"Lack of belief"

[Acim]

Assuming there are no entities with consciousness elsewhere in the universe if all organisms on Earth with consciousness died out there would be no consciousness left in the universe.

Until then, the universe as we know it, has evidence as being consciously aware of itself.

 

[Acim]

Assuming there are no entities with consciousness elsewhere in the universe if all organisms on Earth with consciousness died out there would be no consciousness left in the universe.

I'll also add that if/when the day comes about that you are speaking about, scientific laws will cease to exist. Ya know, being man made and all.

 

[ArtieE]

Until then, the universe as we know it, has evidence as being consciously aware of itself.

All we know is that some entities in the universe are consciously aware of themselves and others and the universe but there's no evidence the whole universe itself is consciously aware of anything.

 

[Acim]

All we know is that some entities in the universe are consciously aware of themselves and others and the universe but there's no evidence the whole universe itself is consciously aware of anything.

And I'm saying you can't separate the entities from the universe THEREFORE, the universe IS aware of itself.

 

[Augustus]

They might also be theists from birth if a god doesn't exist.

Perhaps that is theoretically possible depending on how someone defines god, but isn't connected to the point I am making.

Do babies have a brain capable of having a belief and if so at which stage in the development of the brain does it gain such a capability?

What I think: I have no idea. For abstract beliefs it would be several years I suppose but I really don't know. It is also much easier for a child to believe in god than to disbelieve imo.

If a god exists: Everything is possible, including babies having a 'miraculous'/supernatural complex knowledge of god from birth

This is why insisting that ignorance of god is the 'default' is only compatible with also contending that god doesn't exist. If you contend that god might possibly exist, then you have to also contend that babies might possibly be born believers.

 

[ArtieE]

And I'm saying you can't separate the entities from the universe THEREFORE, the universe IS aware of itself.

It's the entities that are aware of themselves, not the universe itself that is aware of itself. The universe isn't an entity aware of itself just because it contains entities that are aware of themselves.

 

[ArtieE]

This is why insisting that ignorance of god is the 'default'

I have never "insisted" that ignorance of god is the "default". It's the absence of belief that is the "default" until it has been shown that babies are born with a belief in the existence of gods.

If you contend that god might possibly exist, then you have to also contend that babies might possibly be born believers.

Doesn't matter if god(s) exist or not, babies may or may not be born with a belief in their existence and if such a belief has evolved as a survival advantage they might be born with it. "Not" is the default unless shown otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

Doesn't matter if god(s) exist or not, babies may or may not be born with a belief in their existence and if such a belief has evolved as a survival advantage they might be born with it. "Not" is the default unless shown otherwise.

So if god might exist and there might be a naturalistic cause also, why isn't the answer 'we don't know so shouldn't consider anything the default'?

I disagree with the whole concept of talking about 'default' belief states for babies, but unless you are willing to say you believe god doesn't exist then you can't assume that 'not' is default until it can be scientifically proven otherwise.

 

[ArtieE]

So if god might exist and there might be a naturalistic cause also, why isn't the answer 'we don't know so shouldn't consider anything the default'?

I disagree with the whole concept of talking about 'default' belief states for babies, but unless you are willing to say you believe god doesn't exist then you can't assume that 'not' is default until it can be scientifically proven otherwise.

I have no idea what it is you're trying to say here so can't answer.

 

[Augustus]

I have no idea what it is you're trying to say here so can't answer.

That claiming the 'default' state is not believing contains an implicit assumption that god doesn't exist.

This is an acceptable position to hold, but only if you also contend that god doesn't exist. If you claim to not have an opinion on that question, then you can't logically claim the default state is not believing.

 

[ArtieE]

That claiming the 'default' state is not believing contains an implicit assumption that god doesn't exist.

No it doesn't.

This is an acceptable position to hold, but only if you also contend that god doesn't exist. If you claim to not have an opinion on that question, then you can't logically claim the default state is not believing.

You are now getting so confused that I can't answer again.

 

[Acim]

It's the entities that are aware of themselves, not the universe itself that is aware of itself. The universe isn't an entity aware of itself just because it contains entities that are aware of themselves.

Yes, the universe is an entity aware of itself because it has manifested entities aware of itself.

You are implying (or stating even) that the entities manifested by the universe are not aware of the universe.

Since the same game of division of entities can be played with the human body, would you say the human brain is only aware of the human brain within the human body?

Actually that question pertains just as well to the point up for debate as you are essentially saying the human brain is only aware of the human brain and nothing else. While downplaying (significantly) that the universe manifested this thing that is aware of the universe.

Also, just wish to remind how this tangential debate got started. From post #710:

Note: I do not consider the universe to be god, unless it also has a consciousness.

The universe has consciousness that is aware of the universe. That is the point I am arguing. I get that we who are aspects of universe have varying degrees of rationale whether this means universe as a whole has universal awareness. Many concluding, I would guess, that the universe as a whole is not aware of itself. But I would suggest/argue that the universe is self aware in similar way humans are self aware, and thus kinda very much depends on definition of 'self' and how awareness actually appears to work.

 

[Acim]

I have never "insisted" that ignorance of god is the "default". It's the absence of belief that is the "default" until it has been shown that babies are born with a belief in the existence of gods.

Wait, atheists have an absence of belief? I thought it was (mere) lack of belief, being familiar with the (intellectual) concepts up for discussion and lacking belief that they exist (as physical phenomenon). It's not that atheists argue that the concepts don't exist. Thus not absent of belief.

With babies, all beliefs are absent. That's the default for babies from what we are projecting onto them, even though all were once them, yet all are seemingly convinced that babies have zero beliefs in anything. Which would include existence, if sticking strictly with 'belief.'

 

[ArtieE]

The universe has consciousness that is aware of the universe. That is the point I am arguing. I get that we who are aspects of universe have varying degrees of rationale whether this means universe as a whole has universal awareness. Many concluding, I would guess, that the universe as a whole is not aware of itself. But I would suggest/argue that the universe is self aware in similar way humans are self aware, and thus kinda very much depends on definition of 'self' and how awareness actually appears to work.

You think the universe is one big brain aware of itself?

 

[Augustus]

No it doesn't.

based on??

 

[ArtieE]

With babies, all beliefs are absent. That's the default for babies from what we are projecting onto them

Yes, that's my whole point.

 

[ArtieE]

based on??

Not believing, an absence of belief isn't based on anything. I have no belief in the existence or non-existence of everything I have no concept of or haven't heard of. It's my default until I get a concept of it or hear of it. Whatever I have no belief in may or may not exist.

 

[Augustus]

Not believing, an absence of belief isn't based on anything. I have no belief in the existence or non-existence of everything I have no concept of or haven't heard of. It's my default until I get a concept of it or hear of it. Whatever I have no belief in may or may not exist.

That babies have no concept of god is contingent on god not existing. With an omnipotent god, anything is possible.

You have no insight into babies' minds so can only assume the default is non-belief if you consider belief to be impossible. If god exists, it is not impossible.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[ArtieE]

That babies have no concept of god is contingent on god not existing.

Of course it isn't. They could perfectly well have no concept of god even if god did exist.

You have no insight into babies' minds so can only assume the default is non-belief if you consider belief to be impossible. If god exists, it is not impossible.

Now you are getting terribly confused again.

A baby may or may not have a concept of some god and the god may or may not actually exist. All combinations are possible.

 

[Augustus]

Of course it isn't. They could perfectly well have no concept of god even if god did exist.

Now you are getting confused. That it is possible god could exist and babies could have no concept is completely irrelevant to the point that if an omnipotent god exists then babies could have a concept of god.

Unless you rule out an omnipotent god's existence you can't assume anything about babies' thoughts. You are assuming something but not ruling out an omnipotent god.

Now you are getting terribly confused again.

A baby may or may not have a concept of some god and the god may or may not actually exist. All combinations are possible.

Of course. Why then are you assuming anything about babies if you agree with this?