• 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!

*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

outhouse

Atheistically
Rather than deal with the real issues, atheists here just engage in a meaningless dance.

You have done this since you started here, it is one constant ad hominem after another.

You know you don't have ANY ground to stand on so your replies are all personal attacks with no credibility or SUBSTANCE
 

Reflex

Active Member
I know what viole means regarding information, but what if Maxwell's demon were existence itself, the dynamic system itself, not unlike the DS? DNA, for example, is a concentration of information that comes at the expense information in the whole. Such a concentration of information is equivalent to an increase in meaning—self-consciousness—whereas in its original state, consciousness is present but not concentrated, not meaningful.

If consciousness exists at all, and if one wants to avoid avoid invoking the magic of an effect entirely absent in its cause, reason demands that evolution be understood as the concentration of powers and qualities derived, not from an unconscious potential, but from a superior type of conscious life which already possesses them.

In religious terms, the character of God could not possibly be intrinsically improved upon without violating the SLT, but it is amplified by the self-willed divestment of all that which is nonspiritual and pure potential—Maxwell's demon at play. The “demon” is much more than consciousness and personality, but all of the spirit qualities of the “demon,” the First Source and Center, are spiritually present in the personalities of his sons.

DS=divine simplicity
SLT=second law of thermodynamics

 

outhouse

Atheistically
reason demands that evolution be understood as the concentration of powers and qualities derived, not from an unconscious potential, but from a superior type of conscious life which already possesses them.

Any chance you could reword this so it has some kind of meaning ???

It is factual pseudoscience they way it is written
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You tell me: what has a beginning that does not also have a cause?
I went looking for a source from which to quote from that was
1) non-technical
&
2) at least sympathetic to religious views.

I decided to go with Paul Davies' The Matter Myth:
"For our purposes, the central feature of the quantum theory is indeterminism. The old physics linked all events in a tight chain-mesh of cause and effect. But on the atomic scale the linkage turns out to be loose and imprecise. Events occur without well-defined causes. Matter and motion become fuzzy and indistinct. Particles do not follow well-defined paths, and forces do not produce dependable actions. The precision clockwork of classical Newtonian mechanics gives way to a ghostly melee of half-forms...
One of the bizarre consequences of quantum uncertainty is that matter can appear out of nowhere. In classical physics, energy is a conserved quantity; that is, it can be neither created or destroyed, only changed in one form into another. Quantum mechanics permits energy to appear spontaneously from nothing..."
(emphases added)
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Because atheism is absurd, I'm not surprised that some supporters of that particular worldview would make a distinction between naturalism and atheism in a world where 99.999% of the human population does not. Nor am I surprised that, rather than taking a serious look into the matter, atheists would be silent about the misrepresentation of theistic arguments, ask silly questions (like 'who made God' and 'what is ultimate reality--both of which indicate a serious lack of research) and avoid at all costs talking about about the logical consequences of their beliefs (or lack of belief if I were to adopt a similar bumper sticker mentality).

It is not a question of worldview. It is empirical evidence. And by the way, if 99,999% of the population believe X, that does not make X true. I think there is a name for this fallacy.

For instance, in my country (Sweden) people who claim to believe in God are about 20% (including Islam).

For sure you do not have 80% of naturalists in Sweden. Many believe in a spiritual life force, whatever that is, some are kopimists, some think they are jedis, etc.



Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Viole is a "dancer,"

I actually hate dancing. :)

one that has said some things that, if true, would force me reject virtually all the books I have written by physicists--

I was trying to be helpful. And I do not like to kill debates too easily. I could have used those books (which I guess refer to Quantum Mechanics) to show you that things can begin to exist without a cause, and be finished with it. See also post #1169.

By the way, you still owe me an answer. If we assume that your will to write that post activated a chain of physical events, but was not caused by a prior chain of physical events, as you hold, what caused it? The uncaused cause?

the no increase of information, for example, or asking what ultimate reality is (if you have to as you cannot possibly understand), not to mention not knowing the difference between a philosophic assertion and a scientific one. There's just no credibility there. In many respects, I might as well be talking to outhouse.

I would be curious to find out on which one of the books you mentioned it is written that physical information is not conserved.

Please indulge my lack of skills in spiritual thinking, but I really do not know what you mean with Ultimate reality. Is there a reality which is not Ultimate? Or is it just yet another deepity? Using reality without a proper definition might be misleading.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
. It's absurd. We can (possibly) have an infinite sequence of effects, but not an infinite hierarchy of causations. If that is not true, present some alternative scenario.

Simple:

X(0) is caused by X(1)
X(1) is caused by X(2)
....
X(n) is caused by X(n+1)
......
ad infinitum.

It seems, at least, possible.

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Because if the will to post was activated by the chain of events, then "meaning, consciousness, and intelligence are purely arbitrary and relative terms given to certain highly complex mechanical structures. . . . The opinions and judgements of intelligence are products of mechanical (or statistical) necessity. This must apply to all opinions and judgements, for all are equally mere phenomena of the mechanical world-process. There can be no question of one judgement being more true than another, any more than there can be question of the phenomenon fish being more true than the phenomenon bird. . . . This is intellectual suicide—the total destruction of thought—to such a degree that even the rationalist’s own concepts of mechanism, unconscious process, statistical necessity, and the like, also become purely arbitrary and meaningless terms.

That is not a real rebuttal. It seems to be motivated by emotion or incredulity rather that by rationality.

And I would not say that thought is arbitrary or destroyed. It is as arbitrary as the form and shape of a stick insect in a forest, also the likely product of unconscious mechanisms. Or what about feeling physical pain? Can I reduce it by thinking that this is just the product of mechanisms that have no pain? Did I destroy the concept of pain?

You might say that thought is different from morphology, but you would beg the question. You would assume dualism in your premises and that only under this premise (your version of) thought exists or makes sense. And thought can be very well the product of morphology as well.

I really do not see how "mechanical" processes generating thought, entail thought being arbitrary. I am typing on a computer and my judgement tells me that I am doing exactly that. The fact that I believe that my judgement is ultimately the product of processes without judgement does not entail that my judgement about the typing on this computer scenario is arbitrary or meaningless. Or that I am in a self-defeating position. It would be like saying that water is not wet, because it is made with subatomic particles for which wetness makes no sense.

I am myself a very advanced organic computer, and the fact that what I think is reducible to information processing with a high level of parallelism, does not imply that this computer in my skull operates arbitrarily or that what it interprets about the world has no true/false value. That would be the exact contrary of what this organic machine computes to true.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Because atheism is absurd, I'm not surprised that some supporters of that particular worldview would make a distinction between naturalism and atheism in a world where 99.999% of the human population does not. Nor am I surprised that, rather than taking a serious look into the matter, atheists would be silent about the misrepresentation of theistic arguments, ask silly questions (like 'who made God' and 'what is ultimate reality--both of which indicate a serious lack of research) and avoid at all costs talking about about the logical consequences of their beliefs (or lack of belief if I were to adopt a similar bumper sticker mentality).
you really need a new song and dance.
The repeating ad nauseum of this one, regardless of how you reword it, just makes you look bad.
 

SpeaksForTheTrees

Well-Known Member
I say what's on my mind then worry about consequence .
Athiesm =: From my prespective is a no brainer ,still in 2016 , maybe I was just raised by really nice people that never oppressed me in anyway as a child , it biases my judgement of people , always sometimes at my own expense have given people the benefit of doubt , just out of courtesy , but that is not the way the world is . Is dog eat dog cannabalistic world was shocked by the division to be honest when i first joined rf and tread on a few.

Potentially we still in a world of poly , leaders can't agree if its the same God or not , is millions of forms in Hinduism .
So which god are you arguing against . To suggest is nothing greater than yourself , I can only agree , is a fair argument .
Is no world doctorine of one god in a world that has many , just look at the religious forums , they tear each other apart over me , haha goto have a laugh cant leave in my note things didnt really fit in with my philosophy , now i know that if humans could get on with things , My God isn't worried if you believe in him or not .
A donkey that doesn't need to be lead by carrot overhaul is a better asset ?.
Look at the universe , god likes progress , religious divides slow us down no end and potentially threaten? its very existence is a dangerous situation in the world .
I'd compromise past half way to make it safer place , they won't budge , so before I can add support to such a suggestion is more pressing matters , religion and memories of ww2 fun is all that keeping things together.
We really clever creatures , some of the inventions blow me away , but I wasn't hoping literally . Blind faith ,Boom
 
Last edited:
Top