Atheists: Is that your final answer?

[Jackytar]

I have moved no goal posts..

First it was switching from probability to possibility. Then you wanted to narrow the definition of the word "universe". And you were still wrong!

You like hair splitting don`t you?

The difference between possibility and probability? You think they are the same?

You`ve "heard" wrong.
Notice the date on the article linked below.

How does this refute what I said about the trail of history being lost? Stay in context, please.

Also, to complain that

"We are not close to determining the particulars of the jump from non-living to living."

Is more than disingenuous considering we`ve only been trying to figure it out for the last 50 years or so.
Now that may seem quite some time to you but I`m willing to give the good scientists a bit more time to wrestle with the answer to the existence of life itself.
Considering they aren`t gods themselves and we do seem to be getting results as the article above shows.

Perhaps I`m too charitable, you be the judge.

It's because of the advancements that researchers now feel we are further away from unlocking the mystery of the origin of life. 50 years ago they thought it might be possible mix the right ingredients in a test tube.

It would seem you also like backtracking as we`ve gone from....
Originally Posted by Jackytar
That there is nothing in our objective understanding of the universe that would indicate that life would emerge.

To...
Originally Posted by Jackytar
There are and will be theories, even plausible theories, but how are we to ever know for sure?

Unless of course you`re misusing the word "theory" but I wouldn`t want to accuse you of ignorance.

<sigh>
The first quote is about probability of life emerging. The second is about theories of the origins of life. Not theories about the probability of life emerging. I'm beginning to think you are obfuscating on purpose.

We`ve already determined the probability of life emerging regardless of how improbable (or impossible if you prefer).

The probability of life emerging is 100% as we both are the evidence of that life.
Unless you believe we were wished into existence by some supernatural agency (of which there is NO evidence).

You clearly don't know the difference between probability and possibility. The fact that we exist does not make it 100% probable. Somebody recently played craps for 154 rolls before throwing a seven. So we know it's possible. It ain't 100% probable. It's more like 1 in 3.5 billion. link

But, you know, I wouldn't want to split hairs.

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

You can have the last word on this diversion, linwwod.
I'm putting my gloves down. Go for the knockout.

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

That's a head scratcher. Minds inextricably linked to brains. No getting around that. Would mean that "That god" is, well, in my brain with the rest of me. Meaning he's imaginary (?). Have to think about that on my trip.

You have to admit that the vast majority of gods that humans have believed in are entirely imaginary. Perhaps the one in your head is, too.

 

[Willamena]

You have to admit that the vast majority of gods that humans have believed in are entirely imaginary. Perhaps the one in your head is, too.

As is the one in your hand.

 

[Jackytar]

You have to admit that the vast majority of gods that humans have believed in are entirely imaginary. Perhaps the one in your head is, too.

Copernicus - does the observation of minds inextricably connected to brains lead you to the conclusion that the whole of our experiences can be reduced to material properties? Matter and energy behaving in a manner ordained by natural law - and what came before - and nothing else?

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus - does the observation of minds inextricably connected to brains lead you to the conclusion that the whole of our experiences can be reduced to material properties? Matter and energy behaving in a manner ordained by natural law - and what came before - and nothing else?

No, it leads me to believe that the mind ceases to exist when the brain dies and that it is therefore unlikely that there is any such thing as a "soul" that can survive death. Hence, it is very unlikely that religious doctrines that rely on such a concept are correct.

 

[Jackytar]

No, it leads me to believe that the mind ceases to exist when the brain dies and that it is therefore unlikely that there is any such thing as a "soul" that can survive death. Hence, it is very unlikely that religious doctrines that rely on such a concept are correct.

Okay. We agree on that. So let me ask you directly - if the mind is inextricably linked to the brain, a material object, do you think that the mind itself is material?

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

No. The word "mind" describes an experiential process. It would be a category mistake to equate it with the "material", which describes perceptible objects rather than the act of perceiving those objects. To the extent that a mind is related to physical conditions, it is an emergent effect of physical events that take place in a brain.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay. We agree on that. So let me ask you directly - if the mind is inextricably linked to the brain, a material object, do you think that the mind itself is material?

Jackytar

Not exactly. I think it's kind of like "love" or "hunger." It's a noun, but it would be more accurate to see it primarily as a verb, an activity of the brain. Or, as some say, an emergent property of the brain. Kind of like how ant colonies are more intelligent and purposeful than individual ants.

 

[Jackytar]

Not exactly. I think it's kind of like "love" or "hunger." It's a noun, but it would be more accurate to see it primarily as a verb, an activity of the brain. Or, as some say, an emergent property of the brain. Kind of like how ant colonies are more intelligent and purposeful than individual ants.

Yes it's a process to be sure but is it material?
Is the leap from non-living to living to self awareness not deeply mysterious to you guys?

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

No. The word "mind" describes an experiential process. It would be a category mistake to equate it with the "material", which describes perceptible objects rather than the act of perceiving those objects. To the extent that a mind is related to physical conditions, it is an emergent effect of physical events that take place in a brain.

Yes but do you perceive our experiences as being reducible, ultimately, to matter and energy behaving in a manner ordained by physical laws as we understand them?

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

Yes it's a process to be sure but is it material?
Is the leap from non-living to living to self awareness not deeply mysterious to you guys?

As I said, the mind is not in the same category as the "material". However "mysterious" you find it, it still depends on a functioning brain for its existence. Do you have any reason to believe that minds can exist independently of physical brains? Most religions seem to hold that minds can exist independently of brains, but everything that we observe about the minds we come into contact with suggests that they cannot.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

See, to me this means that you are an agnostic atheist. If there is "no agnosticism here," doesn't that mean you've already made your decision? I'm just trying to understand.

This could just mean that he is open to the idea of being wrong.

-Q

 

[Jackytar]

Do you have any reason to believe that minds can exist independently of physical brains?

If something non-material can emerge from the material then yes, sort-of. It would obviously not be independent of the physical world but a feature of it. Do you have any reason to believe that human brains are alone capable of manifesting this effect? Can we not say that awareness is a feature of the universe?

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

If something non-material can emerge from the material then yes, sort-of. It would obviously not be independent of the physical world but a feature of it. Do you have any reason to believe that human brains are alone capable of manifesting this effect? Can we not say that awareness is a feature of the universe?

We can say anything we imagine, but it is another thing to say that anything we imagine is likely to be true.

Unlike plants, animals are living beings that move their bodies around. It is reasonable to suppose that animals would evolve sophisticated guidance systems to lead them towards "good" things (nourishment, safety, pleasure) and away from "bad" things (danger, pain). Awareness of one's surroundings and one's self would be definite survival advantages in such beings, as would the ability to predict future events (i.e. an imagination). Hence, there are good evolutionary reasons why creatures such as ourselves should evolve brains, imagination, and self-awareness, not to mention many other mental functions that enhance survival.

Now, can we imagine that the universe is self-aware in the same sense that we animals are? Definitely. Is it credible that the universe is aware of itself and its surroundings in the same sense that we animals are? Not really.

 

[Jackytar]

Now, can we imagine that the universe is self-aware in the same sense that we are? Definitely. Is it credible that the universe is aware of itself and its surroundings in the same sense that we animals are? Not really.

I'm not imagining that, nor do I make any claim to divine knowledge. I'm only making the observation that consciousness exists as a feature of our universe. We can say that in our case it emerged along the path of natural selection, and that it is tied somehow to brains, but the most interesting thing for me is not the mechanism but the fact that the path is available.

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not imagining that, nor do I make any claim to divine knowledge...

But we were not talking about knowledge claims, just credibility claims. And it did seem to me that you were imagining that the universe could be consciously aware of itself and its surroundings in the same way that we are. If you were not saying that, then I misunderstood you. Going back to what you said, I still arrive at that interpretation. Here is what you said:

If something non-material can emerge from the material then yes, sort-of. It would obviously not be independent of the physical world but a feature of it. Do you have any reason to believe that human brains are alone capable of manifesting this effect? Can we not say that awareness is a feature of the universe?

I'm only making the observation that consciousness exists as a feature of our universe. We can say that in our case it emerged along the path of natural selection, and that it is tied somehow to brains, but the most interesting thing for me is not the mechanism but the fact that the path is available.

You can only make the observation that consciousness exists as a feature of animals on the planet Earth. That the universe has somehow evolved consciousness goes beyond observation. It is just speculation that has no argument to back it up.

 

[Jackytar]

If you were not saying that, then I misunderstood you.

Remember, I am the one saying that life is improbable. When I say that consciousness is a feature of the universe I'm not saying that it is ubiquitous, necessary or constant. The idea of a universe aware of itself has never entered in to my thought process. By observation consciousness exists here on earth, only in brains and in this time frame. You are correct - and it is significant - to point out that consciousness is, as far as we know, boxed in by these parameters.

But that box is still a feature of the universe. A special feature, if you like, but a feature nevertheless. Consciousness can and has emerged from ordinary matter and energy. Biological evolution does explain, in broad strokes, the mechanism for this emergence. But biological evolution must operate within the constraints of the environment, as you know. And that environment of ordinary matter and energy, behaving in a way ordained by ubiquitous, necessary and constant physical laws, provided the path to consciousness.

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

Remember, I am the one saying that life is improbable. When I say that consciousness is a feature of the universe I'm not saying that it is ubiquitous, necessary or constant. The idea of a universe aware of itself has never entered in to my thought process. By observation consciousness exists here on earth, only in brains and in this time frame. You are correct - and it is significant - to point out that consciousness is, as far as we know, boxed in by these parameters.

I'm glad I've made my point. I either misunderstood your earlier comments, or you have shifted your position. Do you now accept the proposition that God is an extremely unlikely being? If so, then welcome to the ranks of atheism.

 

[Sententia]

Okay, so I got myself into all kinds of trouble the other night by suggesting that atheists are closed-minded about the possibility of God existing. So I'm here to ask you, isn't an atheist who might be willing to change his mind about God existing really just an agnostic?

I've always figured that agnostics (weak or strong) doubt the existance of God, but believe it's really impossible to know for sure. I've always thought that theists were absolutely convinced that there is a God and that atheists were absolutely convinced that there isn't one. So when an atheist tells me that if the supposedly non-existant God were to do such and such, he'd believe in Him, I counter with the statement that I don't believe he would. If he's an atheist, he's made up his mind already. Then all hell breaks loose and I have to run for my life.

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

I am not close minded about the existence of god. I see no rational evidence for a god personally but there still may be a god. What I do see is a lot of close minded theists who believe there is a god and its their god and their religion is right. Debating them gets me kicked out of scouts, churches, my posts locked not because I am rude but because I don't believe as they believe.

I guess they could do worse.