What's "nature" but "that which exists"? If God is separate from nature, then God is not part of "that which exists".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
can you proove there isn't a deity?
- Thread starter kloth
- Start date
What's "nature" but "that which exists"? If God is separate from nature, then God is not part of "that which exists".
How rude of them not to share such findings with neuroscientists (among other fields in the brain sciences).
So quantum physicist discovered that quantum physics is completely wrong (as a static field of the type you describe cannot exist according to QM)?
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
Electromagnetic feild theories, I apologize ,run in close conjunction with quantum feild theory, but is different. Figured it was good too double check.
The point is, no one knows fir sure were consciousness comes from. But consider a cockroach, it has no mind of its own, just reflex,yet has the same presence of being as any other creature.
The theory that consciousness is a side effect of the brain can be considered just as inadequate.
Anamism, and its scientific relative
panexperientialism(spell check) are Alternative theories that may be logically held.
The point is, no one knows fir sure were consciousness comes from. But consider a cockroach, it has no mind of its own, just reflex,yet has the same presence of being as any other creature.
The theory that consciousness is a side effect of the brain can be considered just as inadequate.
Anamism, and its scientific relative
panexperientialism(spell check) are Alternative theories that may be logically held.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
We're quite confident it comes from brains.
"Presence of being" has no part of it; a rock has the same "presence of being" as a cockroach, yet in no way is it conscious.
"Just as inadequate" as all this? Doubtful.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I believe it is impossible for me to be certain whether or not it is even possible for there to be a god let alone to be certain whether or not there IS a god - that is actually one of the major problems I have with the ontological argument.
-
Actually the capacity of the brain of a cockroach is vastly less than that of a human, however there is a great deal of uncertainty over the extent of animal intelligence and emotional capabilities, however it seems roaches are incapable of the kind of complex introspection which is part of consciousness - therefore we need to look at entities with more complex information processing capabilities, such as the great apes, dolphins, elephants etc -while more simple organisms like insects are unlikely to have consciousness due to the limitations of their less developed neuro-physiology it is entirely possible that organisms (other than humans) with relatively developed brains might.
It is true we do not know the precise mechanisms through which consciousness operates not the specific requirements that need to be satisfied for it to develop - however, there are no credible alternative theories about where consciousness arises from other than that it occurs through some functioning of neuro-physiology.
-
Actually the capacity of the brain of a cockroach is vastly less than that of a human, however there is a great deal of uncertainty over the extent of animal intelligence and emotional capabilities, however it seems roaches are incapable of the kind of complex introspection which is part of consciousness - therefore we need to look at entities with more complex information processing capabilities, such as the great apes, dolphins, elephants etc -while more simple organisms like insects are unlikely to have consciousness due to the limitations of their less developed neuro-physiology it is entirely possible that organisms (other than humans) with relatively developed brains might.
It is true we do not know the precise mechanisms through which consciousness operates not the specific requirements that need to be satisfied for it to develop - however, there are no credible alternative theories about where consciousness arises from other than that it occurs through some functioning of neuro-physiology.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Nature is usually defined by two parameters - matter, and subject to natural law. God is neither. Nature is not everything that exists. Are numbers nature? Is cause and effect nature? Is morality nature? Is beauty nature?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
How do you know that God isn't matter? Where did you learn that?
No, those things are merely human words. Their referents don't actually exist externally to us.
Is that how you see God... as merely a human word?
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
In 1400, the scientific community was certain the world was flat.
There is no evidence Beyond that beings can think, that consciousness.
If consciousness is an inherent quality of energy, then a brain is just a tool, not the self.
But as science becomes more advanced these ideas become proven, while archaic empirialistic theories will disappear.
like spntaneous generation, it appeared the mice just come from haystacks. So they were dead certain all mice are genrated by hay.
Emepirical. Philosophy doesn't stand up, the world is round, mice are mammals, and consciousness is a lot more than a side effect of a brain.
There is no evidence Beyond that beings can think, that consciousness.
If consciousness is an inherent quality of energy, then a brain is just a tool, not the self.
But as science becomes more advanced these ideas become proven, while archaic empirialistic theories will disappear.
like spntaneous generation, it appeared the mice just come from haystacks. So they were dead certain all mice are genrated by hay.
Emepirical. Philosophy doesn't stand up, the world is round, mice are mammals, and consciousness is a lot more than a side effect of a brain.
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
I think most of the world knew that the world wasn't flat in 1400
Also the world is spherical.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No we are not. In the "known to be wrong - materialism" section of the philosophical publication by Cambridge mind is proven to be primary and matter derivative. Mind produced matter, matter did not produce mind. I provided the link to that article and can find it again if you wish. I think the speculative end of science is unreliable but never the less that is the state of material philosophy today.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I believe that's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard you claim.
So you think that once upon a time there were a bunch of 'minds' floating around and they decided to produce some matter?
That's wild.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Actually, that isn't quite what I said, but Christianity, as a Hellenic Jewish movement, was heavily influenced by Greek philosophers, especially Plato. (I'm pretty sure you know this already. If not, then you have learned something new.Usually God is defined in the terms of classical Greek philosophy? That's news to... well, everyone I expect.
) Interestingly, Pythagorean monks served as the model for Christian monks.OK. It's quite possible that you know more of the history than I do, but I think that an argument could be made for Plato being part of the mix in the history of the cosmological argument. Wikipedia certainly makes that argument, and Plato did have a godlike concept with his "demiurge".
I didn't say what atheists were "committed to", did I? I said that they usually take the position that physical reality (not "universe") always existed. You read too much into my statement. The universe is not necessarily all there is to physical reality, and I was being careful not to use the ambiguous term "universe" there.
Yes, I think that we are in violent agreement on this, although I do not have as strong an opinion as you on what is the "usual basis for rejecting the cosmological argument".
I'm sure that many atheists have many different reasons for rejecting theism. I myself have quite a few that you haven't mentioned. Let's not forget that atheism is not just the rejection of a specific god, so rejection of a particular definition of the Christian God does not qualify one as an atheist.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Nobody has ever proven any such thing. We know for sure that brains produce consciousness. If someone kicks you hard in the head, you could lose consciousness. If someone kicks you hard in the butt, not so likely. Think about it.
I've never heard that definition before. Here's the one that's closer to the usage I'm familiar with:
nature - definition of nature by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Is God active in the world? Does God produce or control phenomena of the material world?
Not true. In fact, by the third century BCE, it was not only known that the world was a sphere, but there were pretty accurate estimates of the Earth's diameter and circumference:
Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Yes, do it. I also have no idea what you're trying to refer to- are you talking about an article/book published by Cambridge press? Or something from the Cambridge Philosophical Society? Spit it out man! In any case, you're either referring to a controversial view, or a very outdated one- materialism/physicalism remains alive and well, many philosophers and scientists subscribe to some form of physicalism, because it has many theoretical virtues. In any case, it has never been proven that "mind is primary"- what a naive claim to make.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity, what is an "empirialistic" theory? Looks like a cross between "empirical" and "imperialistic"- but that conjunction doesn't make much sense.
You clearly are confusing about what philosophy consists in, and you're referring to facts not in evidence; what "more" is there to consciousness other than something brains do?
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
You could go one further and say that Christianity appropriated Plato, and that it is essentially Platonism Lite. Hell, fideism came about from the Christian inversion of that fateful Platonic error...
But my point was merely that, while we can draw some connections between the Christian God and Aristotle's Prime Mover (although the similarities are more superficial than real), God is NOT defined in such terms, generally speaking; God is defined as the being that created the heavens and the Earth, appeared to Moses, and so on.
"Being part of the mix" is vague; the tradition of the cosmological argument traces back to Aristotle- but Aristotle was the pupil of, was clearly influenced by, and shared many of the same underlying presuppositions of the great Plato. But Plato's argument for the existence of gods was distinct from Aristotle's causal argument, and is not generally considered a cosmological argument per se- if anything, it was a precursor.
I'm not even sure about that, though; "usually"? Was there a poll or survey that showed that? I'd imagine quite a few atheists accept the conclusion that the universe has had a finite duration- but that it was not created by any god.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Believe me I know how bizarre the claim is. It comes from that speculative end of academia that I find so unreliable. The difference is I admitted it and placed it in that context. The article was only mentioned because it came with big time scholarly support. Here is the link: On ‘Known-To-Be-False’ Materialist Philosophies of Mind | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The same way I believe many other faith matters. Revelation and philosophic necessity. The creator of time, space, and matter must be independent of all three.
You ask me how I know a faith matter and then make a claim to knowledge that you would not have any way to know, even if true. Amazing.
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
well no, even in a decapacitated state, the self(consciousness) still watches the blackness. If you go brain dead consciousness will silently witness the absence of thought.Nobody has ever proven any such thing. We know for sure that brains produce consciousness. If someone kicks you hard in the head, you could lose consciousness. If someone kicks you hard in the butt, not so likely. Think about it.
In deep sleepwhen the mind is still, consciousness witnesses the silence of deep sleep.
You are confusing consciousness with being awake. Consciousness is the witness of thought, not thought itself. Lots of these 18th century theories based on cartasian dualism & outdated physics.(which describes a perfectly behaved universe, were nothing goes wrong.anomalies are absent)
That's why people call consciousness the self.
In the fourteenth century scientists beleived, Very reasonably that the earth was flat because we saw a flat surface called land.
Now people use the same logic about consciousness, and say only the aspects of life with organs of expression conscious. What about. Plants or the earth.
It is totally possible that consciousness has nothing to do with a brain, the brain is just an organ.
If only we can look beyond the limitations of the eyeballs and other organs.