Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Matthew 5.11

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine then you've no actual evidence, just a "feeling". So I can safely say based on your experience that we've still got bupkus evidence for god.

Thanks for being honest if not exactly concise.

its more than just a feelin,i used to be one of those who wanted real evidence,im not sure what such evidence would be,a signed photo of god himself maybe?

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

I would consider myself among the theist cohort.

I would imagine it is up to me to define the parameters of whom I am referring to there, rather than you. I am referring to the people engaged in the practice I described. If you wish to point out that you yourself are not engaged in the practice I described, you can safely assume you are not in the ResultSet I was defining.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Casting a wide net their. Not all thiests claim this begining was the begining of everything.

Nor did I claim all theists do. So the net is yours, not mine. Again read above RE: Which one of us gets to define the Set Boundries I am using. Again I am simply referring to the cohort subset that do in fact make this claim, and am showing why the claim is problematic.

nozzferrahhtoo

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

its more than just a feelin,i used to be one of those who wanted real evidence,im not sure what such evidence would be,a signed photo of god himself maybe?

What the evidence for a claim should be is entirely up to the person making the claim. It is not for us to suggest what your evidence can or might be. But we can certainly give you boundaries on what it can NOT be if it comes up.

You are saying you are convinced. That's great for you. I think the user you are replying to however is essentially asking if any of the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you feel you have that convinced you are.... or are not.... ones you are capable AND willing to share with us here.

If the answer is a simple "No" then the conversation between you is essentially over.

Matthew 5.11

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What the evidence for a claim should be is entirely up to the person making the claim. It is not for us to suggest what your evidence can or might be. But we can certainly give you boundaries on what it can NOT be if it comes up.

You are saying you are convinced. That's great for you. I think the user you are replying to however is essentially asking if any of the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you feel you have that convinced you are.... or are not.... ones you are capable AND willing to share with us here.

If the answer is a simple "No" then the conversation between you is essentially over.

if your lookin for physical evidence,i dont have it and neither does the argument against god,
i could tell my story but it would mean nothin to others but it means everythin to me,
i used to be a very outspoken atheist and i believed in the arguments against the existence of god and in my own mind i believed them all,especially all the science based ones,at the end of the day its all meaningless,
we are spiritual beings,no science can explain that,
there is a beautiful secret,god has told me that himself.

pauldla

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

if your lookin for physical evidence,i dont have it and neither does the argument against god,
i could tell my story but it would mean nothin to others but it means everythin to me,
i used to be a very outspoken atheist and i believed in the arguments against the existence of god and in my own mind i believed them all,especially all the science based ones,at the end of the day its all meaningless,
we are spiritual beings,no science can explain that,
there is a beautiful secret,god has told me that himself.

Arguments against the existence of god? Especially the science based ones? I'm curious, which ones do you mean? Could you elaborate, please?

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Arguments against the existence of god? Especially the science based ones? I'm curious, which ones do you mean? Could you elaborate, please?

What do you think Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins are doing when they debate against theologians on the existence of God? They are not philosophers, so the arguments they present are from a scientific perspective, albeit flawed ones in my opinion. As an aside, in my opinion Krauss and Dawkins do not represent science with their arguments, they represent their own individual biased worldview.

Krauss mainly argues from the field of cosmology, if the universe can come from "nothing" (it is the title of his book after all), then no need for God. The best synopsis of this argument I have read is from Sean Carroll, a far more reasoned debater than Krauss imo. Boiled down the argument is "the universe can come from nothing, science can (or will) demonstrate this, ergo no God". This is a flawed argument as science can not demonstrate this claim, science can only speculate on this, at present at least.

Dawkins comes from an evolutionary Biology background so his argument is that life emerged and has evolved to its current state through totally natural means, so again no need for a God. This is also a highly flawed argument as science has not demonstrated at all how life, even the simplest unicellular life, can emerge from inorganic matter. After more than 65 years of abiogenesis research, the only thing that has been conclusively demonstrated is the Milller-Urey experiment where amino acids were synthesized under high temperature, high pressure conditions. Well doh, there are 500 naturally occurring amino acids in nature, of which 22 are used in organic life, so I think nature is a little ahead of us on that front. Other than that there are dozens of unverified speculative abiogenesis hypotheses, leaving science currently at the point where life is just as likely to have had an extraterrestrial origin as having emerged on earth.

As a scientist and a (pan)theist, I ultimately take no side in this utterly moronic science versus religion debate, as both sides are fundamentally flawed and dogmatic. I love science and it has provided me with both a career and a lifetime of wonder at studying nature. As a pantheist, the "scientific" arguments from the likes of Krauss and Dawkins and for that matter from leading theologians like WLC are meaningless to me. I look at all the evidence, both from a scientific perspective, a religious perspective, and my own experiences, and I conclude our observed universe is a manifestation of the mind of God, of which our conscious experience is a tiny sliver. If you believe this and have a religious practice, then you can feel the presence of God. If you do not believe this, and do not have a religious practice, you are unlikely to feel the presence of God. It is really as simple as that, and I speak as someone who has been on both sides of the fence.

tommy2bad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would imagine it is up to me to define the parameters of whom I am referring to there, rather than you. I am referring to the people engaged in the practice I described. If you wish to point out that you yourself are not engaged in the practice I described, you can safely assume you are not in the ResultSet I was defining.

Ok my bad and your poor use of English.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor did I claim all theists do. So the net is yours, not mine. Again read above RE: Which one of us gets to define the Set Boundries I am using. Again I am simply referring to the cohort subset that do in fact make this claim, and am showing why the claim is problematic.

Why don't you just say "butt out" and stop trying to defend your assertions as if they only applied to a sub set of a subset. Jeeeze it's not that hard to make your definitions clear.
The fact is you have a bee in your bonnet about people making claims that they refuse to support with empirical evidence, so do I. The difference is I can manage to do so without resorting to big brushes and a bucket of tar.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

I look at all the evidence, both from a scientific perspective, a religious perspective, and my own experiences, and I conclude our observed universe is a manifestation of the mind of God, of which our conscious experience is a tiny sliver.

Given the lack of evidence beyond that of observation of human behaviour, and your own subjective experiences, why arrive at a conclusion at all? While I realise a pantheistic notion of God is very different than say a Christian God, to my mind this is still very much a god of the gaps. To me, your conclusion seems to be based more on need and/or personal preference than evidence.

If you believe this and have a religious practice, then you can feel the presence of God. If you do not believe this, and do not have a religious practice, you are unlikely to feel the presence of God. It is really as simple as that, and I speak as someone who has been on both sides of the fence.

I think we tend to name things to a large extent based on context. We pray in a church, or meditate on a mountain top, and all of a sudden we're in the presence of God. We smoke a joint, or drink some absinthe, we're tripping out. We all have heightened moments, experience self realisation, adopt or reject a philosophy or two and have occasional epiphanies, but none of these things seem to me to require a god. Not even in the loosely defined pantheistic sense.

I for one am far happier to acknowledge the vastness of my ignorance than claim a truth that to my mind appears to be fantasy.

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

Given the lack of evidence beyond that of observation of human behaviour, and your own subjective experiences, why arrive at a conclusion at all? While I realise a pantheistic notion of God is very different than say a Christian God, to my mind this is still very much a god of the gaps. To me, your conclusion seems to be based more on need and/or personal preference than evidence.

I would agree that from a purely rational gnostic perspective, the correct position to take is agnostic, and I would most accurately describe myself as an agnostic pantheist. Just as many atheists also describe themselves as agnostics, the pantheist position on the question of God is also agnostic. We have no empirical evidence for God, we have abstract subjective evidence for God. Strong atheists would describe this as delusional, but I think that's grossly offensive to people who take religious practice seriously and more importantly observe the benefits of their practice.

smacl wrote: »

I think we tend to name things to a large extent based on context. We pray in a church, or meditate on a mountain top, and all of a sudden we're in the presence of God. We smoke a joint, or drink some absinthe, we're tripping out. We all have heightened moments, experience self realisation, adopt or reject a philosophy or two and have occasional epiphanies, but none of these things seem to me to require a god. Not even in the loosely defined pantheistic sense.

Having sampled all of those and more, I can only report directly on my own experience, which is that the peace of mind, self realization and insight obtained from religious practice far exceeds anything else I have sampled. That's a sample of one, but it's the sample I care most about, as my state of mind determines how I interact with and have relationships with others.

smacl wrote: »

I for one am far happier to acknowledge the vastness of my ignorance than claim a truth that to my mind appears to be fantasy.

Don't take me wrong, I am all too well informed of my and our collective ignorance. For example, although there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of scientists I have worked with and known, many of whom are theists, are extremely humble and well aware that our theories of today will be thrown on the scrapheap tomorrow. I have known many atheists scientists and many theists scientists of all flavors, but have never known one who was antitheist. Interestingly, the only antitheists I have encountered in life are non scientists.

Just as we look back on the last 100 years and are awestruck by the advances in science, in a century from now our descendants will do the same. Science is simply an unfolding discovery of empirically measureable aspects of nature and is the only tool we have for such endeavor. However, spirituality is also an unfolding discovery, if you choose to participate in it, and spiritual practice is the only tool we have to experience it. Whether people choose to call that a relationship with God is entirely subjective.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

Having sampled all of those and more, I can only report directly on my own experience, which is that the peace of mind, self realization and insight obtained from religious practice far exceeds anything else I have sampled. That's a sample of one, but it's the sample I care most about, as my state of mind determines how I interact with and have relationships with others.

The old adage if it ain't broke, don't fix it certainly has its merits, though the leap of faith that I'd find difficult there is knowing that something works versus speculating how or why it works. Personally, I'd need some objective evidence before stating the latter.

After brief forays into various bit of philosophy including a dash of Taoism, I currently tend to lean towards contextualism, and as such both accept and expect that what is good for one person at a given point in time will not be so for another person, or even the same person at a different time. Given the scale and diversity of the universe, it will always be beyond our individual comprehension. We're part of it, but being such infinitesimally tiny parts, we have no hope of understanding the whole. Pretty much summed up in the opening of the Tao te ching as The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. What is interesting here is that in many ways the Tao is often considered very similar to a pantheistic idea of God, whereas I would consider it to be just the a term to describe the entirety of space and time. The difference is subtle enough, though from a contextualist perspective, Taoism is somewhat heavy on universal truths either way. To say that God and the universe are essentially the same, you then have to figure out what additional attributes your God has above and beyond an atheist's take on the universe. e.g. is it self aware, sentient, or a made thing perhaps? Once you add and name any of these attributes, can you find anything other than faith to support their existence?

In my small and limited mind, the answer to these questions is no, hence I remain an atheist.

FISMA

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No all you need is two metal plates very close together, and the presence of vacuum energy, which as far as we can measure is everywhere. So there is no problem with matter being created from nothing naturally.

I think you are confusing nothing and no thing.

As stated by Nagirrac.

nagirrac wrote: »

The "nothing" that theoretical physicists talk about is not nothing as in "the absence of anything"...

Additionally, by Tommy2bad

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes Brian, but for it to happen you need an electro magnetic field or something to produce a quantum state. Some thing being the operative word.

We can turn Energy in to mass and vice versa. But that is not getting something for nothing. In pair production and annihilation, charge, mass/energy, and momentum, are conserved, to name a few.

What you are saying appears to violate the Conservation Laws of Physics, as mentioned, if indeed you are saying that you can create material out of absolutely nothing - no thing - anything - any thing - material, immaterial, energy, or what not.

Is that what you are saying?

Brian Shanahan

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

its more than just a feelin,i used to be one of those who wanted real evidence,im not sure what such evidence would be,a signed photo of god himself maybe?

Real evidence would be:

1. Testable,
2. Falsifiable,
3. Independently varifiable (as in independant checks for the evidence will show that evidence) and repeatable (if someone else can do it, repeatability is ascertained so I lump these together), and
4. An alternative explanation which also fits the evidence is a worse fit under Willam of Ockham's criteria.

Please note that this is what I'd expect as a standard for evidence in any field.

Oh, and what you have is most definitely just a feeling, and it's one you very much doubt is valid yourself. Otherwise you would have no problem sharing. In fact your statement in your previous post:

i think im better off not goin into details because people might think im crazy and tell me to go talk to a doctor

very strongly indicates that you know what you've convinced yourself of as evidence is nothing of the sort, and that you are trying very hard to drown out the inconvenient little voice in the back of your head which is reminding you of this fact.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

What do you think Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins are doing when they debate against theologians on the existence of God? They are not philosophers, so the arguments they present are from a scientific perspective, albeit flawed ones in my opinion. As an aside, in my opinion Krauss and Dawkins do not represent science with their arguments, they represent their own individual biased worldview.

Krauss mainly argues from the field of cosmology, if the universe can come from "nothing" (it is the title of his book after all), then no need for God. The best synopsis of this argument I have read is from Sean Carroll, a far more reasoned debater than Krauss imo. Boiled down the argument is "the universe can come from nothing, science can (or will) demonstrate this, ergo no God". This is a flawed argument as science can not demonstrate this claim, science can only speculate on this, at present at least.

Dawkins comes from an evolutionary Biology background so his argument is that life emerged and has evolved to its current state through totally natural means, so again no need for a God. This is also a highly flawed argument as science has not demonstrated at all how life, even the simplest unicellular life, can emerge from inorganic matter. After more than 65 years of abiogenesis research, the only thing that has been conclusively demonstrated is the Milller-Urey experiment where amino acids were synthesized under high temperature, high pressure conditions. Well doh, there are 500 naturally occurring amino acids in nature, of which 22 are used in organic life, so I think nature is a little ahead of us on that front. Other than that there are dozens of unverified speculative abiogenesis hypotheses, leaving science currently at the point where life is just as likely to have had an extraterrestrial origin as having emerged on earth.

As a scientist and a (pan)theist, I ultimately take no side in this utterly moronic science versus religion debate, as both sides are fundamentally flawed and dogmatic. I love science and it has provided me with both a career and a lifetime of wonder at studying nature. As a pantheist, the "scientific" arguments from the likes of Krauss and Dawkins and for that matter from leading theologians like WLC are meaningless to me. I look at all the evidence, both from a scientific perspective, a religious perspective, and my own experiences, and I conclude our observed universe is a manifestation of the mind of God, of which our conscious experience is a tiny sliver. If you believe this and have a religious practice, then you can feel the presence of God. If you do not believe this, and do not have a religious practice, you are unlikely to feel the presence of God. It is really as simple as that, and I speak as someone who has been on both sides of the fence.

Hi Nagirrac, thanks for your reply. Believe it or not, I have managed to piece together most of the above over the course of our exchanges, but it is good to get a synopsis of your views.

I found Matthew 5.11's comments about 'arguments against the existence of God' to be a strange one, as to me it would seem to indicate that he was quite a strong atheist (a 'There is no god' atheist, if you will), rather than an agnostic atheist ('I don't know if there is a god, but I don't believe in one', a much more common bird). However, a reply from the poster in question does not seem to be forthcoming, so I must accept my continued confusion on his position with as much grace as I can muster.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Krauss mainly argues from the field of cosmology, if the universe can come from "nothing" (it is the title of his book after all), then no need for God. The best synopsis of this argument I have read is from Sean Carroll, a far more reasoned debater than Krauss imo. Boiled down the argument is "the universe can come from nothing, science can (or will) demonstrate this, ergo no God". This is a flawed argument as science can not demonstrate this claim, science can only speculate on this, at present at least.

Sean Carroll explicitly states that the question of whether or not the universe is past-eternal is a theologically neutral one, and I suspect Krauss shares a similar view. Their argument is not "the universe came from nothing therefore God does not exist". Instead, their argument is the initial state of the universe, if there was one, is within the remit of science, and does not compel us to believe in a supernatural creator.

Dawkins comes from an evolutionary Biology background so his argument is that life emerged and has evolved to its current state through totally natural means, so again no need for a God. This is also a highly flawed argument as science has not demonstrated at all how life, even the simplest unicellular life, can emerge from inorganic matter. After more than 65 years of abiogenesis research, the only thing that has been conclusively demonstrated is the Milller-Urey experiment where amino acids were synthesized under high temperature, high pressure conditions. Well doh, there are 500 naturally occurring amino acids in nature, of which 22 are used in organic life, so I think nature is a little ahead of us on that front. Other than that there are dozens of unverified speculative abiogenesis hypotheses, leaving science currently at the point where life is just as likely to have had an extraterrestrial origin as having emerged on earth.

When it comes to abiogenesis, Dawkins merely, and rightfully, argues that natural abiogenesis is plausible. Apologists assert that natural abiogenesis is implausible, but that assertion certainly isn't supported by the research.

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

The old adage if it ain't broke, don't fix it certainly has its merits, though the leap of faith that I'd find difficult there is knowing that something works versus speculating how or why it works. Personally, I'd need some objective evidence before stating the latter.

If it is broke though, you have to try and fix it. I think a lot of people have a spiritual longing and if it is left unfilled it can have a negative impact on their lives, as they may try and fill that void with something unhealthy, one of which I agree can be a dogmatic faith. In the grand scheme of things even an addiction to a religious practice is preferable though to most common addictions. I am a firm believer in trying to cultivate a healthy body and mind (even after multiple falls off the saddle on both counts ).

smacl wrote: »

After brief forays into various bit of philosophy including a dash of Taoism, I currently tend to lean towards contextualism, and as such both accept and expect that what is good for one person at a given point in time will not be so for another person, or even the same person at a different time. To say that God and the universe are essentially the same, you then have to figure out what additional attributes your God has above and beyond an atheist's take on the universe. e.g. is it self aware, sentient, or a made thing perhaps? Once you add and name any of these attributes, can you find anything other than faith to support their existence?

There are almost as many strands of pantheism as there are Christianity:rolleyes:
I would argue that there is very little difference between many pantheists and atheists, neither subscribe to an organized religion, or have a concept of a personal God, and a lot of atheists are just as awestruck and fascinated by the universe and nature as pantheists are. In that regard one could say that God to a Pantheist is just another word for nature, but I think it's looking at nature with a sense of reverence as well as wonder. At the end of the day, even though we can describe the universe to minute detail using theoretical physics, we still have the laws of nature that created this majestic universe, on both the macro and micro levels, and you are left with the mystery of where these laws came from that resulted in this particular universe. I think fundamentally that's what Pantheists mean by God, the order and symmetry of the laws of nature, and how breaking that symmetry appears to create everything we observe around us (I just finished reading Ian Stewarts' Fearful symmetry which greatly influenced that observation).

smacl wrote: »

In my small and limited mind, the answer to these questions is no, hence I remain an atheist.

On the spectrum of Pantheists, I would be amongst the Panentheists, so rather than God being nature, nature is a manifestation of God. I think all religions are an attempt to define this ineffable deity concept in human terms, and to various degrees all fail. Spirituality in general is difficult if not impossible to express in language, and often ends up expressed symbolically, leading to caricatures like an old man with a beard in the clouds. Even saying something like an intelligent sentient entity is problematic, as we are just defining something in terms of our own attributes. Of the major world religions, I find portions of Hinduism most interesting, but you can find traces of panentheism in all religions, including Christianity (Unitarian).

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Sean Carroll explicitly states that the question of whether or not the universe is past-eternal is a theologically neutral one, and I suspect Krauss shares a similar view. Their argument is not "the universe came from nothing therefore God does not exist". Instead, their argument is the initial state of the universe, if there was one, is within the remit of science, and does not compel us to believe in a supernatural creator.

Pantheists do not believe in a supernatural creator. They, or at least the thread of pantheism that I subscribe to, would hold that if we ever get to a complete understanding of nature, we will have found God.

Morbert wrote: »

When it comes to abiogenesis, Dawkins merely, and rightfully, argues that natural abiogenesis is plausible. Apologists assert that natural abiogenesis is implausible, but that assertion certainly isn't supported by the research.

I agree abiogenesis leading to a primitive unicellular form of life is plausible, as it clearly happened somehow and at least in one spot of the universe, but perhaps not earth:).

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

If it is broke though, you have to try and fix it. I think a lot of people have a spiritual longing and if it is left unfilled it can have a negative impact on their lives, as they may try and fill that void with something unhealthy, one of which I agree can be a dogmatic faith. In the grand scheme of things even an addiction to a religious practice is preferable though to most common addictions. I am a firm believer in trying to cultivate a healthy body and mind (even after multiple falls off the saddle on both counts ).

I agree, insofar as there are a lot of unhappy people out there and the comfort provided by certain religious practise can be beneficial, whereas the booze and drugs will typically not be. If we look at spiritual longing though, we can break it down to a set of needs; a need to belong, a need to be needed, a need to achieve, a need to love, a need to understand our mortality etc... While religious practice may meet many of these needs, I'd consider it is analogous to a placebo. The needs are part of our mind, and once we feel they've been met, they evaporate. I'd also agree that cultivating a healthy body and mind gives us more tools to be happier, but would argue that we still need to use those tools, while at the same time avoiding too much asceticism. Getting totally shítfaced with friends and family every now and again is entirely healthy IMHO.

Still no need for a God or gods though, and from a contextualist perspective, I'm not a big fan of panaceas.

At the end of the day, even though we can describe the universe to minute detail using theoretical physics, we still have the laws of nature that created this majestic universe, on both the macro and micro levels, and you are left with the mystery of where these laws came from that resulted in this particular universe. I think fundamentally that's what Pantheists mean by God, the order and symmetry of the laws of nature, and how breaking that symmetry appears to create everything we observe around us (I just finished reading Ian Stewarts' Fearful symmetry which greatly influenced that observation).

Once something is beyond our comprehension, why not say so? Saying that the laws of nature are a part of God creates a God that is a proxy that tries to disguise our ignorance. This God is an entirely arbitrary answer to the essential question of the nature of the universe, selected with no small amount of confirmation bias. We would like it to be true because it fulfils certain needs, therefore we say it is true. Why?

Symmetry, or more broadly patterns, are indeed fascinating both in the real world and the abstract. Quite a lot of my work involves combinatorial geometry and when coupled with cellular automata it is amazing the seemingly complex and even lifelike things you can create from a tiny set of rules. Once you have bodies in motion in space that may collide, all sorts of symmetry and patterns will emerge as a matter of course. Ever have a spirograph as a kid?

tommy2bad

smacl wrote: »

I agree, insofar as there are a lot of unhappy people out there and the comfort provided by certain religious practise can be beneficial, whereas the booze and drugs will typically not be. If we look at spiritual longing though, we can break it down to a set of needs; a need to belong, a need to be needed, a need to achieve, a need to love, a need to understand our mortality etc... While religious practice may meet many of these needs, I'd consider it is analogous to a placebo. The needs are part of our mind, and once we feel they've been met, they evaporate. I'd also agree that cultivating a healthy body and mind gives us more tools to be happier, but would argue that we still need to use those tools, while at the same time avoiding too much asceticism.

Maybe more a medium or conduit rather than a placebo

smacl wrote: »

Getting totally shítfaced with friends and family every now and again is entirely healthy IMHO.

So did Jesus! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_at_Cana

smacl wrote: »

Still no need for a God or gods though, and from a contextualist perspective, I'm not a big fan of panaceas.



Once something is beyond our comprehension, why not say so? Saying that the laws of nature are a part of God creates a God that is a proxy that tries to disguise our ignorance. This God is an entirely arbitrary answer to the essential question of the nature of the universe, selected with no small amount of confirmation bias. We would like it to be true because it fulfils certain needs, therefore we say it is true. Why?

Cut some bits for expediency! apologies.
We would like it to be factual is what you mean. Not everyone uses 'true' to mean factual Truth is one of those emphierial words that express more than just a factuality.

smacl

tommy2bad wrote: »

Maybe more a medium or conduit rather than a placebo

Fair enough, though I'd go for device before medium, as the latter has some dodgy connotations.

We would like it to be factual is what you mean. Not everyone uses 'true' to mean factual Truth is one of those emphierial (ephemeral?) words that express more than just a factuality.

Not really, where there are no facts doesn't mean there is no experience, but suggesting a cause for that experience is speculative. In that instance, my preference would be either not to speculate, or refer to my speculations as unproven possibility rather than universal truth. There is an enormous difference between ephemeral notions (e.g. I love my wife and kids), to posited eternal truth (e.g. God made this universe). The latter clearly attempts to be a statement of fact, and is hardly ephemeral in nature.

When I hear someone start a sentence with the statement "as a matter of fact", more often then not they seem to finish it with their opinion on something

MrPudding

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

[...]i know im not crazy,far from it,
[...]

Now, where have I heard that before...?

MrP

Matthew 5.11

MrPudding wrote: »

Now, where have I heard that before...?

MrP

was it in a dream one night?
it doesnt matter anyway cos nobody is crazy in heaven

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

Getting totally shítfaced with friends and family every now and again is entirely healthy IMHO.

Agreed, and my wife would say I do that a bit too much

smacl wrote: »

Still no need for a God or gods though, and from a contextualist perspective, I'm not a big fan of panaceas.

What do you mean by God though? It's a serious question and one I pose to my atheist friends when we have these types of discussions. If you say "I don't believe in God", surely you have to have some concept of what God is or at least might be? Most of the answers I get are straw men, like tooth fairies and Santa Clause, etc., when we know what those actually are.

You work in a fascinating field and one I am very interested in, although not well versed in. Have you come across Ed Fredkin? He is a very unconventional thinker, but along with Wolfram and Zuse one of the leading historical figures in the area. This is what he had to say on the subject of God: " I don't have any religious belief. I don't believe there is a God. I don't believe in Christianity or Judaism or anything like that. I'm not an atheist, I'm not an agnostic, I'm just in a simple state. But what I would say is that I think it is likely that this universe we have is a consequence of what we would call intelligent". That would be very close to my own position, except I would call that intelligence God.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/88apr/wright.htm

smacl wrote: »

Once something is beyond our comprehension, why not say so? Saying that the laws of nature are a part of God creates a God that is a proxy that tries to disguise our ignorance. This God is an entirely arbitrary answer to the essential question of the nature of the universe, selected with no small amount of confirmation bias. We would like it to be true because it fulfils certain needs, therefore we say it is true. Why?

True, but only if we give the God concept human attributes. That's the why I would question most, why would we imagine the universe has anything to do with us specifically?, if there is an intelligence (for want of a better word) behind the universe, as in Fredkin's programmer, why would we imagine whatever problem it is trying to solve involves us?

Fredkin has a theory called "Finite Nature" which claims that the universe at its most fundamental level can be expressed in discrete states with a finite amount of information, nothing is nature is truly continuous, and this leads to the conclusion that our universe is being run on a type of Cellular Automata computer (digital physics).

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/essays/

The Finite Nature and Digital Mechanics essays are well worth a read, and the "On the Soul" essay presents an interesting take on the subject of spirituality.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

What do you mean by God though?

In the broadest sense that the any sentient or even self aware influence is or was involved in the creation or organisation of our universe. As per you last post, the patterns we see through both the observable and the abstract are quite wonderful but not, to my mind at least, divine. I see no reason to suspect that these patterns are constructs, and am quite happy to wonder and be held in awe by what is natural.

Have you come across Ed Fredkin?

In passing, but I've yet to read any of his work in detail. I think discrete mathematics is a wonderful tool for modelling very many dynamic systems, and is a fundamental part of algorithmics. From what little I've read, I would tend to disagree with Fredken's conclusion that the universe is a consequence of intelligence.

That's the why I would question most, why would we imagine the universe has anything to do with us specifically?

I don't, which of course dismisses Abrahamic religion in the first instance. Other religions and less specific notions of God follow shortly thereafter.

if there is an intelligence (for want of a better word) behind the universe, as in Fredkin's programmer, why would we imagine whatever problem it is trying to solve involves us?

The answer is obviously 42, an we're just here to figure out the question

Fredkin has a theory called "Finite Nature" which claims that the universe at its most fundamental level can be expressed in discrete states with a finite amount of information, nothing is nature is truly continuous, and this leads to the conclusion that our universe is being run on a type of Cellular Automata computer (digital physics).resting take on the subject of spirituality.

The distinction between a universe with a finite number of states and one which is continuous to me seems preposterous. For example, for it to be true, it would demand that there is a minimum distance X below which we cannot move, and an indivisible moment in time. Even if there are unmeasurable distances and durations, do you therefore suspect they don't exist. Given we can imagine an abstract numerical system, which includes the possibility of dividing any number by two, or multiplying any number by two, why would space or time be any different. If the universe were comprised of a finite number of states, would we be able imagine the infinite, even in the purely abstract? We use discrete methods because our computers largely hold and process information discretely, and we often prefer to view things in a reductionist manner. Hence the need for abstraction.

If we take the universe as being both infinite and non-deterministic, the God of the gaps will never be squeezed out, and religious belief can hence never be disproved. God can however be dismissed as being as no more or less probable than any other unsubstantiated fantasy that anyone could care to describe. Note that even in the world of computing and automata, we have the notion of non-determinism, and I don't believe the universe is deterministic in any meaningful sense.

nozzferrahhtoo

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

if your lookin for physical evidence,i dont have it and neither does the argument against god

I at no point limited my criteria to physical evidence. I said "Any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning" that substantiates the claim. Please do not imagine criteria parametres on my behalf that I did not add.

also there is no, and no requirement for, and argument "against god". The onus of making the arguments is entirely on the person saying there is a god. There is no onus to make arguments against the existence of one. Please do some research on the topics of "Proving a negative" and "Philosophical Burden of Proof".

Matthew 5.11 wrote: »

we are spiritual beings,no science can explain that

Not clear what you even mean specifically by "Spiritual Beings" here or what you feel science is required to, and is failing to, explain.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

What do you think Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins are doing when they debate against theologians on the existence of God?

They are considering the arguments presented FOR god and explaining why they fail. A perfectly legitimate enterprise. If you would however take time to read the posts you reply to before you jump in to reply to them you would see that pauldla was asking for what was meant by "Arguments against the existence of god" which is not the same thing AT ALL as rebutting arguments FOR god.

nagirrac wrote: »

This is a flawed argument as science can not demonstrate this claim, science can only speculate on this, at present at least.

What science does do however, continuously, and on an ongoing basis, is discover entirely natural and god free explanations THAT WORK and ARE SUBSTANTIATED for the questions we have about the Universe.

True we have not answered all those questions yet but there is a poweful and one directional trend there. Ask yourself simply how many questions have we had that once had a scientific explanation that now the best explanation has a religious or theistic foundation. I can think of Zero. What about you?

Now consider the corollary question. How many answers did we have that were religious for which now science has provided a better, workable and substantiated one? I have not space enough to list them all for you. From Newtons laws to the Germ Theory of Disease. We no longer think epilepsy is demonic possession or failed crops and Thunder Storms are an expression of a god's displeasure and wrath.

The frontiers of human ignorance and knowledge are being pushed slowly and steadily. And the gaps in which you and your theistic cohort play your "God of the Gaps" games is being slowly and steadily eroded. Yet all you guys can do at this point is stride quickly up to the nearest "gap" in our knowledge you can find such as you just did above with abiogenesis and dance around it bleating about how "Here is a question you have not answered yet" as if doing so says anything about either the power of science.... or the likelyhood of "god".

nagirrac wrote: »

I look at all the evidence, both from a scientific perspective, a religious perspective

Which is likely why so many of your arguments are so powerfully flawed and wanting on here. You look at evidence from a religious perspective. In other words you assume there even is a god and then fit the evidence to that assumption. Rather than let evidence lead you to the conclusion there is a god, you start from the assumption there is one and work from there. If you view the evidence for X from the perspective that X is true, you are just engaged in confirmation bias, not science.

nagirrac wrote: »

I conclude our observed universe is a manifestation of the mind of God, of which our conscious experience is a tiny sliver.

Then by all means do try and get around to presenting the substantiation for that conclusion. THAT you have concluded it was never in question. So repetition of the assertion adds nothing. It is the basis for the assertion that interests us, and which you thus far have provided zero of.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you believe this and have a religious practice, then you can feel the presence of God. If you do not believe this, and do not have a religious practice, you are unlikely to feel the presence of God.

This seems an overly elongated way of simply saying "IF you believe it then you believe it." and as such comes across as nothing but filler to beef out a post to aim for quantity over quality.

nagirrac wrote: »

the peace of mind, self realization and insight obtained from religious practice far exceeds anything else I have sampled.

Likely however this has nothing to do with religious practice per se, or any expression of it. Rather it is the things religion has assimilated to benefit by proxy that are having the effects you describe. There are perfectly secular, delusion and nonsense free, examples of all the spiritual practices you usually trot out.... such as meditation for example.... that have users and practitioners reporting exactly the same benefits to a tee that you do.

The problem is that religion assimilates such things, people benefit from them, and then they ascribe credit to that religion for the effects. Or think that the efficacy of these practices verifies the religion as a whole, including their claims that a god exists and watches us or loves us.

The fact however is that the religious nonsense wrapped around these core useful practices is AT BEST superfluous and at worse corrosive, misleading, damaging, and opportunistic on behalf of those that benefit from the sale of religion.

There simply is not a single spiritual practice I have seen you describe so far on this forum that lends even a modicum of credence to the idea there is a god. You could tomorrow divest yourself entirely of all the unsubstantiated nonsense you subscribe to, keep the rest, and find that you get exactly the same benefits you have been thus far anyway.

I can not think, for example, of one single spiritual beneficial practice that requires one to subscribe to your entirely baseless view that human consciousness can operate and survive independent of the brain, and that therefore things like Reincarnation are.... despite your inability to provide even one shred of evidence for it.... true and real phenomenon.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ok my bad and your poor use of English.

Your failure to understand straight forward English does not equate to my poor use of it. It is an error to conflate the two. The English was fine. Your parsing of it failed.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why don't you just say "butt out" and stop trying to defend your assertions as if they only applied to a sub set of a subset. Jeeeze it's not that hard to make your definitions clear.
The fact is you have a bee in your bonnet about people making claims that they refuse to support with empirical evidence, so do I. The difference is I can manage to do so without resorting to big brushes and a bucket of tar.

Can we go back on topic please rather than this entirely off topic, entirely inaccurate, ad hominem mis-representation of me, my views, my positions and my expression of them?

smacl

@nozzferrahhtoo, out of interest, do you think that humankind will crack artificial intelligence any time soon, or at all?

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

@nozzferrahhtoo, out of interest, do you think that humankind will crack artificial intelligence any time soon, or at all?

It is not a subject I am well versed on actually. I tend to avoid conversations about it. I could not even begin to make guesses as to when such break throughs might or might not be made.

All I can say with any conviction is that I have not been made aware of any arguments for why we would be precluded attaining such a thing. It might not be soon or ever, but in theory I see no reason why it is not attainable.

If the brain generates consciousness and the brain is simply a mass of working parts, then I see no reason why we can not produce another mass of working parts that has the same effect. It is all just mechanics really.

But nothing about that suggests it will actually be _easy_.

But if we jump into my imagination I remember at one time reading an interesting experiment however. I can not seem to find details of it now however so if anyone knows of what I speak and can find a link great.

But what they did is defined a target for some electical circuits and then randomly built some circuits. They evaluated how close each one was to the desired results.... culled the 50% that were not.... and some how merged the rest to randomly create "off spring".

If memory serves they not only eventually "evolved" circuits that attained the intended results perfectly.... but also highly efficiently. And interestingly in one case I remember reading that there were components on the circuity board that the "experts" thought were superfluous, couldn't figure out, but if removed the circuit did not do what it was meant to any more (a lot like biologists finding recently that Junk DNA actually has function).

So I find myself wondering if one approach to AI that might work in the future is if we engage in not designing one ourselves, but using some kind of high speed evolutionary approach to let it design itself.

Someone more knowledgeable in AI than me (not at all hard) will likely tell me someone somewhere is already doing this.

You might enjoy this. Actually I enjoy everything on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBSS61XaAIc

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I find myself wondering if one approach to AI that might work in the future is if we engage in not designing one ourselves, but using some kind of high speed evolutionary approach to let it design itself.

You're certainly not alone in considering that approach, evolving adaptive neural networks look very promising albeit rather unpredictable. My knowledge of AI is also rather lamentable, but I suspect as we learn more about how the brain and the mind interact, we will at some stage in the future be able to create a fully self aware artificial intelligence. If this can be done on a state machine, and that state can be backed up to some persistent medium, we'll effectively create the first immortal.

All fantasy and idle speculation of course, that's been going on since Frankenstein hit the sliver screen, but entertaining nonetheless. Man making a minor god if not the God in his own image so to speak. Omniscience and omnipresence may just take a bit more work

You might enjoy this. Actually I enjoy everything on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBSS61XaAIc

Cheers for that, I'll give it a watch when I've a bit more time to spare.

Brian Shanahan

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But if we jump into my imagination I remember at one time reading an interesting experiment however. I can not seem to find details of it now however so if anyone knows of what I speak and can find a link great.

But what they did is defined a target for some electical circuits and then randomly built some circuits. They evaluated how close each one was to the desired results.... culled the 50% that were not.... and some how merged the rest to randomly create "off spring".

If memory serves they not only eventually "evolved" circuits that attained the intended results perfectly.... but also highly efficiently. And interestingly in one case I remember reading that there were components on the circuity board that the "experts" thought were superfluous, couldn't figure out, but if removed the circuit did not do what it was meant to any more (a lot like biologists finding recently that Junk DNA actually has function).

If you're like me you probably read it in Terry Pratchett's, Ian Stewart's and Jack Cohen's first collaboration The Science of Discworld. The specific example they used was to develop a circutory system which could reliably distinguish a direct current and an alternating one, and by evolutionary adaption it was eventually worked down to a system of 21 (IIRC) circuits out of an original system of 100. The scientist who developed the system thought he could do away with five, but the system stopped working if the circuits were taken away, even though one of them wasn't connected to anything else. I'll see if I can dig out the book out of my attic later on and put up the details properly.