins - all explained (meaning even the humans theorizing and writing the books explained) by the laws of physics and how matter and energy interacts with matter and energy, and ... nobody's home. It would be no different, from an experiential point of view, as if nothing ever existed at all. There is no place for consciousness in the scientific explanation of the universe, and there can be no place for it. It's inconsequential if it exists, and there's no scientifically observeable evidence that it exists. But it does, and frankly, I'm quite glad it does. It makes a big difference for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:45 am Post subject: 69 |
|
|
| extro... wrote: |
| mudbuck wrote: |
Have you ever heard of matter and antimatter randomly and constantly appearing and immediately disappearing in the void of space?
It's true. This stuff appears and disappears without cause, purpose, or reason. In fact, it makes itself exist. Since when matter and antimatter meet, they both cease to exist. Therefor, the opposite must be true, that out of non-existance matter and antimatter come to exist.
Many, many of your arguements have died. |
Why is it not also true that out of non-existance unicorns and anti-unicorns come to exist (since when they meet, they both cease to exist - find me a case where they've met and did not cease to exist).
|
The likelyhood of a large amount of matter and antimatter poping out of non-existance and forming both a specific shape is near impossible, even at microscopic levels. However, they are much more likely to happen in single-particle amounts within lightyears of reach. It just so happens that the universe is so big that this happens somewhat constantly, yet it is extremely rare to happen in two-particle amounts. Also, the matter and antimatter only exist for a short amount of time, since they come back together almost immediately after creation.
If a unicorn were to appear in the vaccuum of space, it would most certainly die due to lack of air and due to whatever air in its system expanding it like a cat in a microwave. Also, the G-forces that the motion of splitting from its opposite create would tear the unicorn apart. However, the unicorn won't die from these causes, it will simply go back to non-existance when it gets rammed back head-on into its cousin.
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:58 am Post subject: 70 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| The likelyhood of a large amount of matter and antimatter poping out of non-existance and forming both a specific shape is near impossible, even at microscopic levels. |
Who said unicorns were composed of "matter". They are composed of "unicorn-stuff", which is not matter, and not subject to the constraints of matter.
Anyway, the point is: Matter and anti-matter don't quite arise from nothingness, but from nothingness under a given set of laws of physics (and that's somethingness). We can imagine a set of laws of physics under which matter and anti-matter could arise from nothingness, and we could imagine a set of laws of physics under which unicorns and anti-unicorns (made of unicorn-stuff and anti-unicorn-stuff) arise out of nothingness. We can also imagine nothingness, with no laws that cause nothingness to change into anything else. Some set of laws were/are in effect. Why? Whay are those the laws? And is that a question that is within the realm of science to try to answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:01 am Post subject: 71 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| If a unicorn were to appear in the vaccuum of space, it would most certainly die due to lack of air and due to whatever air in its system expanding it like a cat in a microwave. |
Suddenly you're the expert on unicorns? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mudbuck
Dirty Dollar
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:26 am Post subject: 72 |
|
|
| extro... wrote: |
I think the obvious fact of the existence of consciousness (obvious to things who have it - invisible and undetectable to things that don't) is proof of something supernatural - something totally beyond scientific or other rational explanation. It doesn't prove there's a God, but it proves there's the stuff of a God (i.e. God would have consciousness). The flip-side of conciousness would be free will. But while we (I and other conscious entities) know consciousness to be a fact, I'm not as certain about free will. In any case, by any scientific explanation of the universe that is conceivable, the universe would be no different were there no consciousness in it. There could be sun, moon, stars, galaxies, and Earth with human beings - complex machines that wander about, processing information, input, output, complex behavior, gathering information about the universe and writing books with complex theories about it's origins - all explained (meaning even the humans theorizing and writing the books explained) by the laws of physics and how matter and energy interacts with matter and energy, and ... nobody's home. It would be no different, from an experiential point of view, as if nothing ever existed at all. There is no place for consciousness in the scientific explanation of the universe, and there can be no place for it. It's inconsequential if it exists, and there's no scientifically observeable evidence that it exists. But it does, and frankly, I'm quite glad it does. It makes a big difference for me. |
However, almost all animals that have the brain also have consciousness. It is vitally important to humans, since curiosity came with it, and out of curiosity came inventions and tools. Without curiosity, many humans would die due to their lack of natural protection such as claws and teeth and stealth. However, we do have opposable thumbs, thanks to our relationship to the monkey, and that is the most important part of our body. For instance, our brain has a large amount of it dedicated to the hands, while mice have a large portion of their brain dedicated to their mouth.
Anyhow, curiousity has also made humans think about reasons for the why and how of everything. However, in the early days of humanity, there was so little tools that they created Gods or spirits to explain the many odd events, like the Greek Sun God and his chariot of fire for why a sphere of blazing light travels across the sky repediately. Then again, as technology advanced, people began understanding that the sphere of a sun is actually a large sphere like it looks like and not at all a small, ackward-shaped chariot set on fire. As science has disapproved the floating ancient thing-a-mon-bobber in the sky, so will future science eventually disapprove of the Biblical / Old Testiment / Koran / Cheese God.
Take a look at a rabbit. It's life consists of seven things: birth, eat, drink, sleep, survive, mate, die. A lot of species follow this routine, most of them don't even have four of these! It just so happens that humans have created extra reasons to live so it can entertain their complex minds.
Why are humans so special as to be God's chosen people, in fact? Why don't we live as long as some other animals? Why are we only on a tiny grain of sand in the infinite beach of spacetime? Why would God waste so much space?
_________________
1000oclock.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:07 am Post subject: 73 |
|
|
| mudbuck wrote: |
| However, almost all animals that have the brain also have consciousness. |
Of course, that's pure conjecture, since one can only know whether oneself has consciousness. It is not something observeable. One can't observe it to exist directly in another thing, nor can one find evidence of it, as even the most complex behavior is in principle explainable without resorting to claims of undefineable, indescribable and unexplainable phenomena like "consciousness".
| Quote: |
| It is vitally important to humans, ... |
As far as we can tell, it is completely inconsequential. So we're all on the same page regarding what we mean by the term, you might want to go back to [url=http://www.greylabyrinth.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=3934&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=123
]this thread[/url].
| Quote: |
| ... since curiosity came with it, and out of curiosity came inventions and tools. |
All of that is explainable in terms of concrete physical processes that happen in the brain which perform complex information processing tasks. There is no need to resort to unexplainable, unobserveable phenomena which have no measurable affect on the physical world - phenomena like "consciousness". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:09 am Post subject: 74 |
|
|
| that would have been this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:22 am Post subject: 75 |
|
|
Extro: If consciousness is not objectively observable, how do you know you have it?
And, no offense, but what does your hijack have to do with atheism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:48 am Post subject: 76 |
|
|
Samadhi
| Quote: |
| Extro: If consciousness is not objectively observable, how do you know you have it? |
He does not objectively observe his own consciousness. He directly apprehends it (in an entirely subjective fashion of course).
Extro
| Quote: |
| All of that is explainable in terms of concrete physical processes that happen in the brain which perform complex information processing tasks. There is no need to resort to unexplainable, unobserveable phenomena which have no measurable affect on the physical world - phenomena like "consciousness". |
I disagree with you when you say that human behaviour can be explained within the bounds of current scientific knowledge. Scientists are still trying to understand and explain our mental processess and it could be that understanding and measuring consciousness is the key to complete understanding.
Celt
| Quote: |
| Which if you followed the link I posted is known to be one of the key flaws of this argument. |
With all due respect, I did not need to follow your link to identify the flaws in the argument.
| Quote: |
| How I resolve this paradox is by accepting that "something supernatural is at play". I know it's lame, but it beats the "something from nothing" hands down. |
But it is lame precisely because it doesn't resolve the paradox. It just defers it to a higher order dimension. How "something came from nothing" is still unanswered.
| Quote: |
| Do you feel that there is a paradox or are you happy to accept the something from nothing argument? |
Either the universe has always existed or else something did, at one time, come from nothing. Claiming that the universe was created by something supernatural does not explain how that supernatural being came into being in the first place. One is still left with one of the two above options. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:17 am Post subject: 77 |
|
|
| FE: Duh....hence my objection to him trying to prove something objectively with his subjective knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 8:34 am Post subject: 78 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| FE: Duh....hence my objection to him trying to prove something objectively with his subjective knowledge. |
He's not trying to prove something objectively. He has stated that it can't be proven objectively. But it can be proven subjective, to himself only, that he is consciouss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:26 am Post subject: 79 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| However, almost all animals that have the brain also have consciousness. |
I don't suppose you can prove this, can you? Because personally, I don't believe many non-human animals possess intelligence (see my dog thread), and this is of some concern for me.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celt
still thinking
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:32 am Post subject: 80 |
|
|
I've said this already before but since "my proof" is constantly being referred to I'll say it again. It was never my intention to prove God's existence. My intention was to introduce an old paradox into the discussion to examine it from an atheist's and non-atheist's perspective. There is no proof of God's existence. I would expect that it is impossible to prove such a thing.
| Fried Egg wrote: |
| But it is lame precisely because it doesn't resolve the paradox. It just defers it to a higher order dimension. How "something came from nothing" is still unanswered. |
Which is why I used the word "supernatural". The only way the paradox can be resolved, in my view, is if this "higher order dimension" is not bound by the same laws of logic, which is about as "supernatural" as I can imagine.
| Samadhi regarding extropalopakettle's examination of the cosmological paradox and the nature of spontaneous creation wrote: |
| And, no offense, but what does your hijack have to do with atheism? |
Well I've been trying to get off the subject for several posts now (since #32), but since we've failed thus far to "return to our regular program", I hardly think extro's comments could be considered a hijack.
We agree that there is a paradox. Our difference is in how we resolve it. I am comfortable with accepting the existence a "supernatural" phenomenon in order to resolve it, while you are willing to accept that either something "always" existed which was responsible for creation or that something was created from nothing for no reason. BTW - The word "always" is incorrect, but its the best word I can think of to represent something which existed before time itself.
Since this was what I was trying to find out, I believe this interlude has served it's purpose. To get the ball rolling again, here's another question...
Sometimes, when I meet someone with a strong religious conviction, I envy them.
They can experience the most horrendous tragedies and brush them aside with "It's God's will" or "We'll meet again soon in a world without pain" or "God will judge them in the end" or some such phrase.
Do you ever envy the non-atheist's comfort they get from believing in a "higher power"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
