Search for Truth: Atheism

[Willamena]

Empirical: based on , concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

And also: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments. Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.

definition of empirical from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an empirical fact that humans are conscious beings (based on this definition at least: definition of consciousness from Oxford Dictionaries Online), but it does not follow that the Universe as a whole is conscious.

I'm not saying that it is; however, we've no empirical basis to say on which that it isn't, and every empirical basis on which say it is, because we've the evidence of one undeniable sampling. Unless, of course, you want to take the route that that no sampling is representative of the whole; but then, nothing is representative of this particular whole, so we are left with no reason not to hold any particular up as the representative. The universe exists; you are conscious; you are the consciousness of the universe.

Congratulations on your new role as representative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The universe exists; you are conscious; you are the consciousness of the universe.

My cells exist; my cells are microscopic; they are the microscopic-ness of me... therefore I am microscopic.

 

[Willamena]

My cells exist; my cells are microscopic; they are the microscopic-ness of me... therefore I am microscopic.

Your cells aren't microscopic to your cells.

If you were the only thing in existence, would there still be a universe? Same question for one thought: if one thought were the only in existence, would there still be a universe?

 

[Alceste]

What definition of "god" are you using for the Ganges? What definition of "god" can be applied to a river validly, even if that river doesn't have personality, intelligence, mystical properties, or any of the other things that people normally associate with gods?

IOW, does your use of the term "god" in this way leave absolutely nothing to test for? If so, then we can test it. If not, then the term is arbitrary, and the term "god" is only a meaningless label in this case.

I can't answer that. I'm not a hindu. I only know the Ganges is worshipped as a goddess in India. I don't think hinduism is a literalist religion. I.e. I could not say with confidence Ganges worshippers think the river is literally sentient or in any way anthropomorphic.

I think that with animism and pantheism the idea that something is a "god" stems from the relationship we have with it and the feelings it inspires. It is easy for humans to worship anything that inspires wonder, awe, humility, gratitude and /or reverence as a god. That doesn't mean the object of worship is assumed to have "supernatural" qualities. A snake can just be a snake, and also be a god, depending on what kind of mood you're in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your cells aren't microscopic to your cells.

Whatever the frame of reference, cells are cell-sized. Is a human being cell-sized?

Edit: the point I'm trying to get at is that you're engaging in a compositional fallacy: the characteristics of a thing are not necessarily the same as the characteristics of the parts of the thing. Cells are very small, but organisms made up of cells can be very large. Sub-atomic particles are invisible to the naked eye, but matter made up of nothing but sub-atomic particles is often perfectly visible. The mere fact that conscious entities exist within the universe does not imply that the universe itself is conscious.

If you were the only thing in existence, would there still be a universe?

Depends on how you define "universe". If you take it as something like "the set of all things that exist", then sure, it would necessarily exist if anything existed. If it means some extent of space-time, then its existence wouldn't be dependent on the existence of things within it.

Same question for one thought: if one thought were the only in existence, would there still be a universe?

I'll answer that question once you explain to me how it would be possible for a thought to exist without a mind to think it.

 

[Willamena]

Whatever the frame of reference, cells are cell-sized. Is a human being cell-sized?

Edit: the point I'm trying to get at is that you're engaging in a compositional fallacy: the characteristics of a thing are not necessarily the same as the characteristics of the parts of the thing. Cells are very small, but organisms made up of cells can be very large. Sub-atomic particles are invisible to the naked eye, but matter made up of nothing but sub-atomic particles is often perfectly visible. The mere fact that conscious entities exist within the universe does not imply that the universe itself is conscious.


Depends on how you define "universe". If you take it as something like "the set of all things that exist", then sure, it would necessarily exist if anything existed. If it means some extent of space-time, then its existence wouldn't be dependent on the existence of things within it.


I'll answer that question once you explain to me how it would be possible for a thought to exist without a mind to think it.

It's only a compositional fallacy if the whole has characteristics.

The universe is "things, existing." I'm the universe. He's the universe. She's the universe. That rock and that baby are the universe. Wouldn't you like to be the universe, too? It's only if we take the universe to be "other things, existing," that we fail to be representative of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's only a compositional fallacy if the whole has characteristics.

Well, that's the whole point. This whole tangent was about whether the characteristics of the universe (i.e. the whole) would allow it to be validly considered God.

The universe is "things, existing." I'm the universe. He's the universe. She's the universe. That rock and that baby are the universe. Wouldn't you like to be the universe, too?

I'm not the universe; I'm part of the universe. There's a difference.

It's only if we take the universe to be "other things, existing," that we fail to be representative of it.

So? Why would a person necessarily want to be "represenatative of" the universe?

 

[Willamena]

Well, that's the whole point. This whole tangent was about whether the characteristics of the universe (i.e. the whole) would allow it to be validly considered God.

That's... one way of looking at it. So, what is God again?

 

[doppelganger]

A man offered to sell me a bushel of apples. I told him bushels of apples do not exist. I then grabbed an apple from his truck and took a delicious bite. Nothing like a fresh apple . . .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's... one way of looking at it. So, what is God again?

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?

However, it's not really my job to come up with one. We can't validly consider something "God" until we have a valid concept of God, so it's all on the person who wants to consider the universe "God" to define "God" so that it can be applied to the universe.

 

[Orias]

Empirical: based on , concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

And also: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments. Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.

definition of empirical from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an empirical fact that humans are conscious beings (based on this definition at least: definition of consciousness from Oxford Dictionaries Online), but it does not follow that the Universe as a whole is conscious.

Based off of this definition, how can you prove that the Universe as a whole, is not concious? Assuming that this is the actual argument.

But is it reason to think that the universe as a whole is conscious?

BTW - I believe that I am conscious and not a god. If we're drawing inferences from this, then wouldn't the inference to draw be that other parts of the universe are conscious and not gods?

Of course not, we were created in "Gods" image you silly goose!

I think we should just ask the Universe what it thinks

Let's see...apparantly it agrees with both me and you. Hmph, who woulda thunk?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm not saying that it is; however, we've no empirical basis to say on which that it isn't, and every empirical basis on which say it is, because we've the evidence of one undeniable sampling. Unless, of course, you want to take the route that that no sampling is representative of the whole; but then, nothing is representative of this particular whole, so we are left with no reason not to hold any particular up as the representative. The universe exists; you are conscious; you are the consciousness of the universe.

Congratulations on your new role as representative.

Even if I accepted that logic, and I don't, that does not make me a god.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Based off of this definition, how can you prove that the Universe as a whole, is not concious? Assuming that this is the actual argument.

When empirical basis is lacking for a sound conclusion, return to the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis is that the universe is not, as a whole, conscious.

 

[doppelganger]

When empirical basis is lacking for a sound conclusion, return to the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis is that the universe is not, as a whole, conscious.

Are you conscious?

 

[McBell]

Are you conscious?

Is a rock conscious?

 

[McBell]

Is a rock conscious?

Is a virus conscious?


How about an oak tree?

 

[Willamena]

When empirical basis is lacking for a sound conclusion, return to the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis is that the universe is not, as a whole, conscious.

Well, look at it this way. The same Null Hypothesis gives us that the universe is not, as a whole, not conscious.

 

[doppelganger]

Is a rock conscious?

is a rock part of the universe?

Are you conscious?

Is your left ventricle part of you?

 

[doppelganger]

Is your left ventricle part of you?

And if you think your left ventricle isn't conscious, then which part of you do you think is conscious?

 

[McBell]

is a rock part of the universe?

As much so as I am.

Are you conscious?

Good question...
Define conscious...

Is your left ventricle part of you?

Not as much as my right ventricle.
But I suspect hat is simply because I am right handed.