Question for Atheists...

[Polymath257]

It's only a problem for those who think science is the only possible way of addressing questions on the true nature of ... well ... anything. Like yourself. For those of us that understand there are other methods and avenues of investigation, it's really not such a problem.

Of course it's not only possible, it's advisable. We humans learn by imagining possible explanations and the possibilities those explanation afford us, and then acting on them to see if they work. It may not gain us truth, but it does gain us some functional effectiveness that we can use to help keep us honest, at least. Your theory that an idea has to be justly valid before we can propose it is silly. We'd never learn anything if we behaved that way. Every possibility would be rejected before it was even tried.

I realize that's what you want us all to do with THIS idea, because you have decided it's not valid, but that's just your bias trying to get in everyone else's way.

And what you are suggesting is *exactly* the scientific method: propose an hypothesis and test it to see if it works. But, don't *assume* it works. Do actual testing to see when it works and when it doesn't.

Scientists propose new ideas all of the time. And then they or other scientists *test* them. It is only after they have been tested that they are accepted as being true (or useful).

Now, in what way is the hypothesis of a supernatural testable? In what way is it useful for understanding? Or is it only useful as motivation and convincing us to do what we have decided needs to be done?

 

[Polymath257]

In any context, there has to be an observer for a phenomenon to be observable.

And in any case, there is a considerable body of opinion among scientists that any description of the universe must include a description of the consciousness of the observer;

“We are together, the universe and us. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of the universe that ignores life and consciousness.”
- Andrei Linde, Universe, Life, Consciousness 1998

We also can't have one that ignores stars and mountains. ALL are part of the universe.

That said, decoherence theory has shown that a 'collapse of the wave function' happens when there is any interaction with a sufficiently complex environment. Consciousness is not required. That is one reason quantum mechanical systems have to be isolated to maintain entanglement, for example.

 

[Polymath257]

Depends on the perspective of the observer

Not really. For each observer, the observable universe (to them) would be a sphere in that observers frame of reference.

So, the observable universe is the inside of a sphere whose radius is about 47 billion light years (currently). But, space itself is the 'hypersurface' of the 4 dimensional figure given by spacetime 'before the present'. The sphere of the observable universe is a *piece* of that hypersurface of space.

 

[Polymath257]

What these views, Tononi's highly speculative (I don't know why you disparage speculation) Integrated Information Theory, QBism, John Wheeler's interpretation of the delayed choice experiment*, etc. etc. all have in common is that they each support the following axiom; that the object, the observer, and the act of observation, are inextricably linked. This issue becomes acute at the quantum level, but the principle applies universally, I think.

*"No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is observed." - Wheeler

But, in this sense, an 'observation' is any sufficiently strong interaction with a complex environment. Wheeler said this quote before this aspect was discovered.

 

[Polymath257]

Everytime we assume we know something we sabotage our ability to learn more or otherwise. It's why real scientists, philosoohers, and even priests avoid the "belief" trap.

"Critical thinkers" is just code for the scientism cult. They're only critical of everyone else's thinking. Never their own. Every time I see those words together I know they will be followed by a load of biased BS.

On the contrary, scientists are usually very critical of the notions of other scientists. That is expected and an important aspect of the scientific method. Any new idea has to go through a LOT of very intense critique and analysis as well as very rigorous testing *before* it is 'accepted' as valid. Many times, the public doesn't see this (it tends to be either in the journals or at conferences), but it is there and quite severe.

 

[Heyo]

Not really. For each observer, the observable universe (to them) would be a sphere in that observers frame of reference.

So, the observable universe is the inside of a sphere whose radius is about 47 billion light years (currently). But, space itself is the 'hypersurface' of the 4 dimensional figure given by spacetime 'before the present'. The sphere of the observable universe is a *piece* of that hypersurface of space.

And if we want to be really pedantic, we'd also add that the inside of the sphere isn't solid but like a Swiss cheese. Its got a lot of holes in it.

 

[Bird123]

Who is this you are talking about? It doesn't sound like atheists. Atheists understand that humans can, and do, believe in many irrational and non-factual ideas. God concepts tend to fall into this category. What happens is that believers have a difficult time explaining why thei believe in a god at all/ they cite evidence, but the evidence tends to be invalid or so subjective that it's dismissed by critical thinkers.

Who assesses the possibilities of Gods existing? We critical thinkers read and hear believers make claims but none I have seen formulate any possibility from it.

This is the typical useless plea by believers. Is this the best you can do? Look around? The ONLY way a believer can conclude any God exists by looking around is by assuming a God exists. That's it, no evidence needed, just the assumption.

The funny thing is that child cancers and flesh eating bacteria is part of what we see by looking around, and believers can't explain what this say about God. God killing little kids with cancer. Explain this evidence.

Almost as if a God doesn't exist at all. Is it a shy God, or is God like a 5 year old?

Those who seek truth won't assume what they desire to be what's found, like God existing. Those who seek with an idea of what they will find will tend to confirm their desires, and it isn't genuine, and not a finding of truth. Manye believers really just want to find comfort and emotional security, and they find that in religious belief. And the reward of comfort reinforces the belief. It is a trap and habit of belief.

If you think a God exists you will find out you're right. Not because you have truth, but because you want to control your emotional security, and uncertainty requires courage and inner strength.

Results depend on the mental tools and introspection a person has. The illusion of making "free choices" is how many believers get trapped, becasue they don;t understand their subconscious motives to accept and adopt the religious ideas of those around them.

Believers do this. believers do that. Don't you understand? It doesn't matter what everyone else does. It's what you choose to do that counts. Do you really need the actions and choices of others to justify your own choices?

Yes, cancers and flesh eating bacteria exist. These are actions of God. Why would High Intelligence do that? What purpose does it serve? What are the results? It's time to put on your thinking cap and look beyond the surface. The answer reaches far beyond it hurts!!

Is God shy? Of course not. God is smart. Why does God not appear to everyone? Do you seek answers or are you trying to justify your choice? There is good reason behind everything. Figure it out!!

Those who seek often find what they seek. If one does not seek, one rarely discovers anything. If one seeks the Real Truth, one must be open to all possibilities not just the results one wants. It's just like the cancers and flesh eating viruses. You are blind to everything but what you want to be the truth.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

Believers do this. believers do that. Don't you understand? It doesn't matter what everyone else does. It's what you choose to do that counts. Do you really need the actions and choices of others to justify your own choices?

No, but I do wonder why others do what they do and the basis for their beliefs and actions. Among other things, I wish to learn the truth, whether or not it is pleasant.

Yes, cancers and flesh eating bacteria exist. These are actions of God. Why would High Intelligence do that? What purpose does it serve? What are the results? It's time to put on your thinking cap and look beyond the surface. The answer reaches far beyond it hurts!

Even better, why would I think a 'high intelligence is even involved?

Is God shy? Of course not. God is smart. Why does God not appear to everyone? Do you seek answers or are you trying to justify your choice? There is good reason behind everything. Figure it out!!

And maybe the good reason is that there is no reason. It just is how it is. Why assume a God is involved?

Those who seek often find what they seek. If one does not seek, one rarely discovers anything. If one seeks the Real Truth, one must be open to all possibilities not just the results one wants. It's just like the cancers and flesh eating viruses. You are blind to everything but what you want to be the truth.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

And, among other things, you have to be open to the possibility that no God exists. So many people *want* that to be true and are unwilling to consider the alternative. As you noted, they tend to find what they seek. It is known as confirmation bias.

You seem to be starting with the assumption that there is a God that is doing things. What is the basis for that belief? If I don't share that belief, do you conclude that I simply haven't had an open mind or I haven't thought deeply enough? What if I make the same as counter claims?

 

[Bird123]

There aren't any sources. There is no bottom. All you are doing is tossing out persiflage to obscure that fact.

WE are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. Though religions do not have all the right answers, aren't they at least pointing to that?

As for Discovering knowledge about God with all aspects, when one Discovers something ,it leads to more doors and more knowledge that can be Discovered. It truly seems like there is no bottom to what can be Discovered. On the other hand, I am not advanced enough yet to see one. I'm sure there is one.

It is staring us all in the face. Perhaps, it's a test of Intelligence.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

WE are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. Though religions do not have all the right answers, aren't they at least pointing to that?

And what makes you think that is a true statement? From what I can see, it is clearly false (because there is no evidence spirits even exist).

As for Discovering knowledge about God with all aspects, when one Discovers something ,it leads to more doors and more knowledge that can be Discovered. It truly seems like there is no bottom to what can be Discovered. On the other hand, I am not advanced enough yet to see one. I'm sure there is one.

It is staring us all in the face. Perhaps, it's a test of Intelligence.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

And, to me, it looks like a huge case of confirmation bias. Can you give actual evidence otherwise?

 

[ppp]

WE are all Spiritual beings in our true natures.

I don't believe you. I don't even believe that you are capable of knowning such

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks, @Polymath257 and @Heyo, for giving me the hints for understanding about the shape of the universe better.

 

[F1fan]

Believers do this. believers do that. Don't you understand? It doesn't matter what everyone else does. It's what you choose to do that counts. Do you really need the actions and choices of others to justify your own choices?

I think for myself. But believers, like yourself, don't. You don;t follow a God, you follow some religious framework that others designed and spread as truth. You don't understand how you do this.

Yes, cancers and flesh eating bacteria exist. These are actions of God. Why would High Intelligence do that? What purpose does it serve? What are the results? It's time to put on your thinking cap and look beyond the surface. The answer reaches far beyond it hurts!!

Why are you asking me for answers that only a theist should know? Notice you offer no answers to your own questions. Why did your God design genes that cause cancer in children? Why did your God create flesh eating bacteria? Explain the purpose.

Is God shy? Of course not. God is smart. Why does God not appear to everyone? Do you seek answers or are you trying to justify your choice? There is good reason behind everything. Figure it out!!

If your God exists it acts shy, or likes to play hide and seek, but no one ever finds it. Oh many claim to to find God, but these mortals don't behave in a way that impresses anyone that they claim is true. I'd think if some mortal actually found God that they would be remarkable humans with an astounding wisdom. Instead we see arrogance and other human flaws.

Those who seek often find what they seek.

That's why so many different religious people find different Gods.

If one does not seek, one rarely discovers anything.

That's how children find evidence of the Tooth Fairy in the money under their pillow, or find Santa in the present under the tree. How do you explain colored eggs hidden in the bushes? Amazing the truths we find.

If one seeks the Real Truth, one must be open to all possibilities not just the results one wants.

Are you open to the possibility that your religious beliefs are false? Be honest.

It's just like the cancers and flesh eating viruses. You are blind to everything but what you want to be the truth.

And you offer no illumination. At least cancer and bacterias are real. What can you show about your God that supposedly caused them, and deliberately harm people? Go on. Answer. It's what you see and it's clear, answer it.

 

[nPeace]

If I did, they'd only try to disprove it.

Nope. They'd probably correct your statement, by inserting 'currently', and adding 'but...'.

 

[nPeace]

No, they don't have to.
Only if they have any concern for the truth.

They do , but having a concern for the truth, and being foolish don't go hand in hand.
Of course they show people... reasonable people. They don't spend their day talking to concrete bricks.

Otherwise they are free to believe in the magical world of Harry Potter or whatever else they'd prefer to believe in.

They don't believe in Harry Potter or whatever else they'd prefer to believe. No.
That's not an automatic alternate conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

There are many things which we cannot see but there are ways to find about their presence, for example, Virtual Particles, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

I totally agree. Those ways are not all physical.

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, we know that we are talking to walls.

Of course you are. You could always talk to us Christian, more often.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We also can't have one that ignores stars and mountains. ALL are part of the universe.

That said, decoherence theory has shown that a 'collapse of the wave function' happens when there is any interaction with a sufficiently complex environment. Consciousness is not required. That is one reason quantum mechanical systems have to be isolated to maintain entanglement, for example.

Yes, absolutely. Which made me dig out these words from George Kristoff Joos, quoted by Jonathan Schaffer in his paper 'Monism; the Priority of the Whole'

"Due to non-local features of quantum theory, a consistent description of any system must finally include the whole universe."

Even if observation should be regarded as a complex interaction equivalent in principle to any other interaction, it remains a truism that for observation to occur, there has to be an observer; which makes observing anything at all neutrally, independently of how we choose to observe it, a logical and technical impossibility.

As for decoherence, isn't that simply a mechanism for reconciling the seemingly irreconcilable?

 

[YoursTrue]

And what you are suggesting is *exactly* the scientific method: propose an hypothesis and test it to see if it works. But, don't *assume* it works. Do actual testing to see when it works and when it doesn't.

Scientists propose new ideas all of the time. And then they or other scientists *test* them. It is only after they have been tested that they are accepted as being true (or useful).

Now, in what way is the hypothesis of a supernatural testable? In what way is it useful for understanding? Or is it only useful as motivation and convincing us to do what we have decided needs to be done?

Let's say that's true about posing a hypothesis and test to see if it works. Then you say that hypotheses are tested. How can the hypothesis of scientists who don't believe in God about the origin of the universe be tested?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not really. For each observer, the observable universe (to them) would be a sphere in that observers frame of reference.

So, the observable universe is the inside of a sphere whose radius is about 47 billion light years (currently). But, space itself is the 'hypersurface' of the 4 dimensional figure given by spacetime 'before the present'. The sphere of the observable universe is a *piece* of that hypersurface of space.

So we’re placing the observer back in his privileged, pre-Copernican position at the centre of the (observable) universe? Isn’t that a bit risky, for all sorts of reasons?