The Debate of God.

[Daviso452]

!!!!!!!!

My wanting to live is based on chemical reactions. What is wrong with that? Life began, evolution happened, mammals came along, emotions were developed for survival, then humans came, and I have emotions and feelings based on primal instincts. Is there any real truth behind my wanting? No. It's just how my brain reacts.

 

[apophenia]

Take a break.

Have a listen to the track I posted a few posts back (from freeze frame, 1979). You will enjoy it.

Then try this one, just for fun.

Godley & Creme - Snack Attack - YouTube

From ismism, 1981

Have a good sleep.

 

[nnmartin]

Daviso:

Perhaps your concept of God is too one-dimensional.

You keep referring to Him and allude to the Christian God but there is no need for it to be like this.

I see God (no gender implied) as the Power of the Universe - more of an immanent force really.

God as depicted in most religions is merely a symbol of this.

 

[Daviso452]

Roflmao. You guys are awesome. This is the funnest time I've had online in a long time. Ty for the track. I look forward to our discussion... later today... crap, it's nearly two! Night guys.

p.s. don't continue this discussion too much longer. I don't want to come back to 4 pages of stuff that I have no clue about

 

[apophenia]

Actually this is my favourite ...

The Problem, by Godley & Creme (1981) - YouTube

 

[apophenia]

Roflmao. You guys are awesome. This is the funnest time I've had online in a long time. Ty for the track. I look forward to our discussion... later today... crap, it's nearly two! Night guys.

p.s. don't continue this discussion too much longer. I don't want to come back to 4 pages of stuff that I have no clue about

I keep coming back to 13 billion years that I have no clue about ... well they say it's 13 billion years, but I have no way to check that except wikipedia :angel2:

 

[apophenia]

Warning - this video may cause nausea, psychosis and antisocial behaviour. We recommend that it only be viewed in appropriate secure environments by researchers with approval from the Dept. of Spin -

http://youtu.be/OHAH5zyR5Ms]

Footnote re: relevance to the thread ... living in the explanation blinds us to the reality

There was a man who was very drunk and had lost his car keys. He was watched by a second man as he crawled around on the ground in a circle of light cast by a streetlamp, muttering and cursing, for about 15 minutes.
"Why are you crawling around on the ground ?" asked the observer.
"Lost my @#$^ car keys !" said the drunk.
"But you've been looking in the same place for 15 minutes now ", said the observer.
"That's because it's the only place with enough light to look !" said the drunk.

 

[cottage]

also most atheists and the like tend to believe they are entitled to scientific proof , evidence , sources etc.. to prove the existence of God.

questions like - 'can you provide empirical evidence to support your claim of God' etc.. so utterly banal and pointless.

If an atheist can come up with a better idea for our existence I am all ears, but the usual old 'we are because of the laws of physics' etc.. just doesn't cut it.

It appears that you think if atheists cannot provide an explanation for the existence of the world then that is somehow an argument for God by default. But in addition to that being a very poor argument for the existence of God, making your faith dependent upon the absence of any such explanation, it would also be an exquisite case of double standards, since you believe proof of God to be unnecessary.

I have the impression that you don't know why you believe in God, other than answering a selfish human need, which we all share in different ways, and it also seems that you are unable to assign any purpose to such an entity or to our existence in this world. So straight off the bat the belief is illogical. And I see you dismiss elements of this world, one that actually exists, together with notions of 'science' and 'evidence' etc, while believing blindly in an imagined world for which you are at loss to identify any purpose or reason for its being. I can perfectly understand the idea of a supremely good and paternalistic figure, one who has our interests at heart and who will ultimately take care of us, but wishing does not make it so.

 

[Daviso452]

Daviso:

Perhaps your concept of God is too one-dimensional.

You keep referring to Him and allude to the Christian God but there is no need for it to be like this.

I see God (no gender implied) as the Power of the Universe - more of an immanent force really.

God as depicted in most religions is merely a symbol of this.

Okay. Back to being serious.

Martin, it doesn't matte which way you look at it. Whether it be the christian god, the hindu gods, or as you're referring to the "power of the universe," you are still believing in something that is above the laws of physics. Something inside or outside our universe that does not adhere to them.

You say to have a "oneness with this being/nature," and you say this is stronger than faith, when that is what faith is. You have no evidence to support that feeling is real, and you ignore the fact that it could just be biological programming. You say that since there is a chance it's real, you believe. But consider how small that chance is. It's unreasonably small, so logic would dictate to not consider it as fact.

That is faith, Martin. No matter how you look at God, you are claiming that there is something above the laws of physics, and even able to control them. Yet there is no evidence to support this. And even yet, the feelings you have are likely false due to biological programming. If you ignore these two things, then you are believing without reason. And thus, you believe with faith.

 

[Tiberius]

Yet you do have a conscious will. And, according to you, you are nothing more than those molecules.

Ipso facto, you are stating that molecules have will and sentience.

No I am not. I am saying that the molecules' interactions with each other create that will and sentience.

A single molecule by itself does not, because it has no interaction.

Says who?

You?

If one can make the unsupported claim that God causes it, then I can make the unsupported claim that he doesn't. Boo hoo.

I agree, magic most definitely does not cause one to recognize things

I fear you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

If consciousness is not formed from matter then how can we interact?

If consciousness is not formed from matter, then how can anything interact period?

Why doesn't your computer work without a power source? I mean, it has all the parts there, why does it need electricity?

Because it is the way the electricity interacts with the computer that allows the computer to do things.

And in the same way, it is the interactions between the millions of neurons in the brain that allow people to experience things.

You are trying to say that consciousness comes from the matter. I am saying that it comes from the INTERACTIONS between the matter.

Get it?

Your argument sounds like a good one on the behalf of the existence of God. Saying that consciousness is not subject to matter and all.

Unless cells and molecules are excluded as "matter".

How many times must I repeat myself?

You are trying to say that consciousness comes from the matter. I am saying that it comes from the INTERACTIONS between the matter.

Get it?

RE:There are plenty of anomalies within evolution and abiogenesis that indicate Design.

Male to female ratio , human sexuality, and perhaps mimicry for starters.

All of which are easily explained by evolution.

In that case why should your assumptions hold any more value than an assumption of the existence of God or Intelligent Design?

Because science has produced useable results.

The assumption that there is a god has never produced any results.

 

[Daviso452]

FYI apophenia, broken link.

 

[apophenia]

No I am not. I am saying that the molecules' interactions with each other create that will and sentience..

and I am saying that is an entirely speculative position which is being claimed as scientific knowledge.

The idea makes no sense whatsoever, except insofar as it appears to offer some kind of explanation if you are gullible enough to accept it (which requires the abdication of both the scientific method and intuitive common sense).

Give me one piece of science which makes the connection between molecular interactions and sentience. Anything at all which can be tested in a lab.

You have nothing, except an assertion powered by pride and the desire to beat theists in an argument.

The idea that science knows anything at all about will and sentience is entirely bogus, it is an urban myth propagated by people who simply can't stand the fact that they know nothing about something so significant, and wish to appear all-knowing (just like religious zealots).

I have even heard some some pseudo philosophers of science claiming that there is no such thing as consciousness ! So keen are they to sweep it under the carpet. Proponents of scientism hate the fact that they have no answer to this, and the attempts to bluff through it with smoke and mirrors are childish.

It is already 'mystical' enough claiming tht timespace and matter just appeared *poof !" out of nothing, but the claim (without any testable aspects) that consciousness and will subsequently just appeared * poof !* because of some utterly undefined 'interactions' is not science AT ALL.

It is a magical belief system !

 

[apophenia]

FYI apophenia, broken link.

Bugger. this is the same vid.



http://youtu.be/eNPy0GEbG5Y

 

[apophenia]

But seriously folks, if there is any real science which demonstrates that sentience arises from chemical interactions, please post it !

But if it is just an idea that you imagine might someday have some evidence, stop calling it science. That simply reduces science to the same level as fairy stories.

So the challenge is there - show some real evidence for this urban myth.

 

[idav]

But seriously folks, if there is any real science which demonstrates that sentience arises from chemical interactions, please post it !

But if it is just an idea that you imagine might someday have some evidence, stop calling it science. That simply reduces science to the same level as fairy stories.

So the challenge is there - show some real evidence for this urban myth.

A reference for something I've mentioned before.
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit from the article

"Defining structure and detecting the emergence of complexity in nature are inherently subjective, though essential, scientific activities. Despite the difficulties, these problems can be analysed in terms of how model-building observers infer from measurements the computational capabilities embedded in non-linear processes. An observer’s notion of what is ordered, what is random, and what is complex in its environment depends directly on its computational resources: the amount of raw measurement data, of memory, and of time available for estimation and inference. The discovery of structure in an environment depends more critically and subtly, though, on how those resources are organized. The descriptive power of the observer’s chosen (or implicit) computational model class, for example, can be an overwhelming determinant in finding regularity in data."(Crutchfield 1994)

 

[apophenia]

A reference for something I've mentioned before.
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit from the article

Sounds very impressive, but still nothing to link complexity to self-awareness.

No cigar.

 

[apophenia]

Merely stating that 'things can get very complicated' does not explain anything about those 'complicated things' being aware of themselves.

You either just don't get this, or you are being complicit in the 'scientific sleight of hand' for whatever reason.

 

[Tiberius]

and I am saying that is an entirely speculative position which is being claimed as scientific knowledge.

Despite the fact that we can actually see the interactions between various neurons in the brain as different thought processes occur?

 

[apophenia]

A reference for something I've mentioned before.
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit from the article

The challenge I posted was for any scientific evidence linking complexity to sentience.

Your quotes and article don't even touch on sentience, nor require it.

So far you are still offering science fiction. Speculation.

Why can't you admit that science actually has no idea about something ?

Is that shameful ?

 

[apophenia]

Despite the fact that we can actually see the interactions between various neurons in the brain as different thought processes occur?

We can observe electronic activity in a computer as it computes.

That is not evidence for emergence of sentience.

You are still failing to differentiate between 'activity' and awareness.

It is obvious to me that there is a link between the brain activity and the forms that appear (thoughts, perceptions), but those thoughts and perceptions are analogous to the data in a computer. Awareness of those forms is another matter entirely.