Atheists - how did you come to be?

[Marsh]

Yes. Like a man who gets dumped. And that man is me, being dumped by a Greek girl.

Sorry to hear it.

 

[Marsh]

Now honestly if you think about this hard enough, something about the fact that you came to be at all will strike you as bizarre.

I don't find my presence on this Earth bizarre at all, though I suppose what you really mean is 'against all odds.' We who made it to the egg and fertilized the ovum are, I suppose, the lucky ones. I understand there were a great many other contenders at the time of my conception: millions, in fact. I simply got there first. It is one of the few races I've ever one.

 

[Marsh]

However, you can now definitively say that you are, you have become the singularity, your individual telos has found residence in the flesh of an animal.

Are you aware how much you sound like a follower of L. Ron Hubbard? Just exchange the word telos for the word thetan and you will mark your place along side Tom Cruise.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You have yet to show how your assertions are evident.

I've been extrapolating this whole time, for the last 10 pages. It's your job to show how the extrapolation I'm giving is invalidated, or come up with a different extrapolation when observing evident natural systems of law.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If for example we had that process cut off between two parts of our brain we would have two distinctly different "self's" if they were at all functional.

As far as I thought science was aware, there can only be one self to one brain, though the thing follows the same symmetrical standard as the body and many other organisms, left and right hemispheres I thought were good at different things. Thus they, unlike the other body parts, are meant to combine in a very specific way, rather than just two parts with one as an extra.

So if you want to say there is some kind of central nucleus then it would be our brain. Though even then I think we run into problems with identifying it as "us".

Right. But then carrying that through to the next question, what is this brain setting out to capture? The human brain captures consciousness, the amoeba does not. The specialty of some kind of custom-made conduit like a neuron in that circuit board is apparently the thing that can do it, that can tune in to just the right frequency to net that incredible elusive thing that has evaded biology for billions of years. So perhaps we are not the brain, but we are in the brain.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I don't find my presence on this Earth bizarre at all, though I suppose what you really mean is 'against all odds.' We who made it to the egg and fertilized the ovum are, I suppose, the lucky ones. I understand there were a great many other contenders at the time of my conception: millions, in fact. I simply got there first. It is one of the few races I've ever one.

So what, are you thinking that if one of those other millions of people won the ovum, you wouldn't be here looking through the eyes of it? How do you know the experience of experience isn't granted you from the ovum, hence the faceless millions gain the same spring of perception regardless of who they are. The salmon may all die going after going upstream, yet what bizarre odds have they of being unique in the service of nature.

Are you aware how much you sound like a follower of L. Ron Hubbard? Just exchange the word telos for the word thetan and you will mark your place along side Tom Cruise.

No, I really haven't read up on Scientology, so I don't really know what the deal is with that.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I've been extrapolating this whole time, for the last 10 pages. It's your job to show how the extrapolation I'm giving is invalidated, or come up with a different extrapolation when observing evident natural systems of law.

Maybe i am just stupid.

Can you sum it up in ten sentences for me.

 

[1robin]

I don't find my presence on this Earth bizarre at all, though I suppose what you really mean is 'against all odds.' We who made it to the egg and fertilized the ovum are, I suppose, the lucky ones. I understand there were a great many other contenders at the time of my conception: millions, in fact. I simply got there first. It is one of the few races I've ever one.

Since everyone seems to be concentrating on the mundane and ignoring the heard of velociraptors in the room I will be the one who points out what is so extraordinary about our being here.

It is Leibniz' deceptively simplistic statement. "Why is there anything instead of nothing".

Getting something end eventually you out of nothing would truly be the most extraordinary event that could ever even potentially occur. You can dream up anything more astounding than that actually having occurred.

 

[Marsh]

Since everyone seems to be concentrating on the mundane and ignoring the heard of velociraptors in the room I will be the one who points out what is so extraordinary about our being here.

It is Leibniz' deceptively simplistic statement. "Why is there anything instead of nothing".

Leibniz was a devout Christian and prone to believing life was special because, in his view, God created it; and he was born in 1646, some years before we devised other possible explanations for how we got here.

That fact remains that until we have a definitive answer as to why there is "anything instead of nothing" we might as well suppose that the opposite, nothing instead of something, is the state that would truly be remarkable.

Getting something end eventually you out of nothing would truly be the most extraordinary event that could ever even potentially occur. You can dream up anything more astounding than that actually having occurred.

Life is ubiquitous on the Earth, and perhaps in the universe as well for all I know. Certainly my own personal arrival is nothing extraordinary (though I am sure it was momentous to my parents and grandparents). It may well be that life arising from non-life is nothing special either. It is a little pointless in making definitive statements either way when there is only the example of one world to work with.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As far as I thought science was aware, there can only be one self to one brain, though the thing follows the same symmetrical standard as the body and many other organisms, left and right hemispheres I thought were good at different things. Thus they, unlike the other body parts, are meant to combine in a very specific way, rather than just two parts with one as an extra.

One can actually loose up to half of thier brain at a young age and still survive and be (semi) functional. Its pretty amazing what your body and brain can adapt to in the younger ages. Loose half your brain at 30 and you're pretty screwed though.

But I was speaking hypothetically in that if we had two different independent systems of our brain that didn't communicate it would have no way of observing either as its "self'. We are only a reflection of a process rather than a "being" itself.

Right. But then carrying that through to the next question, what is this brain setting out to capture? The human brain captures consciousness, the amoeba does not. The specialty of some kind of custom-made conduit like a neuron in that circuit board is apparently the thing that can do it, that can tune in to just the right frequency to net that incredible elusive thing that has evaded biology for billions of years. So perhaps we are not the brain, but we are in the brain.

The brain as found more effective ways of processing the information that it receives and comes out in different patterns and different evolutionary paths. The brain isn't setting out to capture anything in particular. The evolution of our brain was simply what survived and how our genes evolved. The driving forces favored specific effects which is what determined our fitness in our environment but it isn't actively seeking anything other than survival and then one could also make the argument it doesn't seek that either and it is just a side effect of what survives in the process.

 

[Marsh]

So what, are you thinking that if one of those other millions of people won the ovum, you wouldn't be here looking through the eyes of it?

That's right. Identical twins don't look through the same eyes, do they. Each sperm has a different set of chromosomes. Each will produce a different individual. Any one of them might well look like a sibling of mine (either male or female), but none would be me. I have two sons, each raised pretty much the same, but with completely unique personalities. The genes are truly significant in defining who we are. Don't kid yourself, if your mother had had a headache that night, someone else, but not you, would be in your place.

How do you know the experience of experience isn't granted you from the ovum...

The mother provides the other half of the chromosome set that melds with the set from the father. It alone is not the source of your personality.

No, I really haven't read up on Scientology, so I don't really know what the deal is with that.

Scientology teaches the the human animal is no more intelligent than, say, a horse. It is the thetan in which the intelligence and personality resides.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Can you sum it up in ten sentences for me.

1. The universe is born from laws that need to be expressed.
2. Molecular law reaches its extent.
3. It follows that biology can come into being.
4. The evolving brain harnesses primate organisms as its vehicle.
5. Consciousness is captured by correct brain chemistry.
6. The universe gains the capacity to reflect on itself.
7. Billions of perspectives are generated.
8. We are embedded in this process somehow.
9. When one perspective ends, we gain one anew.
10. We live as many lives as there are for us to live, but only one at a time.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Since everyone seems to be concentrating on the mundane and ignoring the heard of velociraptors in the room I will be the one who points out what is so extraordinary about our being here.

That fact remains that until we have a definitive answer as to why there is "anything instead of nothing" we might as well suppose that the opposite, nothing instead of something, is the state that would truly be remarkable.

The real velociraptors in the room are actually the laws of the universe. For if there were absolutely nothing, zlich, nada, zero anything, law would actually still exist in full. The number line would exist. Mathematical law, would exist. Logical possibilities, reason, morality, scientific principles everything would be there even if it never happened.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But I was speaking hypothetically in that if we had two different independent systems of our brain that didn't communicate it would have no way of observing either as its "self'. We are only a reflection of a process rather than a "being" itself.

Weirder than many an idea the idea of a brain that actually had more than one self in it. I'm not talking about a schizophrenic, but a normal brain that simply has more than one self. Is this even possible? Surely the two systems would be aware of each other. They would share the same body! They would argue in the head. Maybe they could perform tasks that make them appear ambidextrous even though they are not, or appear to be seriously skilled multi-taskers.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The mother provides the other half of the chromosome set that melds with the set from the father. It alone is not the source of your personality.

Ah but the ovum is a control group in the face of the millions that could meld with it. It is the case of one half conferring the same the possibility to the many; the plurality only gaining recognition through the one, only one seeing the light which would be the same for all. For if every possible sibling of mine came into existence, none would be me indeed, for we cannot all share the same ovum.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Weirder than many an idea the idea of a brain that actually had more than one self in it. I'm not talking about a schizophrenic, but a normal brain that simply has more than one self. Is this even possible? Surely the two systems would be aware of each other. They would share the same body! They would argue in the head. Maybe they could perform tasks that make them appear ambidextrous even though they are not, or appear to be seriously skilled multi-taskers.

We have conflicting and deliberating ideas all the time. So long as they are communicating internally it should produce the illusion of a self that is not separate. But its possible as far as I know for some sort of disorder to have distinct regions of the brain. There are certain Siamese twins with two heads and a shared body that can do something similar.

 

[1robin]

Leibniz was a devout Christian and prone to believing life was special because, in his view, God created it; and he was born in 1646, some years before we devised other possible explanations for how we got here.

His being a Christian does not change the inescapable logic of what he said. In fact the evidence for a universe that began to exist has only made his argument stronger. There are no alternate explanations for how something came from nothing, they are not science, they are science fiction.

That fact remains that until we have a definitive answer as to why there is "anything instead of nothing" we might as well suppose that the opposite, nothing instead of something, is the state that would truly be remarkable.

We have an explanation, we just lack universal preference of it. Given God having nothing would be remarkable. Without God having nothing is simply a given.

Life is ubiquitous on the Earth, and perhaps in the universe as well for all I know. Certainly my own personal arrival is nothing extraordinary (though I am sure it was momentous to my parents and grandparents). It may well be that life arising from non-life is nothing special either. It is a little pointless in making definitive statements either way when there is only the example of one world to work with.

The loss of wonder inherent in the arrogance of learning is truly depressing. We literally educate ourselves into imbecility these days. If we can't see the wonder in even a common event like the birth of a baby then we have painted a vibrant world with shades of boring grey.

 

[1robin]

The real velociraptors in the room are actually the laws of the universe. For if there were absolutely nothing, zlich, nada, zero anything, law would actually still exist in full. The number line would exist. Mathematical law, would exist. Logical possibilities, reason, morality, scientific principles everything would be there even if it never happened.

Well, that is actually a theory, one I agree with. It is also one that suggests very strongly that there is a supernatural realm that transcends the natural. If all things have explanations either external to themselves or within themselves then even these abstract absolutes must have explanations, since you assumed they exist even if the natural universe does not (and I agree) their explanation must be supernatural.

 

[Marsh]

Leibniz was a devout Christian and prone to believing life was special because, in his view, God created it; and he was born in 1646, some years before we devised other possible explanations for how we got here.

His being a Christian does not change the inescapable logic of what he said. In fact the evidence for a universe that began to exist has only made his argument stronger.

Leibniz asked a question: "Why is there anything instead of nothing?" He did not provide an argument.

Also, the fact that there is anything instead of nothing does not lead inescapably to a demonstration of God’s existence. The question does not rule out the possibility that we arrived here by completely natural means that had no reliance on any supernatural force, intelligent or otherwise.

Without God having nothing is simply a given.

No Robin, it is not a given that without God there cannot be a universe. You have not demonstrated that a universe cannot arise by natural means. Your position is based upon the presumption that a powerful deity exists. You are then using the existence of the universe to prove that the deity, you imagine must exist, exists. As I am sure you are aware, this is simply an example of circular reasoning.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

His being a Christian does not change the inescapable logic of what he said. In fact the evidence for a universe that began to exist has only made his argument stronger. There are no alternate explanations for how something came from nothing, they are not science, they are science fiction.

We have an explanation, we just lack universal preference of it. Given God having nothing would be remarkable. Without God having nothing is simply a given.


The loss of wonder inherent in the arrogance of learning is truly depressing. We literally educate ourselves into imbecility these days. If we can't see the wonder in even a common event like the birth of a baby then we have painted a vibrant world with shades of boring grey.

This has inspired me to ask you a few questions. Not in direct response but on the cusp of the line you were talking.

On the topic of god. Lets say, for the sake of argument, it exists. Now it creates a universe just as you and many other theists imagine. This is a tired old argument but when did god begin? And if he didn't begin is he infinite? Does that mean real infinites exist?